Senators, I am sure, are already aware from the reports of the proceedings in the Dáil of the reasons underlying the various matters provided for in this Bill which, as I explained to the Dáil, is more or less modelled on the provisions of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Acts, 1923 to 1933. It is, therefore, scarcely necessary for me to describe its features in detail. I will, however, touch upon the more important ones.
The Bill in general makes provision for implementing the Government's undertaking that irrespective of whether or not efforts to get compensation from the foreign Government responsible were successful, compensation would be granted for damage caused by the dropping of bombs by foreign aircraft and kindred incidents, except that it does not cover compensation for death and personal injuries. Such compensation will be dealt with in a scheme to be made pursuant to an Order made under the Emergency Powers Act, 1939. The scheme is being prepared and should be ready soon.
The 1923 and 1933 Acts required all applications for compensation to be made to the court. The present Bill embodies a modification of this procedure. Under it every application must be submitted, in the first instance, to the Minister for Finance, who is empowered to consider it and make an offer of compensation to the applicant or inform him that he does not intend making any offer, whereupon the applicant may present his case for compensation to the Circuit Court. The idea of this is that many claims, particularly straightforward ones and those of small amount, could, we feel, be disposed of departmentally with greater speed and economy than if they had to wait for adjudication by the court.
The Bill provides for compensation for all direct damage to or loss of property except—on the analogy of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923—such personal effects as watches and jewellery not forming part of the owner's stock-in-trade, coins, currency, stamps, postal orders and so forth and, in the case of local authorities, damage to streets, roads, bridges, water-pipes, sewers and kindred items maintained by them; the idea as regards the latter is that local authorities themselves should be able, with their own labour and materials, to make good any such damage without being much out of pocket.
Consequential loss was completely excluded under the Bill as introduced but, in response to representations made in the Dáil, I agreed to modify the original provisions in this regard so as to permit some compensation to be paid in respect of a limited category of such losses, namely, out-of-pocket expenditure incurred on the provision of alternative housing accommodation or on the removal or storage of furniture or household effects or other movable articles, such as shop goods. The amount of such compensation that may be granted in an individual case is limited to £50, as will be seen from Section 10 (2). I had £30 in mind at first, but was induced to go to the higher figure.
Compensation for injuries to buildings will be conditional on reinstatement; the object of this is to prevent owners of damaged buildings from leaving them derelict, forming eyesores in the street or landscape. The basis of the compensation will be the cost of complying with the reinstatement condition less the amount, if any, by which the value of the building as reinstated would, because of reinstatement, exceed its value immediately before the damage took place. Power is taken in the Bill to compromise with claimants who have been awarded compensation by the court and find it impracticable to comply with the reinstatement condition.
To meet the wishes of the Dublin city manager and town clerk, it was agreed, when the Bill was in the Dáil, to incorporate in it provisions enabling a town-planning authority to acquire damaged property. These provisions will be found in Section 20 and the Schedule. They provide local authorities with a ready and expeditious method of acquiring damaged property for town planning, etc., purposes. The local authority in such cases will deal directly with the owners of the property in the matter of compensation and no compensation will be payable by the Minister to the owners under the Bill; the Government will recoup to the local authority the difference between the value of the property before and after the injury, in other words, the amount of the damage to the building. In the event of dispute, the amount will fall to be determined in the ordinary way under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
The Bill provides for a contribution by local authorities on a national basis of 25 per cent. of the total compensation paid in each financial year, subject to a maximum contribution equivalent to the proceeds of a rate of 6d. in the £. This more or less follows a corresponding provision in the Act of 1923 and is, I think, preferable to the alternative of a contribution only from the particular local authority in whose functional area damage to property occurs.
In anticipation of certain provisions in the Bill, local authorities were given authority to carry out repairs to damaged dwelling-houses sufficient to make them habitable, to provide temporary accommodation for people left homeless, and to make cash advances for the purchase of furniture and clothing; the Bill enables the local authorities to be recouped out of voted moneys the expenditure incurred. Money expended by a local authority on repairs, etc., is not to be taken into account by the court in assessing compensation, but there is authority to deduct the amount of such expenditure from the compensation when it is being paid.
Any compensation recovered from an external Government will be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer, but should the amount in any case prove greater than what was awarded under the Act, the excess may be distributed among the parties concerned. This matter is covered by Section 15 of the Bill. Senators will appreciate that I can give no indication at this stage as to what extent we shall succeed in recovering compensation from abroad.
In conclusion, it is not yet possible, as I informed the Dáil, to give any reliable estimate of what the total cost of the measure will be to the Exchequer, but from such particulars as are already available, it is clear that it will be considerable, and will increase substantially the already heavy burden of expenditure which the country has to bear. Considering the financial difficulties we are faced with at the moment, I am sure Senators will agree that the measure of compensation provided for in the Bill is fair and reasonable and merits their approval.
