The Leader of the Opposition has put this matter on a very reasonable basis. He has put it on a rather different basis to that on which it has been put hitherto during the course of this debate. I should certainly like to defer to his views, but after all it does not rest with me. It rests finally with the Minister for Finance. By reason of the fact that the ordinary contributions, or the contributions which the Exchequer anticipated, were not paid to the Unemployment Assistance Fund in the ordinary course, the Exchequer has had to make good the amount at the expense of the general taxpayer. When the Budget for the year was before the House, I pointed out that we took a very strong view in regard to this matter, and that in due course a Bill would be brought in to recover for the Exchequer the moneys which we believed were wrongfully withheld. A question was put to me as to whether they were, in fact, wrongfully withheld. Deputy Cosgrave has said that it is a question of fact. I will put the facts as I know them before the Deputy. Under the Act of 1933, the contributions in question were to be the equivalent of the proceeds of poundage levied upon the rateable value, as set out in the relevant section. I have already pointed out in the discussion on Section 2 of this Bill that when the Principal Act was before the House, an amendment was put down which would have limited the incidence of that levy to the effective valuation of the municipalities concerned. That amendment was defeated here in the Dáil, and an amendment in even more precise terms, but with a similar effect, was defeated in the Seanad. In consequence of that, I think it must be generally accepted that the Oireachtas intended that the provisions of the Principal Act should be interpreted as they have been interpreted by the Government from the start, and as they were interpreted up to some time in the year 1938-39 by the principal municipalities concerned, including the Corporation of the City of Dublin.
What are the facts in regard to Dublin? As I have pointed out, the original Act prescribed that a poundage at the rate of ? in the £ upon the gross valuation should be levied, and that the proceeds of that rate should be paid into the Unemployment Assistance Fund. That was the position until the year 1938. In the year 1938 the contribution to be paid by the Dublin Corporation was increased from ? in the £ upon the gross valuation to ? in the £ upon the gross valuation. That, at any rate, was what we thought the Acts of the Oireachtas prescribed, and my attitude in regard to the whole of this matter is that we have no reason to think we were wrong.
In the earlier years, at any rate, the Dublin Corporation's view coincided with ours. Though the Act prescribed ? in the £ on the effective valuation, nevertheless, the corporation were aware of the fact, and it was mentioned here in the course of the debates upon the Principal Act, that in order to make good that contribution, the poundage to be levied upon the effective valuation would be higher than ?. In the year 1934-35 the demand note issued by the corporation specified ? for unemployment assistance. That was the position in 1935-36. In 1936-37 the rate actually levied was reduced from 1/8 to 1/7½. In 1937-38 it was, similarly, 1/7¾, and in the year 1938-39, when the corporation's contribution was increased by reason of the fact that the rate at which unemployment assistance became payable had been increased by the Amending Act of 1938-39, the corporation levied its rate at 1/10 in the £ on the effective valuation. Not merely did the corporation levy that rate, but it collected the sum from the citizens. In the years 1934-35, 1935-36, 1936-37 and 1937-38, it not merely collected these moneys at the rates which I have mentioned, but it paid them over to the Exchequer. What happened in 1938-39? It imposed a rate of 1/10, and in so far as that rate could be made effective, it collected that rate of 1/10 from those who could pay or were bound to pay, but when it came to meeting its obligations to the Exchequer it failed to pay over that 1/10. Not merely did it withhold from the Exchequer the difference between what it collected and what it might have paid if its obligations were limited to ? in the £ on the effective valuation, but it withheld from the Exchequer the amounts which it alleged it had paid in excess over the preceding four years.
The argument has been used here in the course of this debate, that the corporation was bound to act upon the advice which it received from its legal adviser, but when I was speaking on the Second Stage of this Bill I put this question to those who were speaking for the Dublin Corporation and I asked them whether their legal adviser had advised them that whatever might be the position in regard to the year 1938-39, that whether they were entitled or not to interpret the Act as limiting the contribution to a levy of ? in the £ upon the effective valuation, that whatever might be the position in regard to that net issue, whether their adviser had gone further and had advised them that they were entitled to withhold from the Exchequer the sums which they held had been paid in excess in respect of the preceding four years? That is a very important issue because the Exchequer, so far as the Corporation of Dublin was concerned, had to go short of £53,000 in the year 1938-39. If it is true that in respect of the contributions to be paid in the year 1938-39 there was some element of doubt as to whether £14,000 more or less should be paid over, nevertheless I am given to understand that the corporation was not entitled to go back on the preceding four years, and that if they withheld moneys in respect of each of those years, or if they withheld a sum of perhaps £39,000 in respect of the contributions of the preceding four years, they were not entitled to do so and acted without being advised that they were legally entitled to do so. In that event-though the Leader of the Opposition has put this matter upon quite a different plane from what has been argued here before-I do not think in regard to this £39,000 the Exchequer has any choice except to insist that the corporation will meet its obligations.
That is a very important matter because, as I have said already, I think the corporation in these matters ought to set a very high standard. If the corporation is not going to meet its obligations, and if it acts in a matter of this sort without being fortified by legal advice, it has no grounds whatever to stand on. I concede, if you like, that in respect of the year 1938-39, having been advised in a certain way, it had to consider for itself the advice which it received and, perhaps, to act accordingly, but at the same time we have also to consider this: having collected money, and any doubt that there might be in the matter now being cleared up by the Oireachtas, whether it ought not to fulfil the purpose for which the money was collected, and to pay it over to the Exchequer in order to meet the corporation's liabilities under the Unemployment Assistance Act. That is another matter.
However, in relation to all I have said, we have got to bear in mind that it is more a matter for the Minister for Finance than for me. I am not anxious to press the corporation unduly, but I must say that if a concession were given to the corporation in regard to this matter it cannot be given, in my view, at the expense of the general body of the taxpayers. If the corporation wishes to have accommodation in a matter of this sort I think it would have to be by way of an interest-bearing advance by the Exchequer to the corporation, to enable it to meet its difficulties. The corporation would have to indemnify the general body of the taxpayers and the Exchequer, and the Government which acts on their behalf and is agent for them, for any loss that the Exchequer might sustain. Upon that basis, perhaps, the Minister for Finance might see his way to accommodate the corporation in regard to this matter, but if it does so I would like to make it clear that it would be only an ex gratia concession, that so far as the justice of the case is concerned I do not think the corporation has a strong claim. I leave it at that. Under the section of the Act as it is drafted the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce, acting perhaps as the agent for the Minister for Finance in this matter, may be able to meet the corporation but, so far as I am concerned at any rate, it is not going to be an easy bargain.