Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Apr 1923

Vol. 3 No. 7

DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (COMPENSATION) BILL, 1923. - SEANAD AMENDMENTS. DÁIL IN COMMITTEE.

In accordance with Standing Orders, the Dáil now goes into Committee on the Seanad Amendments, to which certain Amendments have been proposed. I take it these amendments are in the hands of Deputies.

AMENDMENT 1.

The first amendment is to add at the end of sub-section 3, after the word "application," the words:—

"And may in such notice state the grounds on which the application for a re-hearing is made, and whether the fact that the applicant suffered an injury in respect of which he would be entitled to compensation on the re-hearing is or is not disputed, and if such fact is not disputed, the notice aforesaid may also contain an offer of such compensation (either subject to or free from a re-instatement condition) as the Minister shall deem proper, and in case such offer or any amended offer is accepted within fourteen days after service of the notice aforesaid, or such further time as the Minister for Finance may allow, a decree shall, subject to the provisions of subsections (5) and (6) of this section and to the provisions of this Act relating to re-instatement conditions, be made for the amount of the compensation mentioned in the offer or amended offer so accepted."

I move to agree with this amendment.

Does the Minister advance any reason why we should accept this amendment, or is he formally moving it as a practical indication to us to refuse to accept the Seanad amendments?

No, it is a motion to agree with the Seanad amendment.

The case made in the Seanad was that they were entitled to know the reason why the Minister for Finance would object to a decree that has been already given and which it is proposed to have reheard. Now, considering that, we came to the conclusion that it was reasonable that grounds should be stated for the application by the Minister for Finance for rehearing in these cases, and further it appeared also reasonable that if an offer to settle were made and accepted, that the case might be closed. It would, perhaps, save the State a considerable amount of money in expenses, and the fact that there was finality in the case, might suggest to all the persons affected the advisability of coming to terms at once. Anything which has a character of finality about it appeals to people. I do not say that there are a large number of cases that require to be heard—but, at any rate it will give us an opportunity of getting them out of the way, and the case put in the Seanad appeared to be perfectly reasonable and one which we could scarcely resist, and for that reason we accept it.

Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
AMENDMENT 2.

I move to agree with the next amendment also which is to insert after the word "charge," Sub-section (5) (d) the words “to the building to be erected pursuant to such re-instatement condition, so that such assignment, mortgage, or charge.”

This amendment is essential; it was left out of the Bill through some error, and we got it inserted by the Seanad. There was no objection, and I take it there will be no objection here.

The Dáil has passed it already.

Yes, it really should not be here at all.

The Bill as passed by the Dáil contained these words, but, by a printers' error, the copies sent to the Seanad did not contain these words, and they were inserted in the Seanad.

Amendment No. 2 agreed to.
AMENDMENT 3.

I move to agree with Amendment No. 3 which is to delete Sub-section 8, and to insert in lieu thereof a new sub-section as follows:—

"On any rehearing under this section the judge may, in addition to the costs of such rehearing, award to the applicant the whole or such part as the judge shall consider reasonable, of the costs incurred by the applicant of or incidental to the previous application, and the costs so awarded shall be paid at the same time and in the same manner as the costs of the rehearing."

It is in connection with the costs in the previous case. The individual who has a claim for compensation may have paid out the whole of the cost of the previous hearing. In that case he is, to some extent, a doubly aggrieved person, because he has lost his property, and he has lost also the costs, and the provision here is that the cost so awarded shall be paid in the same time and manner as the costs of the rehearing.

Amendment No. 3 agreed to.
AMENDMENT 4.

The next amendment is to add at the end of Section (8) a new Sub-section as follows:—"This section shall not apply to any decree made in respect of an injury to which this part of this Act applies, where such decree has been varied or affirmed upon an appeal, at the hearing of which the local authority or authorities concerned were represented and bonâ fide opposed the decree.”

This is an amendment for which there was some case made here, and it deals with cases which had to be dealt with in the Appeal Courts, and which went before the courts and where a bonâ fide opposition was offered. I think Deputy Fitzgibbon made a strong plea here for these costs. We objected at the time, but the case put in the Seanad was a strong one, and we found it hard to resist it. I move to agree with the amendment.

Personally, I would like, if we could, to accept all the amendments the Seanad put up, but it is not possible. There is only one to which a modified amendment is being put forward. We are really only putting forward two amendments to all the amendments that the Seanad put up. One amendment that we are putting up makes it clear what the mover of it in the Seanad had in his mind, and which, we are advised, might not in its present form meet the view that he had in mind. It is not necessary to say that the Seanad represents an Order which has suffered very considerably within the last twelve or eighteen months, and as such their attitude reflects more clearly the mind of the persons affected. All the amendments that they have put down are, generally, having regard to the circumstances of the cases, accepted by us except the one I have mentioned. In this particular instance a person has, in the first case, to go to the ordinary County Court to have the case heard, and then to go to the Court of Appeal. The case is heard there and the Judge either varies or affirms the decree, and it is asked that we should accept this decree. At first we were inclined to object, but after the case that was put up for it by the mover in the Seanad we have decided to accept it, and in that spirit we put it forward here. It is a concession, and as we have given a concession we give it to them graciously, and I move the amendment accordingly.

In the last line of the amendment, as it appears on the Paper before me, there is an obvious misprint. The word I refer to ought to be "opposed," and not "opposite," as it appears in the printed amendment.

The word appears correctly in the draft before me.

Amendment No. 4 agreed to.
AMENDMENT 5.

I move to agree with Amendment No. 5, to delete Sub-section (1), in Section 9, and to insert in Sub-section (2), line 20, after the word "Acts," the words "if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Judge that the applicant connived at, assisted in, or actively facilitated the committal of the injury or."

It was felt that the Judge might possibly object to any decree being given unless it were shown that people gave active opposition to the commission of an injury. I do not exactly remember whether Deputy Johnson thought that we were a bit severe in this particular Section at the time. We are agreeable now to accept this amendment, and I accordingly move it.

Amendment No. 5 agreed to.
AMENDMENT 6.

The next amendment (No. 6) from the Seanad is:—To add at the end of the Sub-section (1) (ii.) the words:—"Provided always that, when a partial re-instatement condition has been attached to the decree, an applicant may, within three months of the making of the decree, submit to the judge a scheme setting out an alternative proposal for rebuilding anywhere in the Free State— up to not less than the amount of compensation to which the reinstatement condition is attached—a building or buildings; and if the judge is satisfied such scheme, with or without modification (hereinafter called the scheme) serves a housing need, he may substitute a condition approving the scheme for the partial reinstatement condition."

We agree with the sense of this amendment, which, I think, would be acceptable to Deputy Johnson also. There is certainly a doubt as to the expression in the last two lines of the amendment to "substitute a condition approving the scheme for the partial reinstatement condition." It is open to question whether the amendment would give effect to the purpose that the Senator moving it had in mind. He had in mind that the judge would be entitled to vary the decree, but that is not clear from it. We propose to amend this amendment to make it read as follows:—

"Provided always that whenever a partial reinstatement condition is attached to a decree, the person by whom such condition is to be performed may, at any time within three months after the date of the decree, submit to the judge a scheme for the application of the compensation to which the condition is attached in or towards the erection of a building or buildings of a residential character at any specified place in Saorstât Eireann in lieu of the substituted buildings specified in the decree, and if the judge is satisfied that the building or buildings specified in such scheme will be suitable to the neighbourhood in which it is proposed to erect the same, and that there is a demand in that neighbourhood for buildings of that character the judge shall amend the partial reinstatement condition attached to his decree by substituting therein the building or buildings specified in such scheme for the substituted building originally specified in the decree."

In essence the amendment we propose amounts to this, that a man who has a claim for property, that is in the nature of a white elephant, proposes a housing scheme for some other part of the country. It is sought by this amendment to get the judge to award, in respect of the substituted buildings, the amount that he would have decreed for the property that was in the nature of a white elephant. To that extent it is an advantage, because it gives you something practical and something useful, and it gives some advantage to the community. Any relief in connection with housing just now is certainly an advantage to the State. I accordingly move the amendment.

I think the amendment is an amendment to the amendment, and that the amendment that is sent down is an amendment to the Bill that was sent up.

The motion is to amend No. 6, so that it will be in the form just read by the President.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 as amended put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 7.
Amendment 7:—To delete Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), and to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-section:—
"In every case in which it is lawful for the judge under this section to attach a full reinstatement condition to his decree, the judge shall observe the following rules:—
(a) If the injured building was situate in Upper Sackville Street, in the City of Dublin, or was before the injury ordinarily used for the purpose of any trade or business, the judge shall attach a full reinstatement condition to his decree;
(b) If, in any case not coming within the foregoing rule, the judge is of opinion that the injury to the building has not materially prejudiced the economic welfare of the district, and the applicant does not show reasonable cause why a full reinstatement condition should be attached to the decree, the judge shall not attach a full reinstatement condition to his decree.
(c) In any case not coming within either of the foregoing rules, the judge may attach a full reinstatement condition to his decree if, in all the circumstances of the case, he thinks it reasonable so to do;
(d) In considering whether it is reasonable to attach a full reinstatement condition to his decree, the judge shall have regard to the use ordinarily made of the building before the injury, and shall not have regard to any proposal for a different future use of the building if reinstated.”

Some doubt is expressed as to the terminology of the particular sub-section that we have sent up, and the suggested amendment is to make the matter clear. We have no objection to it. In essence it is the same as it was before, but the amendment makes the matter more clear, and we accept it.

I beg to move a small explanatory amendment to the amendment, and it is to insert in Clause (a) after the words "Upper Sackville Street," the words "commonly known as Upper O'Connell Street."

I understand that the words "Upper Sackville Street" have been used because that is still the legal name, but inasmuch as the majority of the people do not know where "Upper Sackville Street" is, we had better define it as "commonly known as Upper O'Connell Street."

Why not "more properly known?"

Deputy Figgis is ever argumentative.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move to agree with the amendment as amended.

Amendment No. 7, as amended, agreed to.
AMENDMENT 8.

I move Amendment No. 8. I think really that we should take Amendments No. 8 and 9 together. They are:—To insert after the word "but," Sub-section (8), line 51, the words:—"Nevertheless so that

(a) in any case in which the injured building was at or about the time of the injury ordinarily maintained as a residence for the applicant or his family, the total amount of the compensation shall not be less than the probable cost of the erection of the substituted building; and

(b) in every other case.”

To delete sub-section (9).

No. 8 is an amendment which has been settled by agreement for the purpose of replacing Sub-section 9. I think the Dáil should take these two together. I think it was rather a pity that No. 9 was taken out, because it gave a certain security to persons affected, which they will not possess now. However, that view did not appeal to the members of the Seanad, and these two amendments have been put in. There is a slight objection to it. It is not, however, very material. It deals with partial reinstatement, and, from that point of view, it might be open to question whether the probable cost of the erection of the substituted building might be criticised. As everybody who has had to repair, or who has gone in for partial reinstatement knows, the estimate never really amounts to the cost. The actual cost always exceeds it. When that particular work is done one never has got as good a house as where there would be total reinstatement. For that reason there is a case for the acceptance of the amendment. I am accepting it in the spirit in which we agreed to the whole. The two amendments hang together.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.
AMENDMENT 10.
To insert immediately after Sub-section (17) a new sub-section as follows:—
"Where a full reinstatement condition is attached to a decree under this section, and such condition requires the erection of a new building, and the site of the injured building is not situated in a city, town or urban district, then, and in any such case, the condition may provide for the erection of the new building near to, instead of on, the site of the injured building."

Amendment No. 10 is a case in which one would prefer another situation for the reconstruction of a new house, and the note that I have on this is "that there is no financial objection." It really gives a little latitude that was not clear before. As there is no objection I move to agree with it.

Amendment No. 10 agreed to.
AMENDMENT 11.

Amendment 11 is to delete Sub-section (3) of Section 11, which now reads, "this Section applies to the documents aforesaid, whether the same were in the possession of the applicant as being the person legally entitled to the custody thereof, or as being Solicitor for such person or as holding such documents for such persons for safe custody only." It specified as we thought certain matters in connection with the possession of the documents. It was held that there might be other persons than those, and that possibly a person might not get compensation accordingly. It does not weaken the Section, and it does not give them any advantage which it was not desired to give them. Accordingly we have no objection to urge against it and I move to agree with it.

Amendment No. 11 agreed to.
AMENDMENT 12.

Amendment 12 is an amendment by the Seanad to Section 13 It reads:—

To insert at the end of Sub-section (3), line 35, the following:—

"Provided always that where compensation is payable partly in securities and partly in money, securities shall be taken at their nominal face value in discharge of such debts or other sums of money as aforesaid, and no deduction shall be made from any money payable as compensation until the total amount of securities payable as compensation shall have been exhausted."

This amendment is a case in which it is provided that where there is deduction for debts "or other sums of money as aforesaid no deduction shall be made from any money payable as compensation until the total amount of securities payable as compensation shall have been exhausted." I think that is an unreasonable amendment. It ought not to have been put up. It discloses some misgivings with regard to the securities that we are going to issue, and I think it is scarcely fair that these securities should be discounted in advance. It was not our intention to issue securities which under normal circumstances would be at a discount at the start. They are not set out in this Bill unfairly I think to persons who will get the decrees. The whole of the amount of the reinstatement cost of a building will be paid in cash; securities will be issued in respect to damage to furniture in certain proportions which have been already explained. To pay Income tax, land annuities and even rates by means of these securities is, I think, scarcely accepting in good faith all the protestations and the attempts we have made in this Bill to deal fairly with the persons affected. These persons had legal claims and legal rights against the local authorities. Everybody knows what the value of those legal rights were. We have not put in legal rights here to penalise local bodies, but we put in what was wanted to help those people claiming compensation. I think it was unreasonable to put up this amendment to it. But as it has been put up we accept it. We accept it to this extent that we will take other means to get in cash in connection with those things. I have no hesitation in telling them that. I accordingly move to agree with it.

Amendment No. 12 agreed to.
AMENDMENT 13.
To add at the end of Sub-section (6) the words:—"and such security so issued shall be accepted at par of exchange in payment of death duties payable to the late Provisional Government of Ireland or the Government of Saorstát Eireann, or any department or authority of either of these Governments."

This particular amendment has been sent down from the Seanad. I was prepared to accept it, but I find on consideration that it might involve the entire discharge of Death Duties by means of these securities. It was our intention that these securities would be redeemed within five years. We moved in connection with the financial arrangements about the securities that redemption would take place within five years. Now, it is proposed in the amendment by the Seanad, that any person, or, at least, the representatives of any person could discharge all the duties to the State under what is called Death Duties by means of these securities. It might mean that within the next twelve months we would get back all these securities. Deputies know that we have estimated upon a certain amount of money coming into the Exchequer during the next twelve months, and that we estimated hard cash. At the time that we produced the estimated receipts and expenditure for the coming year we certainly had in mind hard cash. Now, the securities coming in even at a nominal discount, and there ought not be even a nominal discount on these securities, is scarcely fair. It is possible that people would put them all on the market within the first twelve months. In that case there would almost inevitably be a discount, and it would be open to interested persons to buy those at a considerable discount and discharge obligations to the State at a considerable profit to the particular estate they are dealing with. We estimated on receiving something in the nature of £1,000,000 next year. That means when we have compensated certain persons with securities which we intended to redeem within five years, it is open to every person who is in debt to the State to go into the market and buy these securities, probably at a discount, and then go to the State and say this is in full discharge.

The amendment we are putting up suggests that the Minister for Finance will prescribe certain conditions and that these securities would be accepted in respect of the estate of the original holder or in respect of any subsequent holder who was a registered holder of such security for not less than 12 months previous to his death. That shows that they will be held for some time and that one cannot go out into the market and buy them. I thought at first the amount was not so considerable, but finding it was a million pounds I was advised by the responsible officers that they could not stand over the amendment as it came from the Seanad. I regret that, but it cannot be helped. I think we are meeting them as fairly as we can in any promise or undertaking given, if there were any such. It must be understood that one has not got the power to give more than one can afford. If we could afford it we would agree to that amendment. We cannot afford it. It would mean raising money at a time when we must get in twenty millions on loan within the next twelve months. This would mean an additional million. We are giving all we can afford to give. No more is given in the case of the British Government in connection with Victory Bonds, and even the British Government did not give that particular concession until after they had raised a very considerable amount of money by other means. It was not on their first loan or even their second, it was much later. Members who were at large during the time these loans were being raised would be, perhaps, more at ease discussing this matter. However, we ought not to be asked in our very first year, when we have not as yet raised a penny, to give a concession that the British Government did not give. I think we are meeting the Seanad fairly in that. I hope it will be accepted in the same spirit in the Seanad. I accordingly move to amend No. 13 to read as follows:—

"And such security shall subject to such conditions as shall be prescribed by the Minister for Finance be accepted at its nominal face value in payment of all duties payable to the Revenue Commissioners of Saorstát Eireann by or in respect of the death of the person to whom such security was issued or in respect of the death of any subsequent holder who had been the registered holder of such security for not less than twelve months previous to his death."

The only part about this amendment to the Seanad amendment that I suggest requires rather fuller explanation from the Minister than he has already afforded the Dáil is in reference to the expression "subject to such condition as shall be prescribed by the Minister for Finance." That is a very wide latitude to give in advance. It could have been hoped that an expression so wide as that would be more fully defined in advance. The conditions might be such, in effect, as to delimit what the Seanad has claimed out of all existence. I am perfectly sure that is not the intention, but though it may not be the intention at the moment, it is a temptation left open to any future consideration by the Ministry. The main matter as it appears to my mind is that either this issue is going to stand at par value or it is not going to stand at par value. If it is going to stand at a discount, then there is some fault with regard to the original issuances. If there is no fault in the original issuances then the Ministry responsible for that issue should be responsible for that default. If there is no discount then it merely means that the Ministry has to accept one form of loan in preference to another. The Ministry has stated if it should be the case that Death Duties are in default to the sum of £1,000,000 because that entire million that has been estimated for is going to be put forward in the shape of these issues rather than in the shape of cash, a certain debt will have to be incurred and a certain loan made in respect of that debt. After all what are those bonds, or whatever they will be called in future, but a form of debt? It merely means that if in respect of death duties certain bonds are going to be tendered rather than cash, the Minister is put to the necessity of raising a loan in respect of them; he has to change the category of the loan from A to B, but the loan remains the same. That is a further consideration that I put before the Minister. The main consideration is, however, that it is unwise in moving an amendment to the Seanad amendment not to make it more specific. The Seanad amendment is at least very specific and precise, and if a further amendment is put forward it should at least be equally specific and precise. Nobody can say that the phrase I have referred to is either specific or precise.

I think that the reason given by the Minister for Finance will go a long way to justify it in the eyes of most people, subject to the Clause to which the last speaker referred. That, I think, raises a considerable difficulty. It is obviously undesirable in the first place to give wide and unlimited powers to the Minister, and in the second place the successor, for the time being, of the Minister will not bind himself by anything that is not definitely in the Statute—by any undertaking given, for instance, by the present Minister for Finance. I suggest the difficulty might be got over by inserting instead of the words "Minister for Finance," the word "Oireachtas." The document as drawn up is undoubtedly open to very serious objections. The present Minister cannot answer for what may be done hereafter. If you leave the imposing of conditions in the hands of the Oireachtas it would, in my opinion, rectify the matter.

The Minister for Finance who laid down the regulations being replaced by another Minister would not really change the conditions. It would be very unreasonable. He issues them under certain conditions. One reason why it is objected to is that supposing redemption in five years was agreed to, and one-fifth were taken up each year either by drawings or by certain numbers—say fives one year, fours the next year, threes the next year, twos the next year, and ones the last year, and so on, this amendment ment of the Seanad cuts right across such an arrangement as that, and it would be impossible, when you would not have any idea or estimate of the securities that were to come in in the coming year, or the second year, or the third year. It would be impossible to arrange for the redemption of an exact amount in each particular year. Deputy Figgis may be all right in his own way about his suggestions, but I have yet to learn that it is as easy to raise £21,000,000 as £20,000,000. I have always found, if I wanted to borrow £20 that it was easier than to borrow £21. Deputy Figgis may have greater facilities. Certainly that is the experience of most men, and even with a State like this that £1,000,000 is a considerable amount. The length of time that we are prescribing for these particular securities is not an unreasonable time. That was in our minds from the very commencement. I do not know that it will be what we will do eventually, but that has been all the time before us, that five years' redemption. I cannot guarantee it, but that was certainly in our minds, and redemption at that period should certainly not leave them at a discount. But they could be at a discount, a big discount, the very moment that they would be issued, particularly if Deputies were to speak like Deputy Figgis, or that you were to take as Gospel what appears in some respectable journals published in this city. I think Deputies know what I mean when I say that.

What respectable journals?

Whatever my support is worth I would like to give it to this amendment. There is one thing we must be very careful about and that is that we do not issue securities with which the enemy can play. I need not specifically say who are the enemy in this case. In all societies certain financiers are natural sharks, and if, as in this case, certain people who have suffered injury are compensated and are paid part of the compensation in terms of scrip, there will be naturally a desire on their part to realise their securities if there is anyone to take them up. Under these special circumstances there would be an inducement to have them on the market and to have them bought, and I can easily conceive a syndicate being formed to depreciate these securities by the re-sale and re-sale again of them at a very considerable discount. We might be put to considerable trouble as regards our financial securities by people playing with these securities. It is, therefore, very desirable that in whatever form they are issued the greatest measure of precaution that is possible should be taken to keep them as near par as they have been originally issued. We all know the practice of the British Government, which is a very old hand in this game. The Victory Bonds, to which the Minister alluded, are at the present moment at a price which gives the advantage to present purchasers of having an opportunity of their Bonds being drawn and winning what is an effective premium, namely, being redeemed at a higher price than the market price. The difference between the market price at the present hour and redemption is so slight that there is very little inducement to speculate. It was originally proposed, I remember, that holders of these Bonds should be permitted to pay off their indebtedness to the State in terms of them. You can see how pleasant it would be to buy from a needy compensated holder of property that has been injured and pay my arrears of Income Tax with them at par. It is a most delightful process, but not for the Finance Minister. So that it seems to me the most objectionable feature in the amendment of the Seanad is the proposal that they should be accepted by the Minister for Finance at par, and the important element in the amendment proposed here is that they should be at their nominal face value, whatever that may be. If it is at par so much the better both for the holder and for the reputation of our scrip in the market.

May I say with regard to the criticism suggested by the Minister that I had suggested it was just as easy to borrow £21,000,000 as £20,000,000, that the real criticism is that we have undertaken, or that the necessity has been imposed upon us of undertaking a loan of £20,000,000. If this amendment were to be passed the Minister suggests that an additional £1,000,000 would be imposed upon us making a loan of £21,000,000 instead of £20,000,000. What I am suggesting to the Minister is that there will be £21,000,000 whether the amendment be or be not passed. It is simply that the extra £1,000,000 is a loan under quite a different category. It is under a compulsory category rather than a voluntary category, and I do urge that it is very much better for us to anticipate loans under a voluntary category rather than loans under a compulsory category.

Is not the Deputy deluding himself into the idea that because of the favourable terms to the State these Bonds can be issued by way of part payment of compensation and that they should be, by the manipulative jugglery that he suggests, put into the same category as stock for which the public would bid or subscribe in a free market? They are quite different. The President has already explained the necessity in the infant State of our meeting those obligations now, not by the ready money which we have not got, but by Bonds the issue of which is to be under conditions to be determined by him. The two things are not merely two categories, but two categories devised for two wholly different purposes. When you issue stock in the market you make it as attractive as you can. In this other case we are making it as economical in the interest of the State as we can.

President's amendment put and agreed to.

I move to agree with Amendment 13, as amended.

Amendment No. 13, as amended, agreed to.
AMENDMENT 14.
Section 14—To delete in lines 8-9, Sub-section (6), the figure and words, "6th day of February," and to substitute therefor the figures and words "20th day of March."

This is a case in which we should have the 20th day of March for the 6th day of February. I accordingly move to agree with it.

Amendment No. 14 agreed to.
AMENDMENT 15.
To add at the end of Sub-section (6) the following words:—"Or for repaying to the Council of any county, county borough, or county district moneys expended by such Council after the 31st day of March, 1920, and before the passing of this Act, in repairing any such damage as aforesaid."

I think it will be admitted that during the last three years there has been a considerable amount of damage done to roads and bridges. Certain County Councils immediately or during the intervening periods repaired these roads and bridges out of funds levied by them or in their possession. To some extent, if we were to consider the position of the roads and bridges now, some of these bodies that made the repairs might be prejudiced. This amendment was moved by a member of a County Council, and I think also by a member of an Urban Council, and its object is to give an opportunity of considering the claims of such Councils. I think it was a reasonable amendment in such circumstances, and I move to agree with it.

I am not quite convinced in this case, and I would like to have some assurance that the amendment is not going to have the effect of limiting to any great extent the amount of money to be spent on the repair or the relaying of roads. The proposition is that the money shall be utilised for repaying to the Councils money spent by them since the 31st March, 1920. I suggest that much of the argument used in favour of this provision in the Dáil is going to be nullified if we accept the amendment. I would like some assistance in this matter as to whether, in the view of the Minister, the acceptance of this amendment of the Seanad is going to reduce to any considerable degree the amount likely to be spent on the repair or remaking of roads during the twelve months.

In my opinion this amendment will make very little difference in the distribution of the Fund, but in case it could be shown that some particular district had expended a great deal of money in repairing damages under circumstances in which other Councils had done nothing, the zeal of that Council might not be prejudiced, so that some retrospective grant might be made to it. Taking it broadly, I do not think the amendment will have any effect at all.

Amendment No. 15 put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 16.
Section 22—To insert after Sub-section (3) a new sub-section as follows:—"This section shall not prevent the presentation or prosecution of a claim to or before any Commission of Inquiry to which the Acts hereby repealed apply."

In the first part of the Act there was an amendment during, I think, the Report Stage, that it should not prejudice any person presenting a claim before the Compensation Commission, usually described as the Shaw Commission. That wiped out any person's right under the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Act in respect of claims up to the 21st July, 1921, the date of the Truce, and all these cases are being reviewed by the Shaw Commission. Now we wipe out in this Act claims in respect of personal injuries, and this particular section is simply a parallel to the amendment that was subsequently moved in connection with Part 1, and says: "This section shall not prevent the presentation or prosecution of a claim to or before any Commission of Inquiry in respect of an injury to which the Acts hereby repealed apply." It does not weaken it, but, on the other hand, I think strengthens it. There is an omission from the printed amendment, and after the words "Commission of Inquiry" I ask leave to insert "in respect of the injury to which the Acts hereby repealed apply."

Agreed.

I move to agree with the amendment as amended.

Amendment 16 as amended agreed to.
Top
Share