Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jun 1933

Vol. 48 No. 11

In Committee on Finance. - Damage to Property (Compensation) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Money Resolution.

Mr. MacEntee

I move:

That for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend and extend the Damage to Property (Compensation) Acts, 1923 to 1926, it is expedient:—

(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of the compensation and costs awarded in respect of certain injuries to property which occurred in Saorstát Eireann within certain periods, save in so far as such compensation is payable by the issue of securities; and

(b) to authorise the creation of securities to be issued in lieu of cash in payment of compensation in certain cases, and to charge on the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof the principal and interest of such securities and the expenses incurred in connection with the issue thereof.

In that connection, I should like to point out that on the Second Reading I stated that the cost of the Bill would be £150,000. I meant that it was anticipated that the cost of the Bill in the current financial year would be about £150,000. It is estimated that the total cost of the Bill will be in the neighbourhood of £350,000.

General Mulcahy

If £150,000 is being spent this year, can the Minister say how much will be spent next year?

Mr. MacEntee

I cannot say. £150,000 may not, in fact, be spent this year. The Bill has been somewhat delayed, and the possibilities are that the courts will not be able to determine a considerable number of applications by the end of the year. There is one definite figure which I am able to give, and that is an expenditure which will immediately arise because of the repeal of Sections 9 and 15 of the original Act. Those were sections, as the House will remember, which debarred persons of Republican sympathies from securing compensation for damage done to their property. Under those sections my predecessor withheld payment in a number of cases in which the court had reported in favour of the applicants. The amount of the payments so withheld is £50,000. That £50,000 will be immediately discharged, the court having already heard the cases, and the judge having reported that compensation to that amount should be paid.

General Mulcahy

The Minister will remember that I pointed out that £58,000 approximately was being taken from civil servants by reductions in their salaries in order to pay that amount this year. Do we understand, then, that it will not be necessary to make similar deductions next year from the civil servants?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy understands as well as I do that that has nothing to do with it. If the Government of which the Deputy was a member had acted as an impartial Government, anxious to do justice to all classes of the community, whether they were supporters or opponents of the Deputy, this £50,000 would have been paid nine years ago.

Mr. Cosgrave

Are there any cases in connection with this £50,000 on which appeals would have been taken by any Minister acting in an impartial position?

Mr. MacEntee

I should say no.

Mr. Cosgrave

Has the Minister examined them?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes. I have examined a considerable number, and I have seen this expression of legal opinion, that there was no prospect of success in any case in which an appeal was taken against the finding of the lower court on a question of fact.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is not the point. I am asking if in any of those cases a recommendation was made by the officers concerned that an appeal should be lodged, because the officers did not concern themselves, I presume, with anything except the facts of the case. Did those officers recommend in any one of those cases that an appeal should be taken?

Mr. MacEntee

To the best of my recollection the officers did not recommend that appeals should be taken on any other basis than the basis of Sections 9 and 15, the sections which. as I have said, debarred people of Republican sympathies from recovering compensation.

Mr. Cosgrave

They had more than Republican sympathies. They wanted loot as well.

Mr. McMenamin

There is a balance of £100,000 under the new rules to be made under this Act. It will be a considerable time before the new rules are made. How does the Minister propose to incur £100,000 before the end of the financial year?

Mr. MacEntee

It is merely re-enacting a similar provision in the Act of 1923. However, I think we can come to that when we are discussing the Bill in Committee.

Resolution put and agreed to.

Resolution reported and agreed to.