I beg to move the following amendment:— Section 10, Sub-section (2) (b)—To add at the end of the Sub-section the words “unless in such case as Sub-section (4) of this Section applies.” There is some doubt as to what this Sub-section means. It would appear to be somewhat inconsistent with Sub-section 4, which follows. This Sub-section orders the Judge to attach a full reinstatement condition where premises are used for any trade or business. Sub-section 4 says that the Judge is not to attach a full reinstatement condition if the injury to the building has not prejudiced materially the economic welfare of the district. There is a certain amount of doubt as to what that really means. I take it that this Sub-section is to be interpreted by itself, and not in connection with Sub-section 4. My amendment, I think, makes the Sub-section clear.
DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (COMPENSATION) BILL, 1923. - (COMMITTEE RESUMED).
The intention of the Bill as it stands is that wherever a building was ordinarily used for the purposes of trade or business, in all such cases a full reinstatement condition shall attach to the award. We have here in the Bill Sub-sections 2, 3 and 4. Sub-section 2 deals with cases in which there must be a full reinstatement condition. Sub-section 3 deals with cases in which there may or may not be a full reinstatement condition. Sub-section 4 deals with cases in which there shall not be a reinstatement condition. As the Bill stands the Judge would have no discretion in the case of a building which had been ordinarily used before its destruction for the purpose of trade or business. He must attach a full reinstatement condition. If the Seanad wish to give a discretion to the Judge in the matter it could be done by omitting Sub-section 2(b) altogether. The point of view that the Government had was that he should assume that any building which had been ordinarily used for the purpose of trade or business was, in fact, of economic value to the neighbourhood, and was such a building as should be reinstated. I do not think that any doubt would be likely to arise or that it might be held there was a discrepency between Sub-sections 2 and 4.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Upon your statement, do they not contradict one another, because you say that Sub-section 2 leaves no discretion to the Judge? That is to say that wherever it is a building used for the purpose of trade or business he must make a full reinstatement decree. But Sub-section 4, which follows, does not make any exception in that case. It gives general discretion to the Judge to refuse a full reinstatement decree in any case in which he is of opinion that the injury does not materially prejudice the economic welfare of the district. Therefore, under Sub-section 2, if he thought, although it was a house used for trade or business, that the injury did not materially prejudice the economic welfare of the district, he is not bound by that compulsory clause.
I think on the face of it there is a discrepancy there.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think that what is wanted is something like what Senator Sir T. Esmonde has suggested, but I would recommend to him to substitute for his words these words "unless in cases to which Sub-section 4 of this Section applies."
Quite so, if you allow me to move it in that form I will ask leave to do so, if the Minister will accept it.
I do not know that I would be inclined to accept the amendment in that particular form. I think it would probably be better to have the Bill in such a form when it leaves the Seanad that there will be a full reinstatement condition in all cases where the premises had been used for trade or business.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You would rather amend Sub-section 4 and say "save in cases to which Sub-section 2 applies." That would be the other way of doing it.
I am quite satisfied with that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Probably it would not be wise to ask the Minister to make up his mind now as to which he would prefer.
I am quite willing to let the matter stand over of the Minister will consider it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
If the Government prefer to keep Sub-section 2 watertight they can put in a proviso into Sub-section 4, "save in cases to which Sub-section 2 applies."
I suggest that Sub-section 4 is hardly necessary at all as things are pretty well covered in Sub-section 3.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
This whole matter of apparent conflict will be considered by the Minister and dealt with on the Report Stage. I think that is the most satisfactory way.
I would like to know how this Clause affects residences.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It does not affect residences at all unless they are in Upper O'Connell Street. There are two classes to which it applies, houses situate in Upper O'Connell Street and houses situate elsewhere and ordinarily used for the purposes of trade or business.
Do I take it that there will be no full reinstatement in the case of residences?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No, not under Sub-section 2, unless situated in Upper O'Connell Street.
Do you not think that is a blot — that there is no provision for the reinstatement of residences, even though they are not used as such?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That would be a matter for an amendment.
I think if the Senator looks at Sub-section 3 he will see that there can be a full reinstatement condition in the case of residences where reasonable cause is shown that the injury to the building has materially prejudiced the economic welfare of the district, or even where it does not if reasonable cause is shown. The intention to use the building as a residence would be a reasonable cause if anything would be a reasonable cause.
I should like to ask the Minister whether this Sub-section (2) (b) would apply to a public-house. One can conceive a case where a public-house might not be an economic advantage to the district and it might not be desirable that it should be re-built in the same place.
I think the Sub-section would apply to the reconstruction of the building.
I move the following amendment:—Section 10, Sub-section (3), "to omit the word ‘immediately' in line 14. I put down that amendment to ascertain what was the real meaning of the word "immediately" there or the intention of the Minister. Is it the intention that the building should be used within the previous year, within the previous week or within the previous month? At present the matter is very vague.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You would like to insert some words such as "shall have regard to the use made of the building throughout the 12 months immediately preceding."
I would be quite prepared to accept the phraseology which you will find in Sub-section 2(b) saying, “the decree shall have regard to the use ordinarily made of the building before the injury.”
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That leaves the matter still a bit ambiguous. Supposing no use is made for two years and that up to that the house was used in a particular way, would you say "ordinarily used during the 12 months immediately preceding"?
I would be inclined to leave that to the Judge to interpret.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Probably you are right in that. If you leave out the word "immediately" and insert "shall have regard to the use ordinarily made of the building before the injury."
Amendment: "To omit the word ‘immediately' and insert ‘shall have regard to the use ordinarily made of the building before the injury,'" put and agreed to.
I move the following amendment:— Section 10, Sub-section 4, to add at the end of the Sub-section the words, "provided that this Sub-section shall not apply in the case of an injured building which was ordinarily maintained as a residence for the applicant or his family." The last changes that were made may perhaps alter the position of my amendment. Up to this there has been no reference made to a building used for a residence, and even yet I do not see that there is much reference to it except later on in Section 10, Sub-section 9, which does not really go into the matter but turns on something else.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not know if the Senator heard what the Minister stated. If you look at Subclause 3(b) you will see there is power given to the Judge to attach a full reinstatement decree in every case in which the applicant shows reasonable cause why it should be attached, and that, of course, would apply to dwelling houses as well as anything else.
I think there was a good deal of misunderstanding, as hitherto there has been no reference to a dwelling place. I think such a reference ought to be distinct somewhere. There is a reference to a residence in Sub-section 10, but it goes on to deal with a different subject.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not know whether there is any definition in the Act of the word "building."
Yes. The word "building" includes a house, shop, factory or any other permanent structure.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think that covers it, Senator Colonel Moore.
Do you think my amendment is unnecessary?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think so.
I propose—"To delete the figure (4) in line 17, and to substitute therefor the words ‘provided that.'" I think it is only a drafting amendment I do not know what the Earl of Wicklow had to say in favour of it, but I formally move it.
I am inclined to think that this is probably a good amendment, but in view of the fact that we agreed to have this clause reconsidered with a view to eliminating any discrepancy there might be between (2) and (4) I think it would be desirable if this were left over. I think this is perhaps a way by which we might get over the difficulty pointed out.
I move an amendment to Sub-section (9) —"After the word ‘may' quoted in line 9 to insert the words ‘on the application of the owner.'" I wish to point out that this is a very important matter, and the most important part of the Bill as regards residences. Supposing I have a house that is burned down and the Judge comes along and says: "Your house is burnt down, and there are good houses to let in the neighbourhood ten or twenty miles off which are just as good as yours to look at. They can be had cheap, and I will hand you over one of these houses." I do not know who drafted that clause, but it seems to be drafted by a townsman, who thinks that this is much the same thing as moving from Merrion Square to Fitzwilliam Square. So probably it would be, but to us who live in the country and have houses to which we are attached, and to which our families have been attached, and which have many other advantages besides the mere rooms in them, it would be a disastrous thing to say: "You must go to another house which has the same accommodation." I think, in the circumstances, there are very few people who would go to such a house at all. They might say "I prefer to live in the country, but I am not going to live in that barrack of a place." In fact, I think as far as country houses are concerned the whole Bill might as well be wiped out as to leave that amendment. Accordingly, I will put in these words: "On the application of the owner." The owner might see another house that may be had cheaper, and if he is satisfied I do not want to put any obstacle in his way, but I do not think that it is fair or reasonable that a Judge who has no knowledge could order him to live in a house for which he has the greatest possible distaste.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think what you want is to insert the word "may" after the words "consent of the owner."
I do not think anything put in there would make any change in the substance of the Section, because the Judge may, whether he does or does not attach a reinstatement condition to his decree, grant such compensation as he thinks reasonable, and he will grant that compensation either with or without a reinstatement condition, and that compensation and the condition attached he will of necessity grant on the application of the owner. He will only grant when the application of this Act has come before him, and if he is going to give compensation in some way he must give the compensation with or without a reinstatement condition, whether partial or full, so that to my mind to insert the words proposed by Colonel Senator Moore, or similar words, would make no change in the substance of the Section.
I am not at all sure that Senator Colonel Moore's interpretation of the Section is correct. He contemplates a case where a Judge shall order an applicant to acquire some neighbouring residence which might not be at all the same as his own. It may be wholly unsatisfactory, as we who live in the country know, but I suggest it is only a direction to the Judge by means of which he shall assess the value of the substitute building, and it does not mean that the Judge is to direct the applicant to acquire any given residence, but to assess the value which he can spend on building a new residence.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It plainly contemplates the case of a building which, to use the familiar expression, is a sort of "white elephant." It has been burnt and the Judge thinks it has no market value. In that case he is at liberty to withhold the reinstatement decree, but if he does he must give in the alternative such compensation as would enable the owner, if he wishes, to acquire a building equally convenient and commodious elsewhere, but he is not bound to acquire that building. He can go away with the money if he wishes under this Section.
As you state yourself, he is not allowed to give more money than would acquire that particular building. It may be that particular building may have been derelict for the past ten years. Considering the state of the market at present it may have no value at all to the present owner, who might be glad to get £100 for it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
He is not to have his eye on any particular building at all. The Judge is to consider what the man would obtain in the open market, not a particular building, but any building that would be sufficient to satisfy his wants. The Judge does not select a particular building for him under this Section.
The exact words are:—"The Judge whether he attaches or does not attach a reinstatement condition to his decree may grant such compensation as he considers reasonable in the circumstances of the case not exceeding in the whole the amount which he estimates to be necessary to acquire elsewhere the fee-simple."
The Judge has to estimate what he considers another premises or house is worth, and I think leaving that for the Judge who goes down to the country and who may not know, is rather a strong order. He has to estimate what this building, of which he may know nothing, is worth. That is leaving a great deal to a Judge, and I appeal to you, Sir, to put yourself in the position of that Judge. I do not see how he is going to make his estimate, and that is what I object to. He is left to estimate the value of this building that he may know nothing about and which nobody else knows anything about and, as has been pointed out, it may have been derelict for years. I am sorry to say that there were a good many lying derelict long before the troubles occurred.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There is still confusion. There is nothing to direct the attention of a Judge to a derelict building at all.
I beg your pardon. The word "estimate" is in the Bill, and I think that is a very dangerous word.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not see what possible alternative there is. Supposing the building is one that neither the owner nor anybody else, except some person in an asylum, would think of reinstating, then the only alternative to the injured owner is to give him the money. What this Bill provides is that in such a case the measure of compensation is to be the amount which, in the opinion of the Judge, will enable the owner, if he wishes to apply the money, to acquire a house with suitable similar accommodation elsewhere, not any particular house.
Yes, but "opinion" is very different from the word "estimate.""Estimate" is a clearly understood word in every dictionary, and if it is an estimate of the value of the building I think it is outrageous.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No, no. He has got to estimate what money will enable the owner to obtain a home with the same accommodation elsewhere. What he has to do is to try to get what sum will be sufficient compensation for the owner under the circumstances, and the measure of compensation shall be such an amount and shall enable the owner to acquire a house with suitable similar accommodation anywhere else he chooses to go to.
A house may be quite cheap next door. But if he does not want to go from his own house that he has always lived in, and if he does not want to live in that house——
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
What do you propose?
Just to put in, "on the application of the owner."
I think the thing could be met, not by putting in words, but by leaving them out. The Section reads, "where at present he considers reasonable in the circumstances of the case, not exceeding the whole amount which he estimates to be necessary," and then leave out the words, "to acquire elsewhere the fee-simple of premises which would," and simply let it read, "to provide suitable accommodation." The Judge would then estimate what he considers necessary to provide suitable accommodation to the standard necessary, and leave out all this reference to some adjoining property, which may stand at a very depreciated value.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
But where is there a reference to adjoining property?
"To acquire elsewhere suitable premises."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
But that is not adjoining.
But surely, Sir, he must take it somewhere in the district; otherwise why is it put in? He would not go to Dublin or to some adjoining county to estimate the value of alternative premises.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You see, the words "of the standard appropriate to the person ordinarily accommodated in the building before the injury" were put in for the benefit of the owner. That was to prevent the Judge giving him money on the basis of a building that would not provide him with the same accommodation. These words were put in to protect the owner.
I might say that Senator Colonel Moore's amendment is a red herring which would do no good. It would do no harm, except, I think, on close examination, it would introduce a certain amount of tautology. This clause, as An Cathaoirleach has rightly said, deals with houses that are what might be called white elephants, and, in fact, it has been described very frequently in discussions that have gone on as a white elephant Clause. If we leave out the latter part of the sub-section the Judge would have nothing to guide him at all, and these are white elephants which might be estimated by the owner in particular cases as worth, say, £100,000, having perhaps in some cases cost £100,000 to put up years ago, but were such as the owner two or three years ago might have been very glad to have sold for £2,000, £3,000 or £5,000. It is felt that some guide ought to be given to the Judges. We will have, I suppose, twenty different Judges dealing with these cases. It would not be fair that they should simply be directed to give such compensation as they regarded as reasonable. There might be most divergent views as to what might be reasonable. Some Judges would think that because the building had been inhabited by a particular family for many generations that a great amount of money ought to be given. Another Judge might attach practically no importance to that, and might say: "This is an old structure, and I think a couple of thousand pounds would be enough." It is felt that it is essential in the Bill to give some sort of guidance to the Judge, and I think every Senator who considers that carefully will agree that we should not leave anything so vague as to say that a Judge ought to give the compensation which he considers reasonable in this particular type of case, and consequently it is merely a matter of deciding what form of direction to the Judge we should put in the Bill. There is no intention of foisting on the owner of the premises other premises elsewhere or a very small amount. There is nothing to indicate at all that they are to be premises adjoining, and certainly when the Clause was being drafted there was not in mind that the Judge would know premises, probably some place a considerable distance away, and the person who had occupied the destroyed place might be willing to acquire or erect premises and reside there.
Colonel Moore, in moving this amendment, has rather forestalled a discussion which I intended to raise further on. I agree with the Minister that the best way to deal with this question would be by treating the latter part of the Clause, and with that view I put down an amendment. This may very well prove to be the most important clause in the Bill. I am not now speaking about white elephants. I am speaking about people who wish to remain in the country if they are allowed to. In the directions to the Judge I think he is bound to take into consideration what a building could be procured for in another part of the country. That, at all events, is the interpretation put on this clause by people competent to judge, and if the judge comes to the conclusion, as he undoubtedly would, that another building, more or less similar, could be obtained in another part of the country and could be obtained, as unfortunately we know at present, for very little, he could not award to people who wish to live in their own house a larger amount of compensation than would suffice to buy for them this property in perhaps another part of the country, to which they have no desire to go. Now, Sir, I wish to give the Government every credit for good intentions in drafting this clause. I am quite certain that they are endeavouring to make it as easy as possible for people who have suffered loss, who belong to the country and who intend, if they can, to remain in the country, to give them every chance of staying there. I want, in the first place, to impress upon the Government that this is perhaps the most important clause in the Bill and I would ask them seriously to consider how they can treat this very difficult and delicate question. I give them every credit for good intentions. I recognise that they must give the Judge some directions, because otherwise you would have all sorts of different compensations and computations arrived at. I will ask them to reserve their decision on this clause, to go into the matter very carefully and if possible to bring in some amendment or change on the report stage or otherwise; that would, so far as is can, meet the case.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the Seanad ought to be very careful before they interfere with this clause at all. I had very considerable experience both at my profession and on the Bench in regard to the administration of these Malicious Injuries Compensation Acts, and the most difficult and troublesome cases we used to have in these Acts was this very particular case in which there was an ancient building which had been standing for centuries — probably it cost something like one hundred thousand pounds — and if it were to be reinstated now as it originally stood it would cost at least that much, if not twice as much. We found that in practically every case nobody, including the owner, would like to have the building restored in its original form and shape. It had grown beyond all their needs, it had become unsuitable owing to the changes of architecture and soforth, and we found in many cases that a building had been left unoccupied by the owner and family for generations and was standing there in charge of a keeper, but was not used as a residence for a considerable period. We were greatly troubled to know the proper estimate of compensation. We could not award one hundred thousand pounds because that would give a man money which he could not realise by the sale of the house under any conceivable condition, because he would not probably get a bid for it. The standard we arrived at was, having regard to modern requirements in regard to building, what sum would enable the owner to acquire a house that would be equally good in point of substance, dignity and style, but which would not, of course, cost anything like the amount that would be required to reinstate and restore the old building. It seems to me that the Government have followed those decisions of ours, and have endeavoured to adopt them in this clause, because they say where the Judge thinks that to restore the original building would be either economically absurd or impracticable, he should, as an alternative, award the owner such an amount as will get him accommodation such as he had in the other house. Those are the words used in effect — accommodation elsewhere equivalent in value and comfort to what he had in other premises. I think the Government put that in for the protection of the owner, and the Seanad should consider carefully before interfering with it.
I have listened to you, sir, with the greatest interest, as you have considerable experience in such matters. I understand the view which the Minister takes. He says that in this Bill, which affects us people who are living in the country very much indeed, the Judge should have some clear instruction on this subject. With regard to that matter, I think what Sir John Keane said was that he wishes to leave out from the word "estimates" to the word "would" in line 11 of Section 10, page 9.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
He proposed to leave out the words "to acquire elsewhere."
I do not know whether the Minister would accept that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Of course that again means that these words were put in for the benefit of the owner, because it was to give him the benefit of the fee simple. If you leave these words cut he might get a leasehold instead of a fee simple.
With all due respects to what you said, I do not think that the method of acquiring a value by comparison with another house in the district is satisfactory, because we know from practical experience that it is not fair to ask a person whose house has been burned to go into another house even if it is similar, because the very site of his own house is hallowed in the memory of the sufferer. The whole surroundings are there, and although he may acquire another building elsewhere that is not the point. He wants the money, not to enable him to replace a white elephant, but to replace the injured building by another building which will provide suitable accommodation of the standard appropriate for the persons resident before the injury. Replacements are far higher now, and houses have gone up in value.
I think we are at cross purposes here. The Government are anxious that people should rebuild, and that people who occupied houses that were burned should remain in the country and build their houses again. This clause really deals with a large class of cases where we think there is no practical hope that they will be rebuilt, and it is to give people something for their "white elephant." These could be described as being ordinarily maintained as residences, if they were not ordinarily resided in. Where people want to rebuild a house in its old form, and perhaps in a less pretentious style, that would probably be a reasonable case for asking full reinstatement conditions. That would come in in 3(b), where people could show reasonable cause for full reinstatement conditions, and though they do not want to erect as big a house, they might erect a suitable one.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think this is a very important matter. I do not think that Sub-section 3 — the full reinstatement clause — would ever be applied by a Judge in cases in which he thought it was impracticable to restore the original building, or, if it were restored, it would be economically absurd. If he gave a decree, he would have to give the full value of the original building. That evidently is not the intention of the Government. What Sir John Keane and others have in their minds would be accomplished if the section read: "The amount which he estimated to be necessary to replace on the original site or to acquire elsewhere."
Yes, that would do.
Would that mean that, suppose he had a house of a reasonable size which was partially destroyed he would have power to re-roof it?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
This Section applies to houses that nobody would think of reinstating as they originally stood. It does not apply to houses partially burned, and in which the owner was residing. It applies to white elephants. Even in this class there is a sentimental value attached to the site, and although the owner might never dream of restoring the house as it stood, he might like to put up a suitable residence on the old site. That is not covered by the Section. Therefore, if the words I suggest were put in, i.e., "to replace on the original site or acquire elsewhere," they would meet the case.
How would you define a house nobody would dream of reinstating?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I could not define it in a few words, but we had at least a dozen instances of old castle residences which, on the evidence before us, cost £100,000 to build, and which on the evidence also could not be rebuilt for anything like that amount now. Also the owner had not the faintest desire or intention, from the evidence, to restore them as they stood, and, in fact, no person nowadays, having regard for economy or prudence, would think of restoring them as they stood. Some of those cases caused us the greatest difficulty.
May we have your words exactly?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Judge may grant such compensation as he considers reasonable in the circumstances of the case not exceeding in the whole the amount which he estimates to be necessary to replace on the original site, or to acquire elsewhere, the fee-simple of premises which would provide suitable accommodation of the standard appropriate for the persons ordinarily accommodated in the building before the injury.
You begin by saying that it is difficult to estimate the market value, and then you close by asking the unfortunate Judge to estimate the remains of the building. You are putting a good deal on the Judge.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Judge would have evidence before him of what the ruins were worth to the contractor who had to rebuild.
I should like to repeat that if this Clause only relates to white elephants, we have not very much interest in it, but I take it from the wording of the Clause that it applies to a building which, at or about the time of the injury, was maintained as a residence for the applicant and his family.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No, not necessarily. It might not have been occupied for one hundred years.
I am reading from the Clause. The Clause said, "In any case in which the injured building was one mainained as a residence of the applicant or his family." I take it, it is the injured person or his family. I started by the assumption that the injured person or his family wished to rebuild the house. I am not arguing for white elephants.
I would like to know what Clause we are discussing. The Minister has been talking of Sub-section 4 of Clause 10. I have been listening to a debate on Sub-section 9 of Clause 10.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Sir Thomas Esmonde has introduced his amendment into this Clause.
To my mind the whole of the discussion is completely out of order, and confusion has arisen. The Minister is talking about Sub-section 4 of Clause 10, and we are dealing with Sub-section 9, which we have not come to. If we are allowed to drag subsequent amendments into a discussion we will never get any further.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The discussion has properly arisen on an amendment moved by Colonel Moore to Sub-section 9, and it is quite clear that when Sir Thomas Esmonde was speaking on that amendment he seemed to have more in mind his amendment to a subsequent section. I did not interrupt because I thought he might be satisfied with the discussion now taking place, and thereby we would avoid a subsequent discussion on the same point.
It is quite evident that it does not apply to houses ordinarily inhabited.
An CATHAOIRLEACH
I think you are right in that. I fell into the same error myself. I thought we were dealing with a Clause which dealt with houses of the white elephant type.
I might refer you to the Standing Orders. Some of the Senators have spoken four or five times.
I may point out that the Cathaoirleach has spoken in answer to our points.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I was trying to help you.
No doubt, but you are arguing against us.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I will keep the Seanad strictly to the amendment to Sub-section 9.
I gather that what Colonel Moore wants is to provide the owner who wishes to rebuild his house with the means to do it. I do not suppose there are many people who will be owners of those white elephants, but Mr. Blythe wants those people to live in the country, and to provide them with the means of putting up suitable houses. The instances in which the cases of white elephants will occur will be comparatively few, and I venture to hope that Mr. Blythe or one of his colleagues may be able to indicate, on the Report Stage, some effort to provide in the Bill that a poor man who wants to put on the ground on which his old house stood a similar building shall be given means to do so.
I desire to ask the Minister whether these sections cover the case of a man who does not own the fee-simple of his property, but is a leaseholder whose unexpired term is a short one. Ordinarily that man, there being a, clause, I suppose, in his lease which compels him to restore or give up the property at the end of his lease as he received it (due allowance being made for ordinary wear and tear), would in the ordinary course insure his property, so that in case of fire he would be able to put the premises back into a condition that would enable him to hand them over under the clause of his lease. If that man's house is burned down there will be an order for reinstatement, in which you will find a clause like this:
"In every case in which a full reinstatement condition is attached to the decree the amount of the compensation shall not exceed the amount of the cost of the full reinstatement less the amount, if any, by which in the opinion of the Judge the price of the premises as reinstated would, by reason of the reinstatement, exceed the price of the premises in the condition in which they were immediately before the injury or destruction, the price in each case being estimated according to normal market conditions as at the date of the award and on the basis of a sale of the fee-simple interest in the premises."
The position of that man is that it costs him, we will say, £1,000 to reinstate the premises with new brick and mortar. He cannot reinstate in the second-hand condition in which they were. He must put in new work. Then there is a deduction, "less the amount of the value assessed on these buildings prior to the burning."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You are dealing with the whole section at present. I must confine the Seanad strictly to this amendment to Sub-section 9. You will see that the matters that you are contemplating are dealt with by Sub-section 12, and if you want to move an amendment, that is the time to do it.
Might I suggest, in view of the considerable discussion that has taken place on this section, that the Senator should withdraw his amendment, and that a conference should take place between this Stage and the Report Stage between two or three members of the Seanad and the Minister, to see if an agreement can be arrived at so as to have a certain change of words. There does not seem to be any very vital difference as to the principle concerned, and we might go on discussing this for a very considerable time. There is no amendment only Senator Moore's which does not meet the whole case. If the matter could be arranged we could have a definite amendment before us on the Report Stage.
I think Senator Douglas's suggestion is a very good one, because, after listening to the discussion, I certainly am of opinion that we all practically want the one thing.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think what is in the mind of many Senators is that this sub-section applies to a building that has been used as a residence up to the time of the injury, and that the estimated market value would be difficult to ascertain. I think they are anxious to have the words somewhat modified.
The intention was that this should really apply to houses which had been maintained in some sort of condition for residence, but which probably had not been used. Our idea was that if a house had been at all ordinarily used as a residence it would have a market value, and its market value would not be so difficult to ascertain. We also thought that under Sub-section 3, if reasonable cause were shown, a full reinstatement condition might be attached which would cover all cases of ordinary residences that were not those that could clearly be called white elephants. The Judge might not think that reasonable cause could be shown to reinstate a house that would cost an enormous sum of money, and which would be probably inconvenient, and such as people nowadays would not choose to live in or erect. If the residence was one that people had been living in, and such as they really desired to re-erect, any Judge would consider that to be a reasonable cause.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You see Sub-section 9 says "notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section" that would exclude the operation of Sub-section 3. Sub-section 3 is excluded by this sub-section.
As the Minister says, all the Seanad are trying to get to the one position, and we had better accept the proposition of Senator Douglas and have something before us, so that we may know what we are talking about.
I quite agree with the last Senator. I hope the Minister will consider and, if I might suggest most humbly, accept the principle of those words which our Chairman has read out twice to the Seanad.
I accept the suggestion of Senator Douglas, which I think will save a good deal of talk.
My amendment is:—"Section 10, Sub-section (9): To delete the words from ‘not exceeding in the whole,' in line 10, to the end of the sub-section." As I said some time ago, I am prepared to leave this matter in the hands of the Minister, who knows our views. I think we can give him credit for his good intentions. We are not speaking for white elephants. I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment and leave the matter to the consideration of the Minister to bring in such amendments as he thinks necessary, upon Report.
I have an amendment down on the Paper which I desire to withdraw. It is as follows:—"Section 10, Sub-section (9): To delete the words from ‘not exceeding in the whole,' in line 10, to the end of the sub-section, and to substitute therefor the words, ‘but the amount of this compensation must be expended either in building within the area of the Free State, or in the purchase of a similar building, giving accommodation of the standard appropriate for the persons ordinarily accommodated in the building before the injury.'"
I beg to move the following amendment:—"Immediately after Section 10 to insert a new Section 11, as follows:—‘11. Immediately after the completion of reinstatement (so as to render the same fit for occupation) of any hereditament in respect of which compensation shall have been paid under this Act, it shall be lawful for the Commissioner of Valuation to value such hereditament, and to transmit his valuation to the rating authority; and such valuation shall thereupon be entered in the rate-book, and such hereditament shall be deemed to have been duly assessed to all rates then current; and the proportion of such rates from the date of such transmission shall be payable in respect of such hereditament: provided always that the owner or occupier of such hereditament shall have the same right of appeal against the valuation and against the rate as if the same had been respectively made at the ordinary periods.'" This is an amendment which the President asked me to move, and perhaps the Minister will explain it.
Unfortunately I did not expect to be dealing with this particular amendment, but I take it it is to enable the local authorities to get rates from any premises erected as a result of the payment of compensation immediately after they are completed and fit for occupation, so that they will not have to wait until the next legal financial year.
There is more than appears on the surface in this amendment. The suggestion is that immediately a house is reconstructed the valuation officer is called in to revalue it. Take the case of O'Connell Street. The greater part of that street has been already rebuilt, as you know, and the valuation was increased very considerably. Are the people in O'Connell Street whose premises and businesses have been destroyed to be victimised over again, as they would be under this section? I suggest that what applies to Lower O'Connell Street should apply to Upper O'Connell Street. Under a Bill promoted by the Dublin Corporation in 1916 in was agreed between the residents of the new buildings in O'Connell Street and the Corporation that, no matter what the valuation officer did, they would pay rates for ten years after the completion of the new premises on the valuation of the premies that were destroyed in 1916. I suggest that in this amendment of Senator Eyre's, if he is really anxious that it should go through, the principle adopted in 1916 by the Dublin Corporation should be followed. If he does that, I am willing to accept it, but otherwise I will vote against it.
I want to correct my statement. This is not the amendment the President asked me to move. The case is this: The valuation lists are sent to the rating authorities on the 1st March. The building is in process of construction, and the Commissioner of Valuation, if he finds that the roof has not been put on or completed, probably about two months before the lists are sent in, does not put the building on the rating lists. The builder or the owner is careful not to put on the roof until the rates have been struck. As a result, the local authority loses the entire year's rating from that house, and I have known cases where it went on for nearly two years by manipulation in this way. My proposal is, the moment the house is completed the Valuation Commissioner shall value it, and it shall be rated on the same principle as is contained in another clause in the Bill, which says you may strike a special rate at any time for a special purpose instead of waiting a year and losing on a valuable building the taxes which would in the ordinary course be assessed on the new building. If this clause were put in, the buildings would be valued in due time within the year and a rate struck.
As one who has been hit by a regulation similar to this amendment, I feel bound to oppose it. You are supposed to pay rates for some value you have received. Take the buildings in O'Connell Street, of which I have no experience, as an example. If they are rated when they are finished, people will be paying rates on shops from which they receive no revenue. I do not think that is fair, and I do not see how any case has been made out whatever for rates being struck on buildings from which no revenue is derived. I think it is quite time enough to levy rates as soon as people are deriving revenue from premises, to which they are entitled.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think there is a little confusion. If you look at the full text of the amendment you will see that, although the rates are to be struck on the completion of the building, the building itself is only liable for that portion of the rate that accrues subsequent to the date of completion.
In my case I finished the house unfortunately just as the rates were being struck. I was not in occupation, and had no benefit from the house. The rates were struck and I had to pay them for the year that had passed.
I wonder how Senator Eyre proposes to deal with parties who refuse to put on the roof on houses until the rates have been struck?
I wonder is it right in a Bill dealing with compensation to begin meddling with questions of rates? The Corporations and the local authorities are quite capable of taking care of the rates, which seems to me to be beyond the measure of this Bill. I do not see why we should not let the question of rates be settled between the ratepayers and the rate collecting authorities.
In Clause 20 it is stated that a special rate may be struck any time for the purpose of rating premises.
I should like to strongly support the views of Senator Jameson. Rating machinery exists and houses are being built every day and come under the operation of these ordinary rating laws. If the machinery is not satisfactory let it be amended at the right time by a Rating Bill. I do not think it is proper to treat rating in a special aspect on a Bill that does not properly apply to a rating question.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move to delete the whole of the Section.
I make this proposal for the purpose of having a discussion on it. It has been represented to me that it will be very difficult indeed to apply a scale to various legal documents. I am talking now of legal documents, as I take it this clause deals only with them. Share certificates are, I understand, covered by the clause. How are you going to draw up a scale for such things as title deeds, land certificates, copies of marriage certificates, and things of that kind?
It will be imposing, I think, upon whoever has to carry out this business a very difficult task; and there is a further point —supposing the title deeds in a property which was in litigation were lost. I merely initiate this discussion to get some idea from the Government whether it is feasible to draw up a scale for documents of this kind. Take, for instance, the case of title deeds where there is any dispute about property. Supposing that the thing was in litigation, how could you arrange a scale in that case? I know this is giving a certain amount of trouble to the legal fraternity, and perhaps the Minister can give us a little more explanation about it.
The object of this was to draw up a scale for the reinstatement of documents which had been damaged or destroyed. I understand that after 1916 such a scale was drawn up, and I gather that the Law Officer and the President of the Incorporated Law Society will be able to draw up one. It is not a matter that I know much about.
I move an amendment to Sub-section (3): "To delete all from the word ‘whether,' in line 37, to the end of the sub-section, and to substitute therefor the words ‘in whosoever custody they may have been.'" Sub-section (3) describes the persons in whose custody the deeds lie of which compensation is being applied for. It names them as "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 person for safe custody only." Now, it seems to me that in describing these three custodies in which documents may be, other custodies outside of these three will probably be excluded, and the section seems to wish to cover the loss of documents no matter who has had charge of them. If a man has been able to prove that he had suffered loss because his documents have been destroyed, no matter in whose custody they may have been, his proved loss will be met. That is the whole point of the amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Would it not be simpler to move to omit that Sub-section (3) altogether?
I believe it would.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The moment you begin defining you may leave out something.
If you define it to be a loss, no matter in whose custody the deeds may have been, it seems to cover it sufficiently well. I thought there might be some point in the clause that I could not see, and I want by this amendment to cover the whole custody of the documents.
I would be glad if Senator Jameson would accept An Cathaoirleach's suggestion. I think undoubtedly this sub-section is restricted as it stands, and if there is no restriction intended there is no necessity for it, and I think it would be better to have the clause omitted.
I move an amendment to Sub-section (3) (c):—To insert at the end of the Sub-section 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 reduction shall be made from any money payable in compensation until the total amount of securities payable as compensation shall have been exhausted.”
I would ask the Seanad to regard this as rather an important amendment. Under the Bill the Minister has power to deduct from the compensation any sums of money due for debts, annuities or rates, and I am not asking the Seanad to challenge that principle but only the method by which that deduction shall be effected. It is not set out and those of us who have experience of the revenue authorities know that if they are doing their duty properly they will lean more to the interests of the State rather than to that of the individual. Now there are numerous ways in which the revenue authorities might work as the Bill stands at present. Say the applicant gets £20,000 and £10,000 of that is earmarked for re-instatement and the balance of the amount is payable, £2,000 in cash and £8,000 in securities. If there is a debt of £4,000 under these various headings, I see nothing at all to prevent them impounding first the £2,000 cash, then proceeding to sell in the open market securities sufficient to realise the other £2,000, and then handing over the balance to the applicant. If the law officer says it cannot be done that way I am prepared to accept that, but I think it would be far safer to specify clearly the method by which this deduction will be made. I suggest to make it perfectly clear the method set out in the amendment should be prescribed, and that is that the deduction should, in the first instance, come off the securities, and these securities which are given in exchange for the sterling award as made by the Judge should be taken at face value.
I would ask the Seanad not to accept this amendment. The debts due will be hard cash debts, and there is no reason to prescribe that no cash should be taken against them. As the Bill stands it is in the discretion of the Minister for Finance, and I think that we can assume that that discretion will be exercised fairly where a cause is shown. I do not think that it is a fair thing to lay down the rigid rule that is suggested by Senator Sir John Keane. I do not wish to say much just at this particular point about the question of the securities which will be given, but in any case we ought not to assume that they are going to be securities that will have a depreciated value.
I hope the Seanad will not take the Minister's reply as satisfactory. We are handing ourselves over absolutely to the Minister for Finance, who may take this money however he likes. I think it is a most serious thing that this method should not be prescribed: it is even suggested in order that we shall live in pious hope that the securities will not be at a discount. That implies that they will stand at a discount, if they are to be sold in the open market to realise the value of a debt. I do not think the method as outlined in the Minister's reply is fair, and that it is rather doing a serious injustice to the applicants, an injustice which will react with a boomerang effect on the Government's whole credit.
I fail to understand the need to take it so seriously. I would understand it if the Government did not deduct the debt from the amount of the award paid over, and the person by whom the debt was due would have to pay in cash.
I have great confidence in the present Minister for Finance and in all Ministers for Finance in general. Unfortunately, we do not know who the next Minister for Finance is going to be. Governments are very changeable, both in this and in other countries, and we cannot know that this Minister, who is a very straight and honourable person, will be in existence when this is operating. We know from long experience that people who have claimed to be honest on the other side of the water have let us down very seriously in these matters. Many of us sold property for stock which was supposed to have a cash value, or near it, but the stock was depreciated down to 50 or 60 per cent., and many people have been ruined thereby. I think it is right that these matters should be settled in the Bill as to exactly how people are going to be paid, and I think it is only fair that we should not trust merely to the opinion of the Government that it will be done all right, because they cannot decide for their successors, however honest and well-meaning they may be. I really think that the Minister in this matter is honest and well-meaning, but his successors may not be of his opinion, and I think it ought to be put down clearly in the Bill what people are to get.
I think, sir, we have got two distinctly opposite views here, and they are at very great variance indeed. Sir John Keane lays it down that all the securities have to be taken before the cash is touched. The Minister says cash is what the debt is due in, and cash is what will be taken. There are the two views. Senator Sir John Keane's view is that cash should not be taken until the securities are exhausted. The Government's view is that no security should be taken until the cash is exhausted. I think really the right course for the Seanad would be to let the Government rely on the ordinary course of the law and do away with this sub-section, because I do not think that we ought to authorise a clause that will give the Government the right of taking the whole of the cash allotted to the applicant. It seems harsh and hard, and if the law seems to be, from what the Minister says, that they can recover without that clause, then we should leave the clause out and let the Government take the ordinary law to recover what debts are due to them.
I think that Sir John Keane's amendment is a very reasonable one. I think we ought to assume that the securities to be issued will be worth par, and if they are worth par they ought to be taken by the Government in payment of any debts due to them. If they are not to be worth par, I think it will be a hardship on the person who receives the securities.
There will be no need for this clause if we were not dealing with people who might skip off with the amount of the money. In the case of a great number of the people there will be no difficulty at all in paying them the whole of the money and recovering the amount of the cash debt by the ordinary process of law, with costs added on; but it is to deal with people who have incurred liabilities to the State, and who may want to avoid paying them, that this is intended. We know very well that there are a great number of people trying to evade their liability to the State. Irregularism is not merely confined to the people who are out with guns on the hills. Great numbers of people are trying to evade their liabilities and we do not want to make it easy for anybody to do so. I think it would be a very bad thing for the Seanad to take up the point of view that the Government wished to pay out to anybody the full amount due to them and was not to have the right to retain what is due to the Government in view of the fact that there are such large numbers of people trying to evade their liabilities to the State. In places where people could well pay their annuities shoals of civil bills had to be issued and threats of the most drastic action had to be used to make them meet their liabilities. It is not a case of the State dealing badly with the individual; it is a case of the individual failing to realise his duty to the State and to the general community, and that is a thing that has to be kept in mind when we are dealing with this.
I think this might easily be met. If this money is due to the State that might easily be deducted and the securities given back. If the amount to be paid out is to be £10,000 and if the debt is £2,000 give £8,000. It is not necessary to deduct it in cash. Deduct it off the securities. We presume the securities are value for what they represent.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is exactly the object of Sir John Keane's amendment, as I understand it.
That is right.
If Sir John Keane's amendment were to be passed it would mean creating a privileged class, because there would be numbers of other people in debt to the State and they will have to pay up, and it will certainly not be the case that we could possibly agree to accept payment for all the debts in securities that might be due to the State.
I think really the Minister has not put the thing as it occurred to me. He contemplates people skipping off. There is no question of skipping off. They will have the cash and the securities and they are not going to part. The essential point of my amendment is that the method by which this deduction is to take place is not laid down.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is to say you are willing that the Government should keep all the money but when they are going to pay debts due to themselves they should pay them first out of the securities?
That is the proposal I make, but it is only attempting to do what the Government, I submit, should have done in the Bill, that is, to lay down clearly by what method they are going to deduct these debts, and the reply we have had now shows us that possibly the method to which I have strong objection may be taken, and we cannot argue against that because we do not know. We are handing ourselves absolutely to the Government in this matter. I do not think that that is a position that the Seanad ought to sanction.
Amendment declared carried, on a show of hands, by 19 votes to 16.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Jameson, do you wish to move, as you intimated, the deletion of the clause?
Certainly not.
My amendment to Sub-section 5, Section 13, reads as follows:—"After the word ‘section,' in line 41, to add the words ‘with interest at 5 per cent. as from the date of the injury.' I would ask the leave of the Seanad to substitute the word "award" for "injury" at the end of the amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think you may take it that the Seanad is agreeable to that alteration.
I do that because yesterday the Government and the Seanad no longer pressed this question of interest from the date of injury. It now assumes a narrower and different aspect when assumed from the date of award. I understand that in law when decrees are granted the party against whom decrees are given is bound to pay promptly and within a reasonable time. I think that great possibilities of delay in the matter of payment may arise. I put this to the Minister: When there is a partial reinstatement condition, how will the Government know that the work to be done will be covered by the amount of that partial reinstatment? It is possible that the estimate may be wrong, and the building partly completed, and that further money may be required to complete it. Are the Government going to make good on that, or are they going to impinge on the free money? If they are going to make good a faulty estimate, they must hold that free money back until the building is practically complete. If that money is going to be held back, is it going to be held back without interest? If it is, I think it is most unjust. It might be held back two years, and there may be strikes and endless delays. I ask that it should be made quite clear that interest from the date of the award shall be allowed. If it is, it will act as a stimulus on the Government and other parties to pay promptly.
In the case of a partial reinstatement condition it will only apply to part of the money. There will be an additional award with this condition attached, so that free money will not be held, but will be paid, and the money to which the award is attached will be paid from time to time on the architect's certificates. There should be no case at all for interest on money to which the condition is attached, because it might happen that a person would prefer to receive the interest on money, and could easily find numerous ways of delaying the completion of the building. I do not think that Sir John Keane would suggest that there should be interest paid on that money, and I do not think that his amendment would meet his intention.
Then the position is this, that the amendment is too comprehensive in that it implies interest is to be paid on reinstatement money. What view would the Minister take if on the Report Stage I put down an amendment confining interest merely to the free money? He has not yet, I might respectfully point out, answered my question how he will deal with faulty estimates as to reinstatement. If the actual reinstatement is costing more than the estimate, where is the additional money to complete the building going to come from?
The condition is not that the building be reinstated but that so much money be applied to reinstatement. The State is only concerned to see that that money is applied to re-instatement. If the money is running out and the building is not completed the person will have to make his own arrangements. The award can only be given on the estimate and if he has any doubt on the matter he would require to keep money free. The question of interest on the free money is a very small matter. I do not think that there will be any great delay in making payments. I would consider how the matter could be dealt with and perhaps it would be as well if Sir John Keane did put down an amendment for the Report Stage.
I move the following amendment to Sub-section 6:— To add at the end of the Sub-section the words, "and any such security so issued shall be accepted at par of exchange in payment of any debt or other sum of money collectable by or payable to the late Provisional Government of Ireland or the Government of Saorstát Eireann, or any Department or authority of either of these Governments."
I am sorry to have so many amendments coming together and that I should inflict myself on the Seanad so frequently. I ask the Seanad to view this amendment as the most important one in the whole Bill. It asks that these securities shall be legal tender by anybody for debts due to the Government. It is only extending the principle which the Government have already laid down to a limited extent. I might leave it at this—what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; but that is a very limited and very incomplete aspect of a very wide and far-reaching principle, that this amendment touches upon. This is a principle which is going to assail the Government many times from now on —this principle which involves the whole question of financial integrity. On this principle of financial integrity I suggest to the Government that while it may be difficult to win the war, the war can be won with far greater ease than the peace can be won. We see to-day all through Europe the difficulty of winning the peace. That same difficulty, particularly in its financial aspect, is going to embarrass the Government more than once in the next few years. This is the beginning of it. Virtue, you may say, is pretty well the same in all walks of life. You no doubt remember Bunyan's hero and how on his road to the delectable city he was tempted by siren voices from his objective to all kinds of seductive by-paths. That same principle is before the Minister for Finance and the Government. You have those siren voices offering on the one hand the sweets of political power as against the claims of unswerving justice. That is a great difficulty, and as it has been said in the House of Commons years ago the virtues of a Finance Minister are not unlike the virtues of a woman. It is the first step that counts, and this is the first step, and in matters of finance the penalty for wrong-doing will be swift and certain. In this Bill we have before us, there is implied a suggestion that you can get out of some financial difficulties on the backs of those who are better able to carry it than others. Now that would be all right if you could in an economic sense separate or insulate a class, and say "all right, that class can bear the burden, nobody else will be affected," but the merest novice in economics knows that you cannot do that. Once you attack one class, you immediately create a feeling of insecurity among all classes, and slowly or surely that feeling of insecurity will poison the whole blood-stream of the body politic, and react with the most damaging effect upon the security of the State. I hope the Government will not regard it as an impertinence on my part if I try and probe what is in their minds in this proposal to pay by securities, and at the same time to suggest how this grave danger we are about to run may be avoided. The Government have said over and over again "you have no right to assume that those securities are not going to be good market value." If that is their intention why do they not approach the matter in this way: Why do they not float a public loan—I believe they soon will have to float one—and having by their public loan ascertained the measure of their credit, then give the sufferers by this damage the same degree of credit as the public will give to the credit of the nation. Instead you have this method now by which the Minister is going to try, and with no knowledge of what the market or the public will say, to fix at a fair value the securities. That cannot be done by empirical or guess-work methods of that kind. If he puts it too high, the stocks will rise to a premium and the taxpayer will suffer. If he puts it too low the taxpayer will suffer more because that mere fact will carry the stigma of repudiation and strike a serious blow at the credit of the State. It might at first sight appear clever to use the sufferers as a sort of corpus vili in which you are going to test the country's credit, because of course these securities will become marketable. They will have to be sold. Many poor people receiving them will have to realise the security somehow. Having ascertained by this indirect method what the credit of the State is worth, then we may form a correct view as to the credit of the future loans, but I do honestly, not to embarass the Government but in their own interests, suggest that this is a most dangerous thing. If those securities are floated, whenever the Minister may think fit they may fall to a discount. What is the position? In the first case it will be said there is a forced loan from those unfortunate people. There is in addition a contribution because it will be a forced contribution, the difference between the market price and the face value, and the Government will have to go to the public for a loan with this stigma of repudiation there. If those securities find their way to the market in that form they will be a standing warning to any investor who is thinking of taking up the loan. That will all be got over by the expedience of this amendment. If those securities are allowed as legal tender for debts they automatically retain a value somewhere about their face value, and that grave danger, which I set out, will be avoided. I hope the Government will accept this amendment, not on the grounds of justice, but on the more practical and compelling grounds of public interest and security.
While I agree with a good deal of what Senator Sir John Keane has said I might say that his amendment as it is on the paper here is in almost precisely the same words as his amendment to Section 13, and it amounts to this: that the Government should take par value for all debts due to them in the securities which they propose to create for the purpose of paying compensation. It might be a very admirable thing for the holders of these securities if the Government would do so, but I can hardly imagine the Government accepting that position. I do think they have a precedent which they might follow which would be a partial acceptance of these bonds for certain other Duties which fall to them in due course. That is to say, they might accept these bonds for Estate Duty, Income Tax,, and Super Tax We have a precedent in the case of Victory Bonds which were issued not very long ago by the Imperial Government. These bonds are now available to the holder for payment of Estate Duty which falls due either in his own case or in the case of any other person. These bonds were a popular issue and have kept at a good market value; in fact they have exceeded their issue price. I do not think it would be altogether fair to ask the Government to accept these bonds for any debt in cash that may be due to them. I have here in my hand an altered amendment which I did not Table, and before I move it I would like to know what the attitude of the Government is on the whole question and if they were prepared to accept the suggestion that these bonds should be taken, say, for Death Duties, Income Tax and Super Tax. I have a formal amendment drawn up which would meet that case.
I am sorry that in the course of his speech Senator Sir John Keane thought proper to follow Mr. De Valera in suggesting that we were departing from the path of unswerving justice for the sweets of political power. We are not. We are trying to follow the path of unswerving justice in this Bill. We are trying to do what is best for the whole country. We are not trying to trample on the rights of any particular section of the people. We are not trying to get out of any of our own difficulties at the expense of any particular group or section. Senator Sir John Keane is probably as well aware as we are of the difficulties and of the dangers that would arise from a flotation at the moment. As far as I know the British Government did not—perhaps I may be misinformed—propose to accept any of their issue for Income Tax or Super Tax. They did for Death Duties and Excess Profits Tax, but not for Income Tax, Super Tax, or other duties that might be due, and that was only done in, I think, one case, and in exceptional circumstances. I am not in a position at the moment to make an announcement about the securities that will be issued, but they will not be as some English papers suggested the other day, 3 per cent. irredeemable bonds. They will be bonds redeemable after a short period, and carrying such a rate of interest as we calculate will prevent their depreciation. This whole matter is one of confidence. It is easy merely to make the calculation on a question of interest, and to fix such a rate of interest that on that basis; at any rate, there would be no depreciation. If when we have made our calculations there is depreciation, it will be only through a lack of stability in the country and in the Government. I know what perilous times we have been through, and how near we have been to the brink of the precipice; how near we have been to happenings that would make a witch's cauldron in this country; and I for one am quite confident as to the future. We have got through tremendous difficulties. Everything is not perfect. We are not in calm water yet. But I think that any person who looks around in an unprejudiced way cannot doubt that we are bringing the ship safely into the harbour. We started out last June with large bands of armed men holding the Four Courts, holding towns and barracks all over the country. We attacked them when we had hardly anything worthy of the name of an Army— when we had to draw recruits together, put uniforms on them, hand them rifles, and send them out to do the best they could without training or organisation or expert officers. We had no police force then, and we had no means of making ordinary justice prevail. We had not the Courts functioning. We had no Constitution drawn up. Everything was chaos, there was weakness and instability, and there was danger that the Free State might fail. Now there are no fortresses held against us, and we have an Army which might not compare with the finest armies in the world, which might not compare for its size with Continental armies or with the British Army, but which is efficient. It is an Army which is an efficient and obedient instrument, and which is growing in discipline and efficiency day by day. We have got a police force— the Civic Guard—through the country; that force is performing its duties with marked efficiency, is dealing with ordinary crime, and is putting down the awful curse of poteen-making. We have District Justices going out to their courts all over the country. We have the Judges, who could not go out to function seven or eight months or a year ago, now going out and sitting in the towns through the country. We have a Constitution adopted and accepted. We have our Parliament set up. We have this Seanad itself, which has stood up to the attempt that was made to break it, and which has earned the good wishes, goodwill, and gratitude of the country for the way in which the members did stand up to the attempt that was made to break them. We have now a Constitution and a Parliament; we have an Army and a Police Force, we have the organised opposition of our enemies broken; dispirited and disunited, they are on the point of surrender, and I for one am full of confidence in the future, and I would ask the Senators to look at it from the point of view of confidence, and to be satisfied that the Free State will stand and cannot be broken. If they believe that, then the question of keeping our securities at par is really a matter which any mathematician can arrange, and it will be arranged.
I wish to say that if the amendment were carried business would be impossible. A Government would have to be a long time established here to do what is suggested. If you want to build a house you cannot go to a builder and hand him securities. You cannot buy a suit of clothes or a pound of tea or a stone of sugar with securities. The whole thing would be simply chaos if the bonds given by the Government were to be legal tender to be accepted by everybody.
There is nothing like that in the amendment.
Duties to the Government only.
I beg your pardon. The amendment is "and any such security so issued shall be accepted at par of exchange in payment of any debt or other sum of money collectable by or payable to the late Provisional Government of Ireland or the Government of Saorstát Eireann or any department or authority of either of these Governments." It comes to the same thing; what is payable to one is payable to the other.
I do not know if I am in order in moving an amendment to an amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes.
If so I would move to add at the end of the Sub-section the words "and any such security so issued shall be accepted at par of exchange in payment of any Death Duties."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Then you would leave out all the words after "payment," and insert "in payment of any Death Duties, Income Tax or Super Tax." You are limiting your amendment to Death Duties?
Yes.
I think we may thank Sir John Keane for the opportunity he gave the Minister for making the speech we have just listened to. I think it is the most satisfactory speech we have heard since the Seanad started. I think, however, the Minister rather misunderstood Sir John Keane and read too much into what he said. What he was endeavouring to do was to warn the Government against financial mistakes and the results which such might bring about at the beginning of their career. As regards the amendment of Senator Guinness we must remember that the Government in bringing out their Budget estimated that the taxation they proposed, and the demands which they made on the taxpayers, are to be met in cash. It was all very well for, say, the British Government to issue a security which would be taken at par value. They issued it below par, thus giving it a price at once. Our Government would be in a different position. If the Minister for Finance estimates that he is going to get a certain amount of money out of certain taxation which he proposes in his Budget, and if a good deal of that is handed over to him in bonds which he will have to take at face value, he would not get the money he absolutely needs, unless power is taken at the same time to issue a new security, for the amount of the bonds he is obliged to take under this amendment. Undoubtedly I cannot see a Finance Minister who has to face future Budgets agreeing to that. But I think that the proposal even from the view of the Ministry is an extremely admirable one, if it was not for the reasons I have stated, which make it hard to see how they could agree to it. If the Minister had the right to take the amount handed over to him in lieu of taxation in an amount of stock from the holder and at the same time issue a new stock to supply himself with cash to meet his Budget requirements for the year, I think it would be a very excellent arrangement indeed. I ask the Minister seriously to consider it, because the whole method of bringing out this stock is evidently with that purpose. The President has said that he does not see any likelihood of issuing stock at any rate at 4 per cent. Here are his words: "In my opinion it would not be fair to the persons who require to get a fair security for whatever sum is awarded, and 4 per cent. at present would not, in my opinion, get a market quotation beyond 80, if it did get that far. In that case a man getting a decree for £1,000 would in reality get securities negotiable only at £800." I take it for granted, and I think everyone in this room does, that when the President said that he meant it. There is no question but that on the first issues of these securities he will have to give a biggish rate of percentage. He says he is going to have a short-dated term as well. I should think that the present moment is a most difficult time for a Minister for Finance to work on the credit of the Free State. As time goes on there is no question, in my mind at any rate, that the ease of negotiating loans will increase, and on reading the methods proposed in the Bill for raising the money required there is no doubt at all, I think, that that is what the Minister for Finance has in his mind. He will deal with the occasion at present, and as time goes on he hopes to be able to deal with it on better terms. If he takes Senator Guinness's proposal, and if it is coupled with an arrangement by which these bonds can be re-issued again for cash to supply him with Budget requirements, he is going to be able to take advantage as the bonds come in of the increased credit which the Free State is gaining. Of course, there is this about it. If the bonds are issued at biggish interest and the credit of the State is so improved that these bonds are above par, he is not going to get them in. They will not trouble him then. They will be only sent to him if they are a bit below par, and he may be able at the time to replace them with other bonds. He will have his credit system established, and he may be able to issue bonds varied both as to terms of repayment and otherwise to provide him with cash on better terms than the original bonds. I think the Government would welcome a proposal which gave at least one opportunity of keeping these bonds at par value. They certainly would be most attractive to old gentlemen, or at least would probably be more attractive to their successors than to themselves. If on such lines as these the Government could show their belief that these bonds they are going to give are worth par I believe it would be a very good move on their part. I can see no objection to it under Senator Guinness's amendment except the one that when they come in they would upset the Budget. If they can see any method to issue stock which would supply them with the necessary cash I think they would have done an excellent day's business. I strongly support Senator Guinness's amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Guinness has moved an amendment to Senator Sir John Keane's amendment. The question I am putting from the Chair is that the amendment proposed by Senator Guinness be adopted.
The amendment which I intended to propose to Section 13, Sub-section 8, was: "To add at the end of the Sub-section the words ‘and such interest shall be paid as from the date of the injury.'" I will bring it up on the Report Stage. It covers exactly the same ground as the previous amendment.
I move to delete the whole of Section 14. In reference to this it is proposed to levy sixpence in the £ in the rates for a period of five years to provide for the building of bridges and roads, and on that there are some remarks I would like to make. Some members of the Seanad are also members of the local governing authorities—Corporations and County Councils —and as such they have a direct and immediate connection with the levying of rates in the district concerned. Now it appears to me, and I may say that my views are shared by the members of the two rate-levying authorities with which I am connected, that the levy proposed by this Bill is unfair in principle and unfair in incidence. It is unfair in principle because the bodies that are compelled to levy and collect the rate, have no voice in its disbursement, and it is unfair in its incidence because it burdens the ratepayers of counties where comparatively little damage has been done to the roads and bridges with exactly the same burdens as have to be borne by the ratepayers in counties where widespread havoc has been wrought. Much has been heard for the last few months about the lack of civic courage in some districts. On the other hand, civic courage has been shown in other parts of the country, the inhabitants of which safeguarded the roads and bridges and other public works at the peril of their lives and property. They did not expect any reward for that, because they were merely protecting their own property; but at the same time they did not expect to be penalised as this Bill proposes to penalise them.
This Section 14 proposes a certain small levy on the local authorities to be expended on the repair of roads and bridges damaged in the course of the recent struggle. The local authorities are being relieved of an enormous burden, and the ratepayers, as ratepayers, are being relieved of an enormous burden, and they have no cause to talk of an imposition or anything like that because a certain small amount is being taken. In particular districts there would be scarcely no damage to the roads, but there would to other structures. The State would pay a very large sum into that district and the ratepayers would be called on to pay nothing at all. In other districts the roads might have been very seriously damaged, but they were not damaged in many cases by inhabitants of the districts or by anybody whom the inhabitants of the district could prevent doing the damage. Now it is felt that this provision will enable us to spread the costs of repairing the roads and bridges over the country. We have no intention of accepting any liability on the part of the State for the cost of these repairs. They are matters that will have to be met out of the rates and road fund. It is neither proper nor desirable that some districts should escape altogether from this liability. In Dublin city and county practically no damage has been done to the roads or bridges; yet it might well be that people from Dublin city or county, or people whom they inspired, did the damage elsewhere, and it is only proper that in the case of Dublin it should to some extent contribute to the repair of roads and bridges damaged elsewhere. That is the intention of this particular clause. As far as I have heard there is practically no opposition to it. It was really a representative of a leading local authority that suggested this clause. I know that many local authorities have taken action with a view to raising this money in anticipation of this Bill being passed. There might in one or two localities be opposition, but it is not considerable, and there is no real case against it. It imposes no real injustice. It is looking at things without any sense of proportion to describe this as an imposition on the ratepayers in view of the heavy and crushing liabilities they would be subject to were it not for the proposals of this Bill.
I wish to ask the Minister whether in a case of this sort, before we received official information of this special levy, a rate had been struck (as in the County of Waterford Co. Council) and the books partly written up, the addition of this rate should not be made to the demand notes by means of an india-rubber stamp, or whether it would necessitate the re-writing of the demand notes That would mean we would have to cancel all the work done, and it is estimated it would cost us £200 or £300 to write fresh books. If there are to be fresh books it would mean a considerable amount of delay and we would not be able to make the rate at the next quarterly meeting. I understand that some simple means of putting this special rate on the books that have been already written up is contemplated by the Minister. If that is so I am in agreement with the general tenor of the levy, for although it may appear very harsh and will bear harshly on some counties, yet when we consider that much of the damage to roads and bridges has been done, not by the particular residents in particular localities, but by residents from elsewhere, may be three or four counties away from them, it will be seen that a uniform rate of this sort must be levied and be available for repairs throughout the Free State as a whole.
It will not be necessary to repeat the work that has been done, and there is some provision in the Bill by which everything that can be done in the way of facilitating the adding of this amount without the cost of extra work and expenditure in the County Councils will be done.
I move:—
"Section 14, Sub-sections (5) and (6).
"To delete these Sub-sections and to substitute therefor the following:—
"‘(5) The sum required by Sub-section (1) of this Section to be paid by the Council of a County or County Borough shall be placed to the separate credit of the said Council in a separate account in the accounts of the Exchequer, and, on the Minister for Local Government being satisfied, in respect of any of the five local financial years beginning as aforesaid, that there has been expended, in the County or County Borough forming the functional area of any such Council, on repairing any damage (including total destruction) appearing to have been of a malicious character, to any road, or to any bridge, viaduct, or subway, over or under or supporting any road, a sum equal at least to the sum required to be paid in each of the said local financial years by the Council of the said County under this Section, there shall be paid to the Council of any such County as last mentioned a sum equal to the amount so expended or to the amount standing to the separate credit of the said Council in such separate account as aforesaid (including in respect of any of the said local financial years after the first, any balance to such separate credit not paid out in any of the preceding said local financial years) (whichever of the two such amounts shall be the less).'"
Of course if my first amendment had been carried I should have been relieved of the necessity for moving this. This amendment simply attempts to give some little show of fair play to the Councils which have to raise this rate. I simply wish to provide that the amount that County Councils or Borough Councils raise and pay into the Exchequer will be kept in a separate account of their credit and if a Council expends a sum equal to or greater than that on the repairs of roads and bridges which have been maliciously damaged, that Council should have that sum refunded, or the amount should stand to its credit. The Minister has just told us that we are going to get more than we give. That is all this amendment tries to secure, that the Councils would get at least as much as they contribute to the Exchequer in 5 years—that they would get an equal return for it.
Of course this would defeat the whole object of the thing and could not be accepted. Unless Kilkenny had exceptionally little damage I do not think it would really benefit by this. There are a few Councils which have no chance of getting as much as they contribute, and Dublin is one of them. It will depend largely on the amount of damage done, but as the intention of the clause is to spread over the cost of repairing the damage, the proposal to keep each contribution in a separate fund would defeat the object of the clause altogether, and it would be better to delete it than to accept this amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I presume the amendment is not pressed.
If I thought there was any use I would do so.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I am not encouraging you.
I move:—
"Section 14, Sub-section (6). After the word ‘for' in line 7, and before the word ‘repairing,' to insert the following: ‘defraying the expenses of'; and in line 10, after ‘road' (at end of Sub-section), to add ‘including any damage which has been repaired, and the cost of repairing which has been defrayed at any time after the 31st of March, 1920, and before the passing of this Act, by the Council of the County, County Borough, or County District, in which such damage was effected.'"
This is an amendment on which I would certainly like to test the feeling of the Seanad. As most of the members will know, there has been a difference in the way in which various Borough and County Councils have acted in the recent troublesome years. Some Councils have, at great expense, kept the roads open for traffic, and to do that had to incur very heavy outlay in the way of repairing bridges and roads. On the other hand, a great number of Councils have done practically nothing. Some of them, I believe, have not spent a penny on repairing malicious damage to roads. What I want to secure by this amendment is that where Councils have gone to an expenditure in repairing bridges they should be recouped for it out of the Road Fund, even though they executed these repairs before the passing of this Act. I think that is only fair and just.
I see no objection to the principle of this. I am not sure, for instance, whether the phrase "any damage" may not be too wide, and whether it might not need to be looked over, but as to the principle I would not raise any objection.
We understand now clearly that Councils that kept the roads in good repair will not be penalised under this Clause. I speak now personally for the County Council of Waterford, where we have systematically expended, through all the bad times and all the bad years, a certain sum of money on the roads. We have not allowed our roads to go down at all, and they were subjected to, I think, possibly more wear and tear than the roads of any other county. But our County Surveyor impressed on the Council the necessity of keeping the roads constantly in repair, pointing out that by neglecting them utterly for a year we would have to spend double the amount in order to get them back, so that it was absolutely uneconomic to neglect any road utterly for twelve months, as many counties did. Now we have the advantage of having admittedly the best roads of any county in the Free State, and we paid for it. Do I understand that, because our roads will not require the same amount of money as other counties, we shall get no proportion of this Road Fund under this particular Clause?
I do not think it deals at all with anything relating to ordinary upkeep. It is a question of the damage that has been done in the course of the struggle, not damage arising out of ordinary wear and tear. I take it that the object of the amendment moved by Senator de Loughrey is that a Council which has endeavoured to repair bridges destroyed and damage done shall be able to look at the matter retrospectively. I think that is just, and I accept that principle.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think "damage" there should be defined "malicious damage." I suppose Senator de Loughry is satisfied with the assurance given by the Minister in charge of the Bill that he will accept the principle?
The Minister has accepted my idea.
May I put the amendment instead of Senator Eyre? He was not feeling well and had to go. He was asked to put this by the President. It is merely a correction—putting in the right date.
I move to delete the whole of Sub-section 7. This Sub-section takes away the right that I think ought to be left to public bodies. We have just listened to an experience that most of us have had, and that is that a lot of damage done is done by people not from the particular counties concerned, but people who come in from outside. They may not have any regard at all for the amount of damage they do, whereas in their own county they might remain within some limits. Senator Kenny has told you about the splendid roads they have in Waterford, but we had splendid roads too. We happen to be the next county to Waterford and all our bridges near Waterford have been practically destroyed.
A SENATOR
By Waterford men?
I do not suggest that. I do not know who did it, but certainly the bridges that are well inside the county boundary have escaped and it is only bridges near the border that have been interfered with, so that I think the rule that Councils always have of having damage to malicious injuries levied over a large area should remain.
The application would be against the State. It is not a question of dividing the money between the two counties. It has either to be done by the counties or by the State. There will be no ordinary case under the Malicious Injuries Acts during whatever the period is up to the 31st March, 1920. The fund to be created by the sixpenny rate is designed to level up the inequalities that might exist in consequence of the greater damage that might be done in one county than in another. That will simply make the burden between the several parties as equal as it can reasonably be made because a considerable sum will be raised over five years. Apart from that, our feeling is that the local authorities should bear the whole burden as they are being relieved of all else and we feel that it is not too much to leave to themselves these roads and bridges considering that if the damage done had not been so great as it is there would still be a heavy burden on the ratepayers which they would have to meet, but as it was so big we had to take it from the local authorities. They have got relief in this Act and we have decided to leave them the liability of the roads and bridges and level the burden as well as we can.
Supposing a malicious injury was done to a bridge in Kilkenny in the morning, would that be borne by the local authority under this Act?
That would be borne in the ordinary way as before the passing of this Act. After March the Malicious Injuries Act prior to the Acts of 1919 and 1920 will operate.
Senator Farren has asked me to move the following amendment to Sub-section 9 (d), Section 15:—“To delete in lines 29 to 30 the words ‘if consisting of the taking away of chattels.’ If the Minister considers it is not necessary I do not want to press it In Sub-section 9 (a) it will be seen that provision is made for compensation being granted for the destruction of Bank or Government notes or paper currency of any country or of the taking away of chattels without the consent of the owner. Also in (d) you find that in order that any compensation may be granted it is necessary that a wrongful act is committed by persons with certain associations. This proviso seems to apply only to the taking away of chattels. It seems to me under the Bill as it stands if a man having no connection with any such association goes in and destroys bank notes the property of someone else, that man can claim compensation. A man's child may destroy Bank notes either accidentally or otherwise, and according to this it would seem that he could apply for compensation.
The destruction by a child would not, of course, be a malicious injury. The purpose of putting this in is to prevent an ordinary burglary case from coming under this particular provision. Compensation is to be given for the destruction of notes in circumstances in which there can be no doubt at all that the notes were destroyed. If they were destroyed as the result of a wrongful act it does not matter who did it. If the house is burned and the notes are destroyed there is no need to prove that was not a case of ordinary burglary, as an ordinary burglar would take away the notes. This is a very restrictive provision in regard to Bank notes. It is a case in which a report is made by the Judge to the Minister for Finance. In Section 15, Sub-section 3 (b), it is stated that where the wrongful act consists of the destruction of Bank or Government notes or paper currency the numbers, denominations and all other particulars of such notes or currency, so far as were proved to the satisfaction of the Judge, and also the nature of the evidence accepted as proof of the destruction of such notes or currency shall be specified. It is not intended that any compensation should be paid if there is any doubt that the notes were destroyed, and if destroyed as the result of a wrongful act it is felt to be fair that compensation should be given without calling for proof as to who destroyed them. In the case of chattels, if we did not call for evidence we might be giving compensation to people who had chattels taken away by ordinary burglars.
If the Minister is satisfied that this is not necessary I will withdraw it, but it seems to me that all that is necessary to prove is that the notes were destroyed and that it is a wrongful act. If there is a row in a public house and somebody in a fit of anger took the notes from the till and burned them it would be a wrongful act, and if the numbers were produced it seems to me that the owner could claim compensation.
He would not get it in those circumstances.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
He would not fulfil those conditions which follow in the subsequent part of the Section.
I move the following amendment:—"To delete the whole of Sub-sections 5 and 6 and to insert the following new sub-sections:—
"(5) Any person who applied, or who, but for the passing of this Act, would have been entitled to apply under the Criminal Injuries Acts for compensation in respect of an injury to the person which occurred after the 11th day of July, 1921, shall be entitled to apply for compensation to a Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Central Compensation Tribunal.
(6) The Central Compensation Tribunal shall be constituted by Order made by the Minister of Finance, and any Order so made may specify the persons who shall be members of the Tribunal and their remuneration, tenure and other conditions of appointment, and may be revoked or varied as occasion may require.
(7) The Central Compensation Tribunal shall, subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance, determine its own procedure.
(8) The Central Compensation Tribunal shall have the like powers as to the hearing of applications for compensation for injuries to the person, and the making of decrees therefor, as are vested in a Judge of a County Court by the Criminal Injuries Acts, save that no decree of the Tribunal shall contain any declaration as to the person by whom compensation shall be payable.
(9) The compensation and the costs awarded by any decree of the Central Compensation Tribunal shall be paid by the Minister of Finance in money, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, to the applicant or other person entitled thereto under the decree."
The arguments in support of the principles of this amendment were so strong and so numerous on the Second Reading that it would look at all events as if no additional words of mine were necessary in order to commend it for adoption. I do not pretend that the amendment is perfectly worded. All I am concerned with is the adoption of this principle, leaving the proper wording to another stage. It will be observed that the amendment is drafted so as to avoid any embarrassment or inconvenience in regard to anything already done. It proposes to give to the Minister for Finance power to set up a central compensation tribunal charged with the task of dealing with all claims for compensation in respect of personal injuries. It gives him power to nominate the personnel of that tribunal and to fix the remuneration, tenure and conditions of employment. This is really in line with what the Minister for Finance told us a fortnight ago when he said that it had already been done or was about to be done. But there is this very important difference, that the tribunal proposed by the Minister has only power to make recommendations. The tribunal contemplated here would have power to issue decrees which would be legally operative. In other words, the amendment seeks to take the same legal recognition of the rights of persons compensated for injuries to the person just as permission was given for the right of compensation for property. The Bill says to the owners of property, "the State will protect your possessions to the utmost limit of its power; if it fails to extend protection to the whole or any part of your possessions, and you suffer material loss, the State will compensate you to the utmost limit of its financial ability." To the ordinary citizen it says, "you are expected to be a lawful, law-abiding subject of the State, and in return the State guarantees to protect you to the limit of its power, but if it fails to extend that protection, and if as a result you are permanently disabled or murdered, you or your dependents are not legally entitled to compensation, and you have the satisfaction of knowing that either you or your dependents will be compelled to contribute to the compensation of property owners whose possessions we are unable to protect." I suggest that is a very insecure and undesirable basis on which to lay the foundations of a new State. It means definitely placing property in its relation to the State in a higher category than human life. After listening to, and reading, speeches delivered against the principles enunciated in this amendment, one can only come to the conclusion that the underlying policy is one of sheer expediency. It is argued in effect that compensation for property damaged or destroyed will mean big orders to manufacturers and contractors. It may mean more employment for the time being, consequently awards of that kind will be popular. Numbers of people will be interested in the amount payable other than those to whom the compensation is actually paid. Numbers of people will be disappointed if no compensation is paid, and they might be strong enough and numerous enough to create trouble, but the same considerations do not apply in the case of compensation for personal injury. Paying compensation for personal injury does not necessarily mean that large orders will be given to anybody. Nobody outside the particular person is immediately interested in compensation paid or otherwise, but your crippled individuals or helpless widows have no political significance. Nobody except themselves will be inconvenienced if they do not get compensation. Consequently it is suggested that their case should be relegated to one of compassionate allowance which may or may not be given. They are told definitely that they have no legal right to that compensation. That may be a statesmanlike policy from the point of view of hardhearted business men, but it is a policy which takes no cognisance of the claims of humanity, and is at variance with all Christian conceptions of justice. Any policy which tends to destroy the confidence of the individual citizen, no matter how humble he may be, in the power and determination of the State to protect him against aggression, must be an injurious and short-sighted one, even though it may enable people to get over a temporary difficulty. Sir John Keane spoke eloquently to-day about treading the path of unswerving justice, and he was extremely eloquent about the desirability of maintaining the stability and confidence of the State in order to secure 5 per cent. interest on securities paid to people who have to get compensation for damage to property. I only wish he would extend that splendid eloquence to people who have been left penniless as a result of acts which deprive him and others of their material possessions. The President, in replying to the debates on the Second Reading, based his arguments on the ability of the State to pay. I hope we are all fully conscious of the great problems and difficulties of the financial aspect of the question. I respectfully suggest that every one of these arguments could be used with more telling effect against payment for compensation with regard to damage to property, so that really those arguments cut no ice. The Government has evidently made up its mind that the State is unable to pay for the whole damage done. It obviously has decided to cut out the least deserving of the claims. Therefore, it has to consider whether the case of a man permanently disabled through no fault of his own, or whose life has been taken away, and whose dependents are left helpless, is of far less significance than the destruction of houses, shops or factories. The idea of the central tribunal is, I think, one which would recommend itself to the Seanad. The idea is not mine, but that of the Government itself in connection with the tribunal mentioned by the Minister for Finance on the Second Reading Debate. A tribunal of this kind would tend to consistency in awards made. The experience gained in the earlier stages would help to expedite business in the later stages, and, on the whole, I think it would work out as a less expensive and cumbersome method of dealing with cases than the ordinary County Courts method. I ask the Seanad to remember that the country is about to shoulder a big national debt in order to pay compensation for damages done to people who have suffered through no fault of their own. That debt and the interest on it will have to be borne by the people for many years to come. Is it fair or equitable or just to ask people who have suffered through injuries to the person, or the dependents of people who are left penniless because of these injuries, and the dependents of people who have lost their lives, to contribute towards the payment of that debt and towards the payment of the interest on that debt, when we tell them through this Bill that they have no legal right to compensation, but that a certain Committee that is about to be set up may, or will, consider their applications and make recommendations which the Minister may or may not agree to? I ask the Seanad to bear that in mind and to say whether some of the eloquence which was so very ably and effectively used here to-day might not be used on behalf of people who have very few to speak for them, and who have comparatively very little influence here. I consequently move the amendment, and commend it to the very earnest consideration of the Seanad.
I beg to support the amendment. I wonder what is in the minds of the Government in pushing this matter so far? To me it seems a comparatively small sum of money compared with the amount of damages that they propose to pay for property. The numbers concerned, when we exclude certain parties, are comparatively small, and the amounts in some cases will be comparatively small. It is a mystery to me what the dread of the Government is in tackling this very simple question. Accidents have taken place and families have been deprived of breadwinners. I have a few cases in my mind where not one penny has been paid and where the cases have not been considered because there was no tribunal set up. I know of the case of a man who was run over by a military lorry and no compensation has been given. The wives and families of these people are dependent upon home help for whatever little support it can give. The bogey of money seems to be terrorising the Government in this matter. I do not think that when they are prepared to devote large sums for compensation in the case of men who draw means from other sources they should deny this compensation for human life which is a far more valuable asset to the Nation than some of the property destroyed.
I intend to support the amendment, not because I think the wording, as it stands here, will be definitely satisfactory, but because, if the principle underlying it were adopted by the Seanad, at the next Stage it would be possible to propose wording which would meet the whole case. I think the mover himself accepts that. I should like to appeal again to the Government carefully to consider their position with regard to the principle of compensation for personal injury and for loss of life. I think there was a tendency in the last debate to suggest that the Government were turning a deaf ear to the rights of persons who had stood by them and by the country and who had suffered losses, or who had left dependents. That is not the case. The Government have accepted, not the principle of this amendment, but the principle that they must stand by these people and that through the tribunal they must give some compensation. For reasons which I do not personally understand — and after reading and listening to speeches I have not yet been convinced — they seem unwilling to make that a legal right. I feel that the speeches made here by the Minister and other speeches have done good in so far as they have suggested confidence in the future of Saorstát Eireann. I have absolutely the same confidence. I believe that most of us here have the same confidence. Further than that, I believe that increasingly every day the people of the country are getting that confidence. But I do suggest—not because the Government are not willing to give compensation, but because they leave it as a thing to be asked for rather than a thing which is a legal right—that they are to some extent among certain persons shaking or, at least, preventing the full development of that confidence. The principle that if a man who has dependents is prepared to risk his life to see this thing through, to stand by the country, that then his dependents will have a legal right, if he is not able to provide for them otherwise, to get something in the way of compensation, is, I think, a vital thing to the maintenance of Saorstát Eireann. What we are asking the Government to do is not to spend more money than they are prepared to do under the present scheme, but to allow that, either by amendment of this Section of the Bill or by another Bill, to admit as a legal right.
I should like to say that I do not suggest, nor do I believe that it would be practicable or wise to say, that every loss of life involves a legal right to compensation for that loss of life. To do that would be to suggest that you could actually compensate for the loss of life itself by money. We know that is not possible. I do not suggest that if a child is killed the parent should claim — I quite frankly admit from my previous experience there are persons who would claim — and that there should be compensation because of that particular loss of life. You cannot compensate a parent for the loss of life of a child by money. What I do say is that where the loss of life leaves persons who were dependent in a state of want, then legally these persons should have a right to compensation, and this should be a definite, clear principle in any Bill which attempts to compensate at all for the losses sustained in the country. I cannot help feeling that if the Government would, either by a separate Bill or by reasoned amendments in the Bill here, set down clearly the principles on which that compensation for loss of life or for personal injury was to take place, it would make the position of the tribunal which they are setting up a more satisfactory one, and it would place those who came before it in a far more dignified position. It is not a charity, I admit. At the same time, it is almost like a charity in the position in which persons have got to go before the tribunal. Outside the members of the Government I have not yet met a person who is opposed to making this compensation for personal injury and loss of life a legal right. I know of differences of opinion on practically every single Section in this Bill, and I have met people with all sorts of opinions, yet I do not know one who does not believe that this principle should be defined. I suggest to the Government that they will be in less difficulty if they accept the principle, and limit it in a sane and reasonable way, than they are at present, with the tribunal set up by the Government but not sanctioned by an actual Act of Parliament. I would appeal to the Minister here not to make a hasty reply, but to consider the matter again. If the Seanad passes an amendment of this kind I frankly admit we will not be able to press it, because if the Government do not introduce a resolution in the Dáil following our demand, then when it comes back here we shall not be able to go further. I do suggest to the Seanad, however, that it is our duty to assert the principle on this Stage of the Bill, even though we cannot go further with it should it be rejected by the Dáil. Probably, therefore, we should pass the amendment without criticising the exact wording of it with a view to asserting a principle which, I believe, is really demanded in the country.
Might I suggest that we adjourn this important debate in order to give the Minister time to consider the amendment? We have a tired Seanad now and some of our most important members are away. If we adjourn we will have a fresh house and the Minister will have avoided giving perhaps a hasty reply.
I disagree with you. If you adjourn it means going into next week, and we have all made other arrangements. We thought we would finish to-night, and even if we are tired I think we will do our work all the better. In looking at this matter one thing is evident, from the discussions on the subject and from what has been said here, that it is the general opinion of the Seanad these personal injuries ought to be dealt with. I should think that there is a very general feeling of dissatisfaction that they have not been dealt with in the Bill. I can see that if we force an amendment of this sort on the Government they can hardly accept it. You know that they have taken safeguards to keep such claims out of the Bill. They drew the Bill to deal with malicious injury to property and took every safeguard to provide that they could not be run in for consequential damages and all sorts of things. The Government have a fairly accurate idea of the amount of money required to carry out that Bill. They took no such precautions when setting up a tribunal that is going to test the cases for injury to the person and if this amendment is put forward as part of this Bill, I do not see how they could accept it, as they would have to put in a whole lot of clauses safeguarding the method on which decisions are going to be given, just as they did in the Bill dealing with property. I think the way suggested by Senator Douglas to deal with the matter is right, to have a separate Bill on the subject. As to the idea that personal injuries should be dealt with as an act of grace, and a verdict given by parties who must submit it to the President, I have no doubt but the President means to do the right thing, and I have no doubt he considers justice is going to be done, but I can quite see individuals who have been injured and their relatives not holding the same opinion. As the property owner wants to go before a Judge so I can see the injured parties wanting to go before a Judge. I cannot see what good we are going to do by trying to push this into the Bill when the Government cannot possibly accept it. If the Government could see their way to deal with the whole question of personal injuries in the way they have dealt with compensation for loss of property, and take what they consider sufficient safeguards to protect the State, which is their business, and to see that the verdicts are ones they can afford to pay and that consequential damages are not allowed in an outrageous way, and drew up a short Bill on these lines, I believe it would be the right thing to do.
I would be in favour of supporting the Government in this Bill, up to this point. Here I find myself in disagreement with the Government's attitude, and a matter has come to my notice which has made me disagree still more with them. An official memorandum was issued by the British Colonial Office last Monday, and it was not reproduced in the Irish Press. It says the British and Irish Governments have agreed that the Irish Government shall pay in full all decrees obtained by British soldiers or their next-of-kin for personal injuries or death since the date of the Truce in 1921. We all know that many of these decrees were entirely excessive, but apparently they are to be paid without question. It seems to me, if that is correct, that the Government is giving away the principle, and when the Minister is replying, I think he would be well advised to explain that.
With reference to the statement made by Senator MacLysaght as to a notice that was published in the English Press, and which I think was reproduced in the Irish Press, it was an extract from a White Paper that was issued in England. I think if Senator MacLysaght will enquire he will find that the injuries for which compensation was to be paid and with which the White Paper dealt were cases of breaches of the Truce. It also stated that compensation for personal injuries will be paid by the British Government where Irish Nationals were injured by British Forces also in breach of the Truce. The word decree, I think, is not used in the close sense that we apply to County Court decrees. These cases were referred to one representative of the British Government and to one representative of the Irish Government to enquire into and award compensation.
The principle is given away.
In the cases mentioned there was a breach of a specific agreement.
I desire to support the amendment. I wish the Minister to know that in all parts of the country the feeling is unanimous that the clause in the Bill relating to the exclusion of personal injuries is one that has caused the people very great surprise. It is the general feeling of all the people with whom I discussed the matter that not only should the claims for personal injuries be placed on the same basis as those for material injury, but that if there was to be any difference the claims for personal injuries should come first. I feel that the Government are looking for assurances that the people would not object to dealing fairly and generously with claims for personal injuries. The object of the amendment is to establish the right of persons who have suffered personal injuries to compensation instead of their having to go to a compassionate Commission to beg favours from them. As one who has some claims of a material nature to place before the tribunals, I would be very slow not to recognise that the claims of those who have suffered personal injury should come before those for material injury. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this amendment, and that if he does not accept it in its present form he will undertake to bring forward a clause carrying out the wishes I might say of the entire people of Ireland in dealing with these personal injury claims.
I am in thorough sympathy with the object of the amendment, as I am sure every member of the Seanad is, and the arguments we have heard are in theory and sentiment unanswerable; but the Government are up against a problem where theory and sentiment have to be ruled out, and where they have to find hard cash to meet these claims. We know that it is not their voluntary choice to be exposed to hostile criticism or to be subjected to the taunt that they are putting property on a higher basis than human life. We know that it is not lack of sympathy on the part of the Government, because some members of the Government have lost near and dear relatives, and it is not likely that they would be disposed to be callous or indifferent to the claims of their fellow victims. When under these circumstances of what I might call a fellow-feeling, we find that the Government is persisting in refusing to admit the legal status of these claims we must assume that it is for a grave and serious reason. The Minister for Finance has his finger on the pulse of the country, and when he says he cannot admit these claims, much as we deplore it, I think we ought to respect his decision. In my opinion, the Seanad would be very unwise to go against this decision, which has been arrived at, I am sure, after careful and sympathetic consideration on the part of the Minister and his expert advisers, who know exactly the commitments of the country and its capacity to meet its huge obligations. Besides, there is another aspect of the case that should not be lost sight of, and that is that this claim for personal injuries has only recently been recognised in this country. It is recognised in no other country; and, if my information be correct, England has not paid one penny of compensation to the victims of the Zeppelin raids, so that, taking everything into consideration, by bringing forward this proposal and setting up a Committee to make ex gratia grants the Government have made an honourable and just attempt to meet a very difficult situation. If we admit the legality of the claims for personal injuries we let the country in for a liability that might well be immeasurable. There is not an Irregular who has been shot whose relatives could not claim compensation, and the result would be that more hardship would be inflicted by the imposing of extra taxation on the already over-taxed poor than relief would be given in the way of compensation.
It is very hard for me to take all these speeches seriously. I have heard a number of speeches against the proposals of the Ministry in regard to personal injuries, and it does not seem much thought was given to the matter. I do admit that several Senators who have spoken certainly have given some attention to it, so that the discussion here has not been so far divorced from reality as most of these discussions themselves. There is no intention on the part of the Government that those who suffer through loss of life or injury to person shall not be compensated. There never was any intention to refuse compensation to these people, but I may say from our side what has been said on the other side, that you cannot compare the loss of life to loss of property. Where there is loss of life there can be no reinstatement, and where there is injury to the person there is no reinstatement. When you are dealing with personal injuries or loss of life you are dealing solely with consequential damages; you are dealing solely with an estimate of the probable or possible loss; you are dealing with something where you cannot possibly calculate what is due. You may say a man has dependents and that if he had lived his dependents might be receiving so much from him, but if he had died, and he would have died, they would have this loss. On the other hand, property in the ordinary way would never disappear. There is no sort of parity between the two cases, and the people who are shouting so loud and so hard that life cannot be compared with property, and that life is infinitely more valuable than property, seem to be setting up or attempting to set up a value of life, and to say that the life of a person is valued to so much and that his representatives should have a legal claim for so much for that life. There seems to be no way of dealing with this matter except to relieve the distress of those who have been bereaved in the case of death, and to give some suitable allowance owing to the distress and the loss caused by the injury, as well as it can be estimated, where death has not occurred. That is properly a matter to be dealt with on the ex gratia basis. Up to recently the compensation cases did not cover the loss of life or injury to person. These provisions were introduced in the Penal Acts of 1919 and 1920. We do not intend to continue these Acts. We do not intend to set a value on life to let certain people, as mind you it would happen in the present temper and morale in the country, salve their conscience for killing with the belief that money was going to be paid to the dependents. We do not intend, as soon as we return to normal conditions, that there shall be compensation for personal injury or loss of life. We believe we would be disturbing a proper point of view in regard to moral value if we accepted that argument, and lead people to believe that killing was no more heinous than the destruction of property, if we had claims for one just the same as the other. I think that is the correct thing. It is an attitude certainly we have adopted after consideration Dealing with the interm period, the period we are in at the moment, the intention of the Government is that people who have suffered and who have not incurred the injury through any fault of their own, and who could have claims under the old Compensation Act, shall come before this tribunal, an impartial and properly-constituted tribunal, presided over by a Judge and assisted by a doctor and another member of considerable experience. The cases shall be heard there, not that compensation shall be awarded, because no compensation could be awarded, and that is the very essence of dealing with loss of life but that some suitable ex gratia payments shall be made; not to restore what is lost or to compensate people, but that they may not suffer severe pecuniary distress in addition to the distress they suffered through loss of their near and loved relatives. That is the essence of the whole situation, and it is undoubtedly the proper way that the State should deal with it. That is, that we are not having some rigid scale drawn up, and it would have to be a very rigid and parsimonious scale, to deal with them, and the more generous and humane manner to deal with these things is on an ex gratia basis. That is our intention in the matter. I was very glad to see that Senator Douglas saw that the question of money did not come into the matter, and that the people are not likely to be paid any less, taking it on the whole, under the system that the Government proposes than if there were legal claims set up. It may be, then, that in many cases they would be paid more than they would be paid if we had all these rigid rules provided. It is not a question of that; it is a question of the best means of doing it. So far as I know, all Governments deal with these cases on an ex gratia basis. In 1916 the British Government dealt with property injuries on an ex gratia basis, and I did not hear any great complaint. Now, there is no ground behind this thing. Somebody either misunderstood the thing or thought they saw an opportunity of getting up a little popular agitation and setting the dust blowing round. The dust has blown into a lot of people's eyes. I cannot hold out any hope that if this amendment were passed by the Seanad it would not come back here, and I think no purpose can be served. No principle would be vindicated. I cannot see that there is any principle to be vindicated by putting the loss of life on the same plane as the loss of property. I do not think that is a principle that could be vindicated. As far as dealing with material things is concerned, nothing would be achieved by passing this, and I am at a loss to conceive why there are so many people to take up the attitude that has been taken up. If an election was pending and people wanted to have a platform cry I could understand it, but no election is pending, and I do not really know what is at the bottom of it unless it is to assert the high principle that life is to be valued in the same way as property, and that it has to be compensated in the same way.
I should like to make a suggestion and it is this, that in all probability, if the Seanad is in favour of the principle, the wisest course would be to withdraw the amendment and to attach, by way of a resolution, to the motion which finally passes the Bill and returns it to the Dáil, giving the opinion of the Seanad that it would be the wisest course in the public interest that compensation for injury and loss of life should be made legal by an Act. That was the course which I personally intended to take before this amendment was put down. I am rather inclined to think that we would only find, if we were to pass this amendment as it stands, that we had passed something which was difficult technically to support and by that means we would defeat the principle which I think we wanted to assert. I think that in many respects the speech of the Minister is satisfactory, because if it is to be published broadcast it will help to add confidence. I am glad to recognise that it had nothing to do with electioneering, in any case, and I, in return, will recognise that if the Ministers were looking for an electioneering point they would meet our claim, so that if there is any return of compliments I am prepared to make that. I suggest at the same time that a good deal of the arguments used by the Minister were designed rather to affirm the point which you are desirous of making, and that is that while there may be no general comparison or no attempt to put on the same plane compensation for loss of life with loss of property, at the same time there is a certain amount of loss of life which is practically analogous to loss of property in so far as it leaves dependents penniless who would be in the same position because of the loss of the breadwinner. That is a thing we feel should be made legal. The main point in this matter, at least from my personal point of view, is not only the assertion of a principle which I think is a right one, but I really believe that, owing to misunderstanding, there is a certain want of confidence in this matter in the country and that some Act such as we suggest would add greatly to the confidence. I may say that the Minister's speech, if reported in the Press, as I hope it will be, will help to take away some of the want of confidence.
I intend to give the Seanad an opportunity of voting upon this amendment, as I consider the principle of it is an extremely important one and it is time that the sincerity or otherwise of this Seanad, at all events, should be tested. It is a very important fact that only one Senator spoke against it. Senator McLoughlin used his oft-repeated and time-worn argument that because some member of the Government objected to something the Seanad must bend the knee and act accordingly. I suggest that that is not a serious argument to put up to this Seanad. The Minister for Local Government, I suppose unwittingly, misrepresented altogether the views that some of us have put forward. We never did claim that money is compensation for loss of life. We did claim that some compensation should be given to those left penniless as the result of injuries or loss of life. He says it is impossible to assess satisfactorily the consequential loss resulting from such injury or loss of life. I suggest to him that that difficulty will present itself to the Committee which he talks about just as it will to the tribunal contemplated in this amendment, so that a Judge or a tribunal based on the lines indicated in the amendment will be as capable of assessing in a legal sense as this Committee will be in giving an ex gratia grant. Surely the Government is very hard set for an argument when they suggest that accepting this amendment will encourage murder? Could they not protect themselves in the same way as they have protected themselves in regard to compensation for material damage by providing that no compensation will be paid for any injury sustained after the 20th March? It is not the people who are putting this amendment forward who are raising the cloud of dust but the people who are opposing it. Senator McLoughlin comes up again with the old talk about money, but, as I have previously pointed out, this same argument applies in cases of material damage. I maintain that there is a principle involved here which may not appeal to the Minister, but it does not follow that it is not an important principle all the same, and I will give the Seanad an opportunity of voting upon the amendment. I do not care if only I myself vote for it, but while it might require amendment or alteration on the Report Stage, its principle everybody understands, and no technical quibbles or other verbiage will at least get over the principle underlying it. It can easily be adjusted as far as the wording is concerned at a later stage.
|
Tá.James Green Douglas.William Barrington.Richard A. Butler.William Cummins.Michael Duffy.Mrs. Alice Stopford Green.Henry Seymour Guinness. |
Tá.Patrick W. Kenny.Thomas Linehan.Edward MacLysaght.Thomas MacPartlin.Michael O'Dea.John Thomas O'FarrellWilliam Butler Yeats. |
|
Níl.Mrs. Eileen Costello.Peter de Loughrey.J.C. Dowdall.Sir Nugent Talbot Everard, Bart.James Perry Goodbody.Benjamin Haughton.Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson.Sir John Keane, Bart. |
Níl.Earl of Kerry.Joseph Clayton Love.Edward MacEvoy.John MacLoughlin.Col. Maurice Moore.James Moran.Mrs. Jane Wyse Power.Earl of Wicklow. |
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I desire to say at this stage that it would be important to have the Report Stage of this Bill dealt with next week. There is also a Summer Time Bill upon which I understand a number of Senators wish to speak and wish for a full opportunity of discussion. I propose, therefore, that we adjourn until Wednesday next, and the business on that day will be the Report Stage of this Compensation Bill and the Second Reading and Committee Stage of the Summer Time Bill on the assumption that the Seanad wish the Bill to go through all its stages.
SECTION 18.
(1) If the Governor-General of the Irish Free State is satisfied, on the advice of the Executive Council, that the Judge of any County Court is unable, owing to the number of applications under the Criminal Injuries Acts or this Act which are pending in his court, to transact the business of the court with proper dispatch, the Governor-General of the Irish Free State may, on the advice aforesaid, appoint the Judge of the County Court of any other county or county borough or a practising barrister of not less than ten years' standing to act as additional judge of the first mentioned County Court for such time as the Governor-General of the Irish Free State may, on the advice aforesaid, direct, and subject to such conditions as he may, on the advice aforesaid, impose.
(2) Every additional Judge appointed under this section shall receive out of the moneys provided by the Oireachtas such remuneration as the Minister for Finance may appoint, and shall have all the powers, jurisdiction, and privileges and may perform any of the duties of the Judge of the County Court to which he is appointed as additional judge, whether under the Criminal Injuries Acts or this Act or otherwise.
I move the following amendment to Sub-section 1:—
(a) To delete in line 35 the words “Governor-General,” and to substitute therefor the words “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”
(b) To delete in line 36 the words “on the advice of the Executive Council.”
(c) To delete in line 41 the word “aforesaid,” and to substitute therefor the words “of the Executive Council.”
This deals with the temporary appointment in the Judiciary, and it appears to be a completely administrative job. There seems to be no particular need why the name of the Governor-General should appear in line 1, and again in lines 2 and 3. The Minister agreed in the other House on another measure to bring this matter in in a different form, and the form I am suggesting now will bring it into conformity with that decision. I recognise clearly that the Governor-General has the power of appointing under the Constitution, but I would like to cut that away, because in this particular case there seems to be no need for the Governor-General to make the appointment. It should lie with the supreme man in the Judiciary to make this appointment.
I think if there was one thing made clear in the debates here, it was that the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Executive Council, meant the action of the Government itself, which in turn meant the action of the elected representatives of the people. As I understand this amendment, its effect is not to trust to the Government of the people to decide a trivial point, whether the business of a County Court is congested or not. This preference for the blunt Justice Supreme Court reveals a rather peculiar fastidiousness on the part of a democratic representative of labour. I may congratulate the Senator on his move to the extreme right.
I think the Minister can accept this, seeing that he accepted a similar amendment in regard to the Electoral Bill. I think that a promise was given at a previous stage that an amendment of this character would be brought in. As regards the remarks of my friend on the right, I think they are beside the mark, because I do not know whether he looks on the Governor-General as a tower of democracy or not.
Amendment put and negatived.
SECTION 22.
(1) The Acts specified in the First Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed.
(2) The repeal of Section 3 of the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1920, effected by this section shall be retrospective to the extent that every order of cortiorari and every order for attachment made under that section before the passing of this Act shall be, and be deemed always to have been void and of no effect, and any money paid under or in pursuance of any such order shall be repaid by the person who obtained such order to the Council to which such money would have been payable but for such order, so soon as the compensation awarded by the decree on which such order was founded or any grant in lieu of such compensation is payable to such person by the Minister of Finance.
(3) The repeal of Section 4 of the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1920, effected by this section, shall be retrospective to the extent that so much as is at the passing of this Act unpaid of the amount recovered (excluding therefrom any sums recovered for costs or expenses) under any decree made against a County Council after the 23rd day of December, 1920, and before the passing of this Act, shall not carry any interest, but such repeal shall be without prejudice to and shall not give any right of repayment in respect of any interest actually paid under the said section before the passing of this Act.
I desire to move the following amendment to Sub-section 2:—
(a) To delete the word “payable” in line 39, and to substitute therefor the word “paid.”
(b) To insert at the end of the Sub-section the words, “Provided that, if the compensation or grant in lieu thereof is paid to such person by the Minister for Finance wholly or partly in securities, it shall be lawful for such person to transfer to such Council in lieu of such money a proportionate part of such securities, at their nominal value.
When I put down this amendment the Bill stood in a very different form and the only point at issue now is that people should not be asked to repay this money in cash which they had already disbursed when they are already being paid in security. I have a case in mind of some of the Railway Companies whose trains were destroyed and the question of consequential damage to traders arose. They garnisheed the rates payable and applied them to pay the traders. Under the Bill they are asked to pay this a second time in cash instead of in securities. I am not going to enter into the discussion that arose earlier as to whether securities will stand at a depreciated value or whether they will stand at par or above par, but I think in all fairness that the Government should raise no objection to accepting this amendment as it is a very simple matter.
If the question be that a person who has had money, and will get securities only, and who is called upon to pay money and take securities, I think we would be able to meet them with regard to that. I do not like altering the section. We had a big discussion in the Dáil about this particular section. As I think I explained here on the first day when introducing this Bill, these two Acts of 1919-20 were exceedingly unpopular. They aroused perhaps more opposition from the civil side than anything else, in the course of the whole struggle of the last 6 or 7 years. Certain people took advantage of the circumstances of the time, and got garnishee rates and so on. Others did not. Others have been in the very difficult and much more onerous position of having had no possession whatever. Any person with a certiorari or garnishee at least enjoyed temporary possession of the money for a length of time whereas others have still to get their cases heard. Though from the point of view of equity they are not suffering any disadvantage which was not a disadvantage that every person who did not press his claim had to bear as well, I do not think any alteration of that Section would appeal to a much larger number who have got no compensation at all for the last 4 or 5 years, and might give rise to very serious criticism. Some houses have been burned for two or three years. Some of those people have not got compensation yet. At all events the Railway Companies have been paying their dividends but I know they have suffered severely, and what the war for the last 9 or 10 months has been to them. When one examines closely into the matter one finds that it is the man who has been without his house who has had to bear the brunt of the day. We are asked to restore to those people privileges which were not real, which were not admitted. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the time, if every person took action and got a writ of certiorari and garnishee we would not be in a position to treat any sick person in any county. We would not be in a position in some towns to supply water, and the very necessaries of life would have been kept from the poor of the community. It is on that ground that I would appeal to the Senators not to press the amendment. Anyone who has to deal with the Government knows that they do not stand on ceremony. The change is certainly one that would be regarded as hostile, and I am sure the Senator had not that intention in his mind.
There was no such intention in my mind at all of preventing the Government dealing with the questions in a generous manner, and after what the President has said, I withdraw my amendment.
I beg to move in Section 22, after Sub-section (3), to insert a new Sub-section as follows:—
(4) "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."
Certain Acts have been repealed, amongst them the Acts to which the President has referred, those of 1919 and 1920. Under these Acts certain individuals were entitled to go before the Commission. If these Acts are now repealed these individuals will be precluded from appearing before the Commission of Inquiry. My Sub-section is a precautionary measure to allow those who, under the old Acts, would have been allowed to go before the Commission of Inquiry to do so under the new Act. There is a proviso of very much the same character, already, inserted in Section 17, Sub-section (6).
I think we may accept that.
I would like to raise a point as to whether, under this Act, appeals will lie from the Judge of first instance to a higher Court. If the Government say they will, I need not say anything further, but if not I would like to give reasons to show why they should.
Appeals lie except in the case of looting, where there is only a recommendation and not a decree.
I move "That the Seanad do adjourn until 3 o'clock on Wednesday next."