asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that a list of Dáil Loan (1920) subscribers, amount subscribed £223, and number of subscribers 129, covering Currow (Killeentierna) parish was lodged in his Department in the beginning of 1928, and that blocks representing counterfoils of the receipts issued locally to above subscribers were lodged on same date in his Department, and that a receipt was issued by his Department acknowledging above lists and counterfoil blocks, and whether he will now state the cause of delay in repaying those subscribers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Repayment of Dail Loan Subscriptions.
The list and blocks of receipts referred to were received in my Department on the 22nd February, 1928. The particulars contained in the list and blocks were not furnished to the Dáil Department of Finance during the period in which the Loan was raised, and the names of the subscribers concerned are not, therefore, entered in the primary register. The delay in authorising repayment is due to the fact that no evidence has yet been furnished to show that the amounts in question were included in the remittances received in the Dáil Department of Finance from East Kerry.
asked the Minister for Finance whether he will state if his Department has received a list of subscribers to the Dáil Eireann Internal Loan (1919-20) from Mr. Edmond Tracey, Holycross, Bruff, Kilmallock, Co. Limerick, who collected and certified the subscriptions; if he will state the names of the subscribers on the list, with amounts, who have been paid; and also, when it is proposed to pay the remainder.
The list referred to in the Deputy's question has been received in my Department. Repayment has already been authorised in the cases of six persons mentioned in the list whose names were furnished to the Dáil Department of Finance during the period in which the loan was raised. I regret that I cannot see my way to give particulars of the names of these subscribers or of the amounts refunded to them. I hope to be in a position to authorise repayment at an early date in the cases of the other subscribers whose names are on the list, and who applied within the prescribed period.
Mr. Crowley
Is the Minister aware that Mr. Tracey lodged a sum of £230 in the National Bank at Bruff to the credit of these subscribers and has accounted in his list for £190?
I think ten additional names will be inserted in the register immediately, so that the matter is nearing completion so far as it can be completed in view of present information.
Mr. Crowley
In view of the fact that Mr. Tracey has been embarrassed by reports spread by some subscribers to the effect that he never deposited the money in the bank would the Minister get his Department to inform the remaining subscribers that their claims are in order?
I am informed that Mr. Tracey has furnished certificates from the manager of the National Bank at Bruff in which it was stated that a sum of £230 was lodged to the credit of the late Sean Wall on a particular date.
Mr. Crowley
Would the Minister undertake to get his Department to notify the remaining subscribers that their claims are in order?
As soon as we can enter them on the register the information will reach them in the ordinary way.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will authorise payment of the Dáil Eireann Loan (1920) to subscribers who did not make formal application themselves but about whom representations have been made in writing to his Department by Deputies previous to April 30th, 1929.
Where Deputies made representations in writing to my Department regarding individual cases within the prescribed period and stated that they were authorised by the individual in question to make application on their behalf for repayment in respect of subscriptions to the Dáil Eireann Loan forms of application were addressed to such persons and if the particulars furnished on these forms corresponded with those of entries in the records in my Department repayment was duly authorised.
So far as I am aware what the Minister states is inaccurate because I have made representations about certain individuals and they did not get these forms. I was going to ask whether the Minister would extend the application time as has been done repeatedly in America?
No.
In view of the fact that those subscribers thought that the application of Deputies on their behalf was sufficient will he reconsider the matter in cases where no forms were issued to subscribers?
I am not prepared to extend the time. Where, as I say, Deputies furnished written applications in which they stated that they were acting, or were authorised to act, on behalf of applicants such statements have been taken as applications. The mere mention of a case by a Deputy is not taken as an application. So far as I can learn in fifteen cases in which application was made by a Deputy repayment has been authorised. In certain other cases it has not yet been authorised for various reasons.
If people were under the impression that Deputies were making application for them, why should they not get another opportunity of applying, as has happened in America? If people have subscribed, I do not see what reason the Minister has for declining to give them another opportunity to apply in cases where they have been more or less led astray by thinking that Deputies were applying for them.
The time has been extended greatly. I do not know what the total extension from the original date was, but it was very great. Deputies have complained of delays in dealing with cases which presented some difficulty. These difficulties could never be overcome if we were not to close down. I would not undertake to reopen the matter. Ample notice was given in a variety of ways to persons that they ought to apply. Those who did not apply in time must, therefore, take the consequences. If it were merely a question of paying people who certainly subscribed, I do not say that there would be any reason for fixing a final date, but there are a great many cases of doubt and difficulty. In many districts we have already more applications than there is money. It is impossible to deal with the determination of cases in such districts until the list is finally closed and no more applications will come in. If we were to reopen the list we would delay the work of settling the register in those districts and we would probably still have people claiming that they subscribed and were not aware of the regulation. I would not be inclined to reopen the matter.
I might assure the Minister that I put down the question because I was informed in the Department that my personal application in certain cases would not do. There was no question of determination at all.
No, but it arises in respect of the whole matter.
Is it to be understood that in cases where a Deputy made a representation, the usual forms were not issued and, consequently, the person who gave the subscription is not being treated as having applied?
I would ask the Deputy to read the answer again when he sees it in print. Where a Deputy made an application, that would entitle him to be regarded as acting as agent for the person who subscribed or claimed to subscribe the money. That case has been dealt with as if the person had made application himself, but I would not undertake to say that because a case was simply mentioned by a Deputy, and no application was put in by the Deputy, the applicant can now be entitled to send in one.
Surely the Deputy could not raise such a case unless informed and authorised to do so by the person who lent the money. Where would he get the information otherwise?
Without pursuing the matter further, I believe that everybody in the country understood that he should apply. Any persons who did not apply, after all the opportunities they had of knowing their duty in the matter, are not entitled to any consideration.