Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 1923

Vol. 2 No. 42

DAIL IN COMMITTEE - CRIMINAL AND MALICIOUS INJURIES (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1923.—RE-COMMITTED.

Yesterday in connection with this Bill we passed the Money Resolution, and now we come to the first section of the Bill, Part 1. I have an amendment, in my own name, in connection with this section.

Instead of taking the Report now we had better recommit this Bill as provided by the Standing Orders in connection with amendments of substance.

Agreed.

SECTION 1.

I beg, therefore, to move, to amend the Marginal Note by inserting the word "Legal" after the word "no" and before the word "proceedings." This is only an amendment to the Marginal Note; and the object is to make the Marginal Note describe the section correctly. The section only prohibits the taking of legal proceedings before a Commission of Inquiry; therefore the Marginal Note should be limited to legal proceedings.

Agreed.

Question put: "That Section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 2.

I move in Section 2, immediately after Sub-section (4), a new Sub-section, as follows:—

"Whenever a decree has been made for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Acts, in respect of an injury to which this part of this Act applies, and

"(a) the compensation awarded by such decree was assigned, mortgaged or charged before the 1st day of January, 1923; and

"(b) Notice of such assignment, mortgage, or charge was duly given before the 6th day of February, 1923 to the County or County Borough Council liable under such decree to pay the compensation thereby awarded; and

"(c) an application is made under this section to have the application for such decree re-opened and re-heard; and

"(d) compensation is awarded on such re-hearing, then and in every such case, every such assignment, mortgage, or charge shall, subject and without prejudice to any re-instatement, condition attached to the compensation awarded on such re-hearing, affect such last mentioned compensation in the same manner and as fully as such assignment, mortgage, or charge affected on the 6th day of February, 1923, the compensation awarded by such decree: Provided always that whenever in any such case a reinstatement condition is attached to the compensation, or to any part of the compensation awarded on such re-hearing the Judge, if he considers it just and equitable so to do, may on such re-hearing extend or transfer any such assignment, mortgage, or charge to the building to be erected pursuant to such re-instatement, mortgage, or charge shall affect such building either in conjunction with or in exoneration of the compensation awarded by such decree, and in such manner and to such extent as the Judge shall direct, and any such extension or transfer of an assignment may take the form of giving to the assignee a charge on the building aforesaid for the amount of the consideration actually paid on such assignment.”

There were some amendments on the last day dealing with this in connection with mortgages which we propose to meet by the insertion of this amendment. It is meant to give effect to an amendment proposed to Deputy Fitzgibbon in Committee. The effect of the amendment is that when a decree, already made, is re-opened and heard any dealing which affected the compensation awarded by the old decree will be transferred to the new decree; there are limitations as to the date of the dealing so as to ensure that only bona fide dealings will be preserved. There is also a provision in enabling the Judge, when he attaches a re-instatement condition, to transfer the dealing to the building to be erected instead of to the compensation.

May I ask whether the Minister has any knowledge as to whether these proposed amendments in their present form meet the points made by Deputy Fitzgibbon? Because if we pass from this stage we cannot get back upon it again.

I may be able to give some information as to that I had the intention of asking Deputy Fitzgibbon to take the Chair, but seeing that a matter of this kind was on the Paper I asked him if he could do so, and he told me he would be quite willing to take the Chair, because the amendments on the paper met his points.

May I ask the President whether the 6th February would be the right date in view of the change to the 20th March?

Yes, it would, because Deputy Fitzgibbon, on the last day, mentioned that he would be agreeable to the 1st day of January being inserted in this amendment. You will observe it is in (a). In (b) you will see that the notice of such assignment, mortage or charge must have been given, according to this, before the 6th February. In other words, a person registered after that date and having in mind the general trend of the Bill as far as this particular section is concerned, might have taken advantage of the terms to stake a claim. That was my real objection on the last day, and on it I have met Deputy Fitzgibbon. Generally, with regard to this section, I do not think the amendment affects it—I mean the purpose that we had in mind. He certainly, at no time. asked for any extension of the date, and I think the 6th February will meet his point. This amendment is to give effect to an amendment proposed by Deputy Fitzgibbon in Committee. The effect of the amendment is, that when a decree already made, is re-opened and re-heard any dealing which affected compensation awarded by the old decree will be transferred to the new decree; there are limitations as to the date or the dealing. so as to insure that only bona fide dealings will be preserved; there is also a provision enabling the Judge, when he attaches a re-instatement condition, to transfer the dealing to the building to be erected, instead of to the compensation. In other words, should it occur that a person has received a decree, and has mortgaged or got an assignment on that decree and received money, we are not voiding the re-instatement decree by this sub-section, but we are enabling the Judge to attach to the building to be put up, by reason of the decree that he gives, any such mortgage or assignment that the person who, in the first place, advanced the sum of money on the mortgage or assignment had got as security. The State does not lose by reason of the fact that we admit the assignment or the mortgage. We are not giving it on the money, but rather to the building. In a sense, it is not so satisfactory to the person who has advanced the money, but we cannot consider these persons to the exclusion of the re-instatement decree, and I think it will generally be admitted that what we propose is an equitable way of dealing with the matter.

I admit the force of the amendment, but until this has appeared a person who has a mortgage might not be aware of the fact that he would not get any advantage if he had not been notified before the 6th February. Apparently he would be entirely excluded. It would appear to me that he should have an opportunity of giving notice of the mortgage, at any rate, up to the date that this provision became public knowledge.

We take it that in that case it will be the duty of the person who advances the money, in respect of which he gets the mortgage, to look after his interests, and that it ought to have been his duty to notify the Local Authority before the 6th February.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move the following Amendment:—"To insert immediately after the new Sub-section (4), a new Sub-section, as follows:—

"Whenever a decree has been made for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Acts in respect of an injury to which this part of this Act applies, and

"(a) such decree was made by a Judge of the High Court, and

"(b) The Council of the County or County Borough in whose functional area the injury occurred appeared by Counsel or Solicitor at the hearing before such Judge of the High Court and bona fide opposed the awarding of any compensation or the awarding of the amount of compensation claimed, and

"(c) the compensation awarded by such decree was assigned, mortgaged, or charged before the 1st day of January, 1923, in consideration of or to secure a sum not more than the amount of such compensation, and

"(d) Notice of such assignment, mortgage, or charge was duly given before the 6th day of February, 1923, to the County or County Borough Council liable under such decree to pay the compensation thereby awarded, and

"(e) an application is made under this Section to have the application for such decree re-opened and re-heard;

"then and in every such case the amount of compensation awarded on such re-hearing shall not be less than the consideration actually paid on such assignment or the amount actually paid on such mortgage or charge (as the case may be), but nothing in this Sub-Section shall prevent a re-instatement condition being attached to the whole or any part of the compensation awarded on such re-hearing, nor shall the provisions of this Sub-section be taken into consideration by the Judge when deciding whether a re-instatement condition is or is not to be attached to the compensation to be awarded on such re-hearing: Provided always that whenever in any such case a re-instatement condition is attached to the compensation or to any part of the compensation awarded on such re-hearing, the Judge, if he considers it just and equitable so to do, may on such re-hearing extend or transfer any such assignment, mortgage, or charge to the building to be erected, pursuant to such re-instatement condition so that such assignment, mortgage, or charge shall affect such building, either in conjunction with or in exoneration of the compensation awarded by such decree, and in such manner and to such extent as the Judge shall direct, and any such extension or transfer of an assignment may take the form of giving to the assignee a charge on the building aforesaid for the amount of the consideration actually paid on such assignment."

This amendment is also to give effect to an amendment proposed by Deputy Fitzgibbon in Committee. The effect of it is, that when a decree, which was bona fide fought and opposed, is re-opened under this Bill, and the compensation awarded by such decree was bona fide mortgaged, then the amount of compensation awarded on the re-hearing, is not to be less than the amount for which the old decree was mortgaged. I think, having re-considered that matter very carefully, there is a good case for inserting this particular amendment. It will be remembered that, after the signing of the Treaty, the British Government, in consultation with the members of the Provisional Government, made good whatever moneys had been withheld from Local Authorities during the period of the struggle; and, in consequence, the old Acts, that is, the Malicious Damage Acts commenced to run, and should have run in the ordinary normal course. In that ordinary normal course, when such cases came before the Courts, and were bona fide fought and opposed, the person getting a decree in that case was entitled to look upon it as something which could be mortgaged, and the person advancing the money on foot of that decree did it bona fide. In that way, they are entitled to get consideration for that mortgage. The purpose of the amendment is, to secure that a person's own mortgage, which is not always up to the value of the particular article that has been mortgaged, will not suffer any loss, and that he will not be awarded a sum less than the mortgage which was given on that particular decree.

What does the President exactly mean when he says "bona fide” defended cases. I know cases where a Union, like a Farmers' Union, defended malicious injury claims, and decree were got and the persons who got the decrees were paid by the Insurance Company. These cases were not defended by the County Council, and I want to know would a case like that be re-opened or would that be considered a bona fide defence?

I do not think so. I think it would be necessary for the local authority to defend in that case, but I would like to consider the point. A lot would depend upon the amount awarded—perhaps more than the nature of the defence. If you managed to keep the sum which was awarded within reasonable limits—in other words, if a local authority defending would not have been successful in getting a smaller decree— then I would call it bona fide. I think it is more a question for officials and lawyers than for me to answer. What is meant by the term really is the local authority—that is, the County Council or the County Borough Council—appearing by a solicitor or counsel and opposing the claims in the ordinary, normal course and in the same way that they would have opposed them four or five years ago. That is what is in my mind as a bona fide defence.

May I quote a case in point on this particular question. The County Council would not defend those cases and we financed lawyers to defend them, and brought witnesses there and got defences made in our own interest. Where decrees were levied the particular people who suffered the malicious injuries were paid by the Insurance Companies the amount of the decrees which they got against the County Council. Now, the Insurance Companies will naturally wonder whether they are to lose portion of their decrees. Of course, they were properly defended. Witnesses were brought there and everything was done that could have been done by the County Council.

Does not the new sub-section make the matter clear? It sets out that the Council or the County or the County Borough must have appeared by counsel or solicitor at the hearing.

This applies only to cases which have occured since the Truce. It does not refer to pre-Truce cases. Pre-Truce cases are dealt with in Part 1 of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Question put: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.

Before you proceed to Section 8 might I draw the President's attention to a promise to consider the suggestion made by Deputy Gavan Duffy in respect of Section 5, that local authorities might appear by solicitor or otherwise with a view to minimising legal expenses. I would like to know whether he has considered that suggestion, and will he give us the reasons why an amendment has not been tabled.

I went into that question since, but I am not satisfied that any great advantage would be derived by the State by allowing the local authorities to come in and defend. It amounts to this, in essence, that we could discover no particular machinery which would be of advantage to the State in getting the assistance of local authorities to defend, on behalf of the State, claims for compensation for damage done. Take the case of, say, the Dublin Corporation. When the Dublin Corporation is not itself going to save any money by reason of any defence they would put up against a claim for compensation, obviously they are not concerned. They would be concerned if you could associate them in some way or other with the liability. Having carefully considered the question of liability, we rather generously—perhaps extravagantly—excluded local authorities from any participation in the liability, except in so far as the sixpence in the pound is concerned. The question then arose as to how a local authority coming in would act in the case of a claim. Obviously it would be to the interest of the local authority to secure even greater sums in compensation, so that they would enable persons so compensated to put up bigger and better houses, and so that those houses on revaluation would increase the valuation, and, consequently, the wealth of the particular area, and bring in naturally a larger revenue to that area in the striking of the rates. So we did not see how it would be possible to associate them with us in this matter. A considerable amount of expense might be entailed, in addition to the expense we would incur ourselves, and while some of the local authorities were willing to come in, they nearly always stipulated that we should pay their expenses. We did not consider we would get an advantage equivalent to the amount it would cost us.

In regard to Section 6——

We have not re-committed this Bill in its entirety. We have only re-committed the Sections proposed to be amended. If an amendment had been tabled to any of these Sections we could consider them now in Committee, but the proper time to debate any general points on the Bill will be when the Report Stage is being taken, not now. We are in Committee now only in respect of specific sections.

Has not the practice been to go through the Sections one after the other?

No; that is the practice when the Dáil is in Committee on the first occasion, but when certain amendments to certain sections are re-committed, the practice is to take only those amendments and anything consequential on them which might appear in the sections.

SECTION 8.

I move an amendment which deals with Section 8. It is as follows:—

To delete Sub-Section (2) and insert in lieu thereof, a new Sub-Section, as follows:—

"The Minister for Finance may enter into agreements with any Railway Company or Companies for the payment out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas, to such Company or Companies of compensation in respect of any injuiry to which this Part of this Act applies, or, in lieu of such compensation, for the re-instatement out of moneys aforesaid of the property damaged by such injury, and may in any such agreement provide for the ascertainment of the amount of such compensation or the nature of such re-instatement (as the case may be) and the terms and conditions on which the same is to be paid or done."

This particular amendment may be subjected to much criticism. The amendment is consequential on the second part of the resolution that we adopted yesterday—the Money Resolution. Originally in the Bill we excluded the Railway Companies from compensation. We had not at that time come to an agreement or an arrangement with the Railway Companies, and we had in mind the necessity for doing that if it were at all possible. The amount of damage and the number of occasions of damage, and the number of incidents that would be the subject of Court proceedings in connection with the Railways would be very considerable, and it was obvious that it was to the interest of both the railway companies and the Government and State that some accommodation should be reached by which a good deal of that legal cost could be avoided. In addition to that, the railway companies were in a different position to the ordinary person who has lost by the destruction of his house— that is to say that in their cases it was obvious that the railway lines should be kept open and the damage to be repaired with the least possible delay, and that on the Government side no obstacle whatever should be placed in the way of those railway organisations in keeping the lines open and competent to carry traffic. Now, it was natural that in a case like this the railway companies' interest and our interests were not exactly similar. There were a number of lines— branch lines and so on, which it would not be in the best interests of the railway companies to keep open. They would and could naturally concentrate entirely upon the particular avenues which afforded them the best revenue. It is right to say of the railway companies generally that they acted in a fine civic spirit, and their patriotism did not give us any cause for uneasiness at any time since these difficulties first beset us. In fact, I do not know that we got from any section of the community, as such, such generous co-operation, in keeping open railway lines as we did from the railway companies. And in the case of certainly one of them—possibly more than one—it was not in the best interests of the share holders of the company at all to keep the line open. One of the difficulties that we had in coming to this arrangement or agreement with the railway companies was that they naturally felt and contended that, in view of the special circumstances of the times and the damage done them, that they should be compensated for consequential loss; that in their case more than in that of the ordinary person suffering there was perhaps a better case to be made for their getting compensation for consequential loss. And they were under some difficulty about certain destructions. Take, for example, a railway bridge which, having been destroyed, was replaced by a temporary structure. It was with some difficulty we got them to understand that, while we could pay them for a destroyed bridge, we could not compensate them for a temporary bridge unless that in turn were destroyed. And it came to this, that a bridge would require to be destroyed nine times in order to get compensation for eight bridges; but there would be always one bridge, the last temporary bridge to be put up, for which we could not pay compensation. They were in a position that, in consequence of the consequential provision, they could not be paid in respect of the last bridge until it was destroyed, and only in cases where there was no bridge at all could they be compensated for the destruction of each bridge in turn. I presume I have made that point clear. Now, the next question was—having regard to the necessity for expediting repairs—it was obviously impossible to leave over cases for consideration by a court when the railway company had to restore and repair and continue to repair time after time each particular section of their outfit that was damaged or destroyed. We came to an arrangement whereby in consultation with our chief consulting engineer a sum would be arrived at for compensation in those cases. It is unnecessary to say that we had very considerable difficulties in entering into that arrangement. Naturally they had to consider their shareholders and their interests and so on, and we had to consider the State. But the effect of this is to enable us to have those repairs carried out with the least possible delay and with the least possible chance of any extra cost to the State. That is that the State merely compensates to the extent of the restoration of each particular article that is destroyed, and in certain cases takes into consideration any salvage, or takes into consideration the life of the particular instrument or implement or particular institution, if I might say so, that has been destroyed or part damaged. That in substance is the line of the agreement. I think that one thing at any rate is to the credit of both the railway companies and the Government, and that is that with the least possible delay, the damage once done is repaired and the lines have been kept open. From that point of view I think that we have not much to complain of. I am satisfied that the State has not lost in this arrangement, and if the railway companies have not lost either because we have arrived at a point where loss on one side and loss on the other side are both fairly well balanced. I formally move that amendment.

If the agreements contemplated in this amendment were agreements that the Minister has said have been entered into, that is one matter. It is hardly necessary to put an amendment to the Bill if the agreements have been entered into except perhaps for the purpose of authorising money to be spent which has not heretofore been authorised. I suggest that there may be other conditions in these agreements, and that we ought to know the terms of the agreements precisely. We have passed in Committee a Bill which fixes certain conditions and very narrow conditions in some respects by which money may be paid in compensation for other classes of damage. But in respect of the railway companies, we are asked to empower the Minister to enter agreements without defining in any way the terms of those agreements subject to which compensation will be paid. I said yesterday, and I would repeat it, that there ought be a condition inserted in these agreements whereby men who have suffered while engaged in the work of the railway companies shall be compensated, but there may be a necessity for other conditions that the Dáil would like to see inserted in the agreements. Furthermore, there may be conditions which the Ministry may desire to have inserted or agree to have inserted which the Dáil would not approve of. The only check that we are to have is that the agreement having been entered into will be laid upon the Table. If the Dáil decided to annul the agreement in toto then it will be annulled. But to amend one particular clause of it, one particular line of it, the whole agreement must be annulled. I want to propose an amendment to this sub-section and to add these words:—

"Provided that no such agreement shall have any effect unless and until it has been approved with or without amendment by identical resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, and if such resolutions amend any such agreement, the agreement shall have effect as amended."

The intention is to ensure that the agreement will not have effect until it has been approved of by the Oireachtas. We would argue that if it is necessary to make special arrangements regarding compensation to railway companies that should have been either inserted in this Bill or made the subject of a separate Bill. The intention of the amendment to do the next best thing, and to ensure that the agreement which is provided for in this amendment shall be ratified by both Houses before it has effect, practically meaning legislation by Decree. We would much rather it came in the form of a Bill which would go through its stages, but that is not acceptable to the Ministry, and inasmuch as nobody else can introduce such a Bill the proposal is that the next best procedure should be followed, and that the agreement itself should be laid upon the Table, and a formal resolution passed approving of that agreement or amending that agreement before it has effect. I submit that we ought as a Legislature to understand the terms of any such agreement as is proposed, that we ought not to give a free hand to the Ministry in a matter of this kind to make an agreement, the terms and conditions of which are not to be made known to us until after the agreement has been definitely made, and in which payments may be made, and which payments would be valid pending the expiry of 21 days. I think that we ought to get away from this procedure of embodying considerable matters which should be the subject of legislation in Orders to lay on the Table which become effective, at least which empower certain work to be done and payments to be made, which work and payments are valid even though the Dáil before the expiry of 21 days annuls the agreement or the Provisional Order. It is not a process that ought to be repeated and I would move the amendment which I have read out.

I beg to second the amendment.

I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment. It suffers from a peculiar disability—one which, I think, the Deputy himself will appreciate. We have not got two Houses which can look upon a problem of this sort with the same unprejudiced and impartial minds. We have got one House here much more democratic than the other. Occasion was taken here by a member of the Party which Deputy Johnson represents to point out that several railway directors were in the other House, and, obviously, very different considerations would present themselves to the minds of the members of both Houses in considering a matter of this sort. It is conceivable that in the other House where the commercial and banking interests are much more represented than they are in this House that they may consider that a better bargain could have been made on the part of the railway companies than what is made here. Speaking as one who would like to hold the balance evenly between the interests of the State and the interests of the railway companies I must admit that this agreement is an equitable agreement, and is so adapted that the interests of either section are not prejudiced, and it deals fairly and equitably between the two parties to the dispute, the railway companies on the one hand, and the State on the other. Now, an identical resolution from both Houses is certainly a very considerable risk to take in a matter of this sort. I quite admit the Deputy was entitled to make the case that the Government or the Minister for Finance had not got a prescriptive right to enter into an agreement, and to act upon an agreement without the authority of the Dáil. But I put it to him, if in order to comply with every one of the niceties of Government, the Minister for Finance had got to wait until the Dáil had sanctioned and approved of such an agreement, the particular parts of the railway line would remain unrepaired, the damage would not be made good, and so on, and a very much worse state of affairs would be presented than by taking advantage, perhaps, of the indulgence that has been afforded by the Dáil in dealing with a matter of this kind and anticipating that a judgement in favour of the particular agreement would be made. I have the agreement that we entered into here; it has been acted on already in particular cases. I have already told the Dáil of an advance that was made to one of the Railway Companies, and it was made after we had received a communication from it that the services it would be able to render, and the amount of employment it could give, depended on whether or not we were in a position to make any advance in respect of the damage that had been done and the claim it had. Further, there is the point to be remembered that those railway companies had a claim against the local authorities. It is a legal claim. I have already stated it does not amount to much; it is not negotiable, but it is there, and we have got to get them to waive that claim. We could, of course, have passed that over and have come here and taken away their rights, but would it be equitable that we should take away their rights without giving them some corresponding advantage of another sort? Obviously it would not. The amendment drawn here or any amendment of this nature could not be accepted by us. Supposing this Dáil amended this in one direction and the Seanad amended it in another direction, where do we arrive? If each House really keeps to its own particular point, obviously there is a deadlock. It is to avoid that deadlock, which is a consideration that must always present itself to a Government having two Houses, that this is done. Apart from any differences there might be between the two Houses there is a natural rivalry between them, one priding itself on its rights in a particular case and the other priding itself perhaps on its privileges in another. In any case the particular circumstances of the two Houses do not lend themselves much to agreement. I have heard of one case in a country in which there are two Houses, and for some reason or another one of the two Houses would not put through a Financial Bill, and the Executive was placed in the position of having no money to carry on, and it had to do an unconstitutional act in order to carry on, but steps have since been taken to remedy that. I daresay it would not be wise at this moment to interfere in any way with this agreement. I do not mean to say that the Dáil has not a right to consider the agreement, to alter it, to amend it, or to reject it, but at any rate I would undertake to have the agreement, which has only recently been entered into, circulated to the Dáil and if before we reach the final stage of this particular Bill amendments are tabled to this agreement disapproving, altering or amending it, they will be considered. If we take as a little extra constitutional but still necessary in order to effect the purpose we have in mind—to keep open these very important avenues of transit—at any rate we do something definite. In the amendment we do something indefinite. Both Houses have got to come to an agreement, and it is not safe at this particular time to count on their doing that when the interests of both Houses are so different as they are at the present moment.

I do not know what the Minister thinks happened in the case of the very Bill we are discussing. This Bill is going to be in the nature of an agreement between the two Houses. It must be before it becomes an Act and the clause which is now presented to us with this proposed amendment, has to be a subject of agreement between the two Houses or the Bill will be held up for nine months. The same thing would happen in the case of the proposed order. I wonder whether the President has considered or is considering a constitutional amendment. If he is proposing, or if the thought is germinating in his mind that he will propose, an amendment to the Constitution disestab lishing the Seanad, I think I can promise him certain support from these benches. But at least we are working for the present on the Constitution which has a Seanad as well as a Dáil. The President tells us that the agreement he has entered into, which is to be laid on the Table of the Dáil and is subject to annulment, is of such a character that to the Seanad, to which body he is proposing to submit this amendment, this agreement would be obnoxious, and would not be acceptable, because of the constitution of the Seanad as contrasted with the constitution of the Dáil. That is an extraordinary doctrine, but worse remains. The agreement that is conceived of here is an agreement that may be entered into, and as a matter of fact has been entered into, is to be laid on the Table, but it is only now we are getting the suggestion in concrete form, as an amendment to the Bill. It is nearly three weeks, it is a fortnight, since this proposal was first brought to our notice. Why, then, was not the agreement laid before us so that we could have considered the terms of the agreement when discussing this amendment? We are asked to give a free hand to the Ministry to make agreements. We are told that certain agreements have been made. Those agreements could have been and ought to have been laid before us before we were asked to discuss these freehand proposals. I think it is a considerable advance for the Minister to say that he will now submit to us for consideration the agreement, which we may consider before the Dáil disposes of the Bill. But we have gone so far in the Bill that it will not be easy to refuse to pass the Bill en bloc, simply because we disagree with the terms of agreement with the railway companies, and then the Seanad would no doubt come to the aid of the Ministry. I feel that the proposal embodied in the amendment is quite practicable, is in accordance with the procedure that we are obliged to follow in respect of legislation and I would ask the Dáil to support the amendment.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 36.

  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Liam Ó Briain.
  • Tomás Ó Conaill.
  • Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.
  • Séamus Éabhróid.
  • Seán Ó Laidhin.
  • Cathal Ó Seanáin.
  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.
  • Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.

Níl

  • Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Donchadh O Guaire.
  • Seán Ó Maolruaidh.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Mícheál Ó hAonghusa.
  • Domhnall O Mocháin.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.
  • Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
  • Sir Séamus Craig, Ridire, M.D.
  • Gearóid Mac Giobuin, K.C.
  • Liam Thrift.
  • Eoin Mac Neill.
  • Pádraic O Máille.
  • Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Fionán Ó Loingsigh.
  • Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.
  • Criostóir Ó Broin.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Caoimhghin Ó hUigin.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Tomás Mac Artúir.
  • Séamus Ó Dóláin.
  • Aindriú Ó Láimhin.
  • Liam Ó hAodha.
  • Seán Mac Eoin.
  • Próinsias Mag Aonghusa.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Séamus Ó Murchadha.
  • Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Tomás Ó Domhnaill.
  • Uinseann de Faoite.
  • Séamus de Burca.
  • Micheál Ó Dubhghaill.
Amendment to the proposed new sub-section declared lost.
Original Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 8 as amended agreed to, and added to the Bill.
SECTION 9.

I beg to move in Section 9, Sub-section (1) to insert after the words "opinion of the judge," [to the extent to which the injury was, in the opinion of the judge caused], the words "on the evidence before him."

The object of this amendment is to carry out an undertaking given in Committee so that the judge when forming an opinion as to whether the applicant was associated with persons who committed the injury shall act upon the evidence before him, and not upon any opinion he may have got out of Courts.

Question put and agreed to.
At this stage An Leas Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

I beg to move in Sub-section (2) (a) to delete the words "directly or indirectly," [combined or in league directly or indirectly with the person or persons by whom the injury was committed].

This is an amendment which was asked in Committee, because Clause (a) was considered by several Deputies to be too wide.

Agreed to.

I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to delete Clause (b). The object aimed at in Sub-section (1) of the clause appears to be sufficiently covered already by paragraphs (a) and (c), and it was felt that Clause (b) was not necessary, and might go further than was intended.

Question agreed to.

SECTION 10.

I beg to move in Section 10, Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), to delete the word "immediately," [situate elsewhere, and was immediately before the injury used], and to insert after the word "injury," [before the injury used] the word "ordinarily."

The amendment is inserted because the clause as it stood was considered to be too rigid, and was limited to the user of the premises. The amendment makes the clause more flexible, and brings in premises ordinarily used for business purposes before the injury.

Question agreed to.

I beg to move in Sub-section (9) to delete the words "was maintained as a residence immediately before the injury," and to insert in lieu thereof the words "was at or about the time of the injury ordinarily maintained as a residence for the applicant or his family."

The amendment is inserted to give effect to a suggestion made by Deputy Johnson in Committee. The Clause as it stood might have applied to residential premises which were sub-let, which was not the intention; also the use of the word "immediately" made it too rigid. The amendment limits the Clause to premises maintained as a residence for the applicant himself or his family, and therefore excludes premises which were sub-let; it also removes the rigid effect of the word "immediately."

Amendment agreed.
Question put: "That Section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 11.

I beg to move as an amendment in Section 11, sub-section (2) to delete Clause (a) and insert in lieu thereof the following Clause (a) "muniments of title to land or other property."

This amendment deletes the Clause "Title deeds" because there are important documents of title to property which are not "deeds," for instance wills; and the word "muniments" will cover every form of document proving the title to property. I think Deputy O'Brien knows something about the room in the City Hall known as the Muniments Room.

Amendment agreed.
Question put: "That Section 11 as amended stand part of the Bill.
Agreed.
SECTION 12.

I beg to move to insert immediately before Section 12 the following new Section:—

(1) "If and whenever the Judge is satisfied in regard to any person proposed to be called by any party as a witness at the hearing of an application for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Acts in respect of an injury to which this Part of this Act applies:—

"(a) that the evidence of such person is material to the proper presentation of the case of the party proposing to call him as a witness, and

"(b) that such person is outside the limits of Saorstát Eireann, and

"(c) there are substantial reasons other than expense for dispensing with the personal attendance of such person at such hearing,

the Judge may make an order for the examination of such person upon oath or affirmation before any person and at any place outside the limits of Saorstát Eireann and may empower the party aforesaid to give such deposition in evidence at the hearing of such application on such terms, if any, as the Judge may direct.

"(2) Whenever the Judge shall make such order as is mentioned in the preceding sub-section there shall be issued to the person before whom the evidence is to be taken under such order a commission or, if the Judge so directs, a request, to take the evidence of the witness or witnesses named in such Order."

The object of this amendment is that when a witness is unable to come to Ireland his evidence may be taken in England, or wherever he is. The amendment is necessary because a County Court Judge has not such power, though the High Court has it as a matter of course. The form of the amendment follows the rules regulating the making of similar Orders by the High Court.

Question agreed to.

I beg to move an amendment, immediately after Sub-section 10 to insert a new Sub-section as follows:—

"In every case in which a reinstatement condition is attached to the decree, the compensation to which such reinstatement condition relates shall be paid at such time or times, in such instalments and upon production of such evidence (in the case of payment of an instalment) of partial compliance with the reinstatement condition, or (in the case of a final payment) of complete compliance with the reinstatement condition, as the Minister of Finance shall from time to time prescribe, and the decision of the Minister of Finance as to whether a reinstatement condition has or has not been complied with (whether wholly or partially) or as to whether sufficient evidence of such compliance has or has not been given shall be final."

This amendment is inserted to make it clear that the Minister for Finance is entitled to be satisfied that a reinstatement condition has been complied with before he pays the compensation.

Amendment agreed to.
Question put:—"That Section 12 as amended stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 13.

I beg to move an amendment to insert in Section 13, after Sub-section (2), a new sub-section as follows:—"(3) Any steps which may have been taken by the Council of any County or County Borough before the passing of this Act for raising the sum required to be paid into the Exchequer by that Council under this section in the financial year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1923, shall be deemed to have been lawfully taken under the authority of this Act."

The reason for this amendment is that Local Authorities in many cases are taking steps to raise the 6d. rate for the coming year in anticipation of the Bill becoming law, and it is necessary to give legal authority for the taking of such steps in anticipation. The demand notes are made out, the rates are struck, and so on, and it is to make the situation easier for the raising of the 6d. rate that this amendment is moved.

I just wish to raise a question as to whether the term "any steps" is not too wide. Certain steps taken to collect moneys in recent times might be supported by this amendment as it stands; but I suppose a lawyer would assume that the steps taken were legal steps. After the words "1st day of April, 1923," I should suggest that the following words might be inserted, and that perhaps they would improve the sub-section, "which would have been lawful if this Act had been passed at the time such steps were taken." These words, I think, ensure that the steps taken at the time were lawful, and I think they would be an improvement to the sub-section.

To meet the Deputy I will consider his point on the next stage.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move to insert after Sub-section (2), a new sub-section, as follows:—

"(4) Whenever it appears to the Minister for Local Government that a Council of a County or County Borough has made the rate for the financial year beginning on the first day of April, 1923, but has not made provision for separately raising the sum required to be paid into the Exchequer by that Council under this section, the Minister of Local Government may by Order direct:—

"(a) that the said rate shall be deemed to be increased by sixpence in the pound on the rateable value;

"(b) that the secretary or clerk of such council shall after the warrant and every receipt and demand note issued or intended to be issued to any rate-collector for the collection of rates for the said financial year by adding to the amount of such warrant a sum equal to a rate of sixpence in the pound on the rateable value of the collection district, and adding to every such receipt and demand note an amount equal to sixpence in the pound on the valuation in respect of which the ratepayer named therein is rated, and that any warrant, receipt and demand note already issued to a rate-collector shall be returned by him to such secretary or clerk to be altered as aforesaid, and that every such warrant, receipt, and demand note when so altered shall have the same effect in law as if it had been so issued to the rate-collector for such altered amount;

"(c) That any amount demanded by such county council from an urban district council, in respect of the portion of the rate for the said financial year payable by such urban district shall be deemed to be and shall take effect as a demand for a sum consisting of the sum actually demanded, and a further sum equal to the amount of a rate of sixpence in the pound on the rateable value of such urban district, and that the provisions of Clause (a) of this sub-section shall apply to any rate made by such urban district council in respect of such demand, and that the provisions of Clause (b) of this sub-section shall apply to the clerk and rate collectors of such urban district council respectively in relation to such rate;

"(d) that any other matter or thing necessary to be done to give effect to this section in the said financial year including all consequential alterations in the ratebooks shall be done."

The object of the amendment is to meet the cases of Local Authorities who have taken no steps to raise the 6d. rate for the coming year. The scheme of the amendment is that instead of striking a supplemental rate, the rate warrants, demands and receipts shall be altered so as to include the 6d. rate. Persons having experience of the making up of rate dockets and of sending out demand notes will appreciate the fact that a penny rate costs as much to raise, if it be a separate rate, as a rate of 10s. almost. You have the same amount of work, as regards writing up the rate books, the sending out of demand notes, collecting the rate, and so on. As regards the 6d. rate we propose here, if it had to be raised as a supplemental rate it would not bring in the sixpence because the cost of doing the necessary work in connection with the raising of it would be very considerable. It might amount to a penny in the pound, and possibly more, but certainly to a penny, I think. The proposals we are putting in here will avoid that. They may be somewhat lopsided, but, at any rate, they bring home to the persons concerned the fact that we are not going to allow any opportunity, or any loophole of escape, for the striking of this particular rate. I have already stated that it is the only contribution that has been asked from Local Authorities. It is a contribution which will be spent by themselves, at least to this extent, that steps will be taken to improve the roads, repair bridges and so on, all over the country. To that extent, they are as much parties to this as we are. It is to their interest to see that these roads are repaired, bridges restored, and so on; and, having regard, generally, to the generous acceptance of the burden by the State, this is not too much to ask. Already, evidence has been brought before me, to the effect, that certain Local Authorities have sought to evade their liabilities about this particular rate by reducing, in one case, I am informed, the expenditure on the roads by one shilling in the pound and then adding this sixpence. Well, that is not the spirit in which this Bill has been considered by the Dáil. It is not a generous, an honest or a moral stand for any Local Authority to take, to reduce the ordinary expenditure upon this particular service of road mending, because of the fact that the Road Board Fund will have a larger sum for distribution than ever it has had before. The State, in accepting the whole burden of the malicious damage, with the exception of roads and bridges, certainly did its part, and Local Authorities who are now asked to contribute to this particular fund such a small sum as 6d. in the pound for five years are not being taxed beyond their resources, nor are they being taxed to the extent of the ordinary legitimate demands imposed for this particular service. I move this amendment.

The implication to be drawn from the statement of the President is that if last year you spent £100,000 on the roads, and that you could provide the same service for £80,000 next year, you must not spend £80,000 to do the same business—you must spend £100,000. That is the implication. If you do the same service with less money why should we or why should anybody grumble or say it is dishonest? That is the implication that I object to.

I should like to say that I have yet to learn that any Local Authority spending money on roads can afford to reduce its ordinary normal rate by 1/- in the pound and do as good work. It is not the difference between £80,000 and £100,000.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question put:—"That Section 13 as amended stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 14.

I beg to move in sub-section 3 of Section 14 to add after the word "insurance" the following words "(d) 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 the same were proved to the satisfaction of the Judge and also the nature of the evidence accepted by the Judge as proof of the destruction of such notes or currency."

There are three amendments there dealing with Section 14. The three amendments are connected. The reason is that under Section 7 of the Bill no compensation is payable under the Criminal Injuries Acts in respect of loss or destruction of or damage to any of the chattels to which this Section applies, that is to say, watches, jewellery or articles of personal ornament kept by the owner otherwise than as part of his stock-in-trade. (11) Coins, bank or Government notes or currency. These amendments are designed to extend the provisions to cases in which paper money has been destroyed. The Judge will only report to the Minister for Finance and will not make any award. I move this amendment. I think the three might be taken together.

I am not sure what amendment you are on, or if amendment 16 is included in the amendments now under discussion.

AN LEAS CHEANN COMHAIRLE

We will take 15 first. I take it 15 is agreed to.

Agreed.

I now move in Sub-section (9) to delete Clause (a), and insert in lieu thereof the following clause:—

(a) The wrongful act must consist either

(i.) of the complete destruction of bank or Government notes or paper currency of any country; or

(ii.) of the taking away of chattels without the consent of the owner.

I query the wisdom of putting in the word "complete" before "destruction." Destruction ought to include all that is necessary, and the insertion of "complete" when dealing with bank notes might conceivably leave in doubt whether the bank note that was partially burned—really destroyed for practical effective purposes as a bank note, but not completely destroyed—it might rule it out; but I think that was not the intention.

I agree to that. Amendment agreed to as amended (the word "complete" being omitted).

I move the next Amendment as follows:—In Sub-section (9), clause (b), line 18, to delete the words `the chattels must not be, and insert in lieu thereof the words `where the wrongful act consists of the taking away of chattels those chattels must not be.' "

Agreed.

I beg to move:—"In Sub-section (9) (c), line 28, to delete the figure and words `6th day of February,' and insert in lieu thereof the figures and words `20th day of March.' " This amendment extends the critical day to the 20th March—that is, yesterday.

Agreed.

I beg to move:—"In Sub-section (9) (d), line 20, to insert immediately after the words `wrongful act' the words `if consisting of the taking away of chattels.' "

This is merely consequential on Amendments 15, 16, and 17, and does not alter the Bill.

There is a point in this which I am not sure the Minister has not overlooked. It reads, "to insert immediately after the words `wrongful act' the words `if consisting of the taking away of chattels.' " This clause would then read, "The wrongful act, if consisting of the taking away of chattels, must have been committed by a person or persons engaged in or purporting to act, or who might reasonably be presumed to have been acting, in combination or conspiracy for the overthrow of the Government." As it stands, if this amendment is carried without alteration the new sub-section or paragraph as amended in 16, saying that the wrongful act must consist either of the destruction of a bank note or Government note, would make it possible to bring that destruction into the arena of compensation, even if done by people who are not seeking to overthrow the Government. I take it that you are not making any exception in favour of the loser of bank notes. I think the intention of the Ministry is to take them all into the same category, although this amendment does not do so.

I think this amendment must have been prepared before it had been realised that Sub-section 9 (a) of Section 14 had been amended. Sub-section 9 (a) originally started with only one wrongful act—the taking away of chattels. The amendment we have just passed has now introduced a second wrongful act. Surely both those wrongful acts ought to be the subject of compensation if they are committed by a person or persons falling within the category set out in Sub-section (9) (d).

I take it that Amendment 19 in Sub-section 9 (d) is intended to include larceny; and in respect of loot the report of course must come up. This report must be made but it is evident that there is a distinction made between the persons suffering ordinary larceny and a person who is suffering from a wrongful act by reason of a conspiracy or something of that sort. In other words it is the difference between malicious damage, if I might say so, and ordinary damage. That is what we are driving at in this amendment.

We may possibly be misunderstanding this. As I understand it the section applies to any wrongful act which fulfils all the following conditions. The wrongful act must consist either of the destruction of bank notes or the taking away of chattels without the consent of the owner. That is one condition. The later condition is, if the amendment is carried in its present form, that a wrongful act if consisting of the taking away of chattels must have been committed by a person or persons engaged in a conspiracy. If a wrongful act was an act resulting in the destruction of bank notes and if the act was malicious but was not committed by persons engaged in the overthrow of the Government, then it does not come under this section. Is that the intention? If that is the intention this amendment perhaps fulfils it. If it is not the intention the amendment will require alteration. Perhaps the Minister would think it over and bring in an amendment if he finds it is required in the Seanad. It is not a matter which particularly concerns me.

I will consider the matter. Section 14 was originally intended to apply to cases of loot and this amendment was put in to confine the section to loot and not to extend it to ordinary cases of larceny. That does not apply to the destruction of bank notes.

Question put and agreed to.

I move:— In Sub-Section (10), line 46, to delete the words "also applies to any wrongful" and to insert in lieu thereof the following words "shall also apply to the following act as fully as if the same had been a wrongful act, that is to say an."

The object of this amendment is to meet the objections of Deputy Gavan Duffy to sub-section 10 of Section 14. The wording of the sub-section was not very happy and it is thought that perhaps the amendment will remove any objection the Deputy may have to it.

Question put and agreed to.

I move Amendment 21. This amendment and the following two amendments refer only to the dates.

In Sub-section (10), lines 48 and 49, to delete the figure and words "6th day of February," and insert in lieu thereof the figures and words "20th day of March."

Amendment agreed to.
Question put: "That Section 14 as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 15.

I move:— In line 3, to delete the figure and words "6th day of February," and insert in lieu thereof the figures and words "20th day of March."

Amendment agreed to.
Question put:—"That Section 15 as amended stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 16.

I move:— In Sub-section (5), line 31, to delete the figure and words "6th day of February," and insert in lieu thereof the figures and words "20th day of March."

Agreed to.

Question put:—"That Section 16 as amended stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 17.

I move:— To delete Section 17, and insert the following section in lieu thereof:—"17. (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 many of 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."

This amendment gives power to appoint an additional judge, and also settles the method of his remuneration. It may be necessary to appoint additional judges, and if judges are so appointed it will be necessary to pay them. This amendment is rendered necessary by the repeal of the Act of 1920. The section was originally based on Section 8 of the Criminal Injuries Act of 1920. In the amended form the section stands by itself and there is no change in the meaning.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that the form of this amendment is not the best. In the Electoral Bill we agreed that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should be the person having the appointment of certain judges for certain purposes, and I think that is a better form than bringing in the Governor-General. Even if that is not acceptable, I would much prefer we should frankly state the Attorney-General or even the Executive Council, in preference to "the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council." The fewer references we have that are unnecessary to "the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council" the better. In this case it is unnecessary. I would suggest that the authority appointing should be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as in the Electoral Bill or the Attorney-General, who finally would be the person making the appointment, or the Executive Council—any of these instead of "the Governor-General, on the advice of the Executive Council."

Is there exception taken to the whole of the amendment or only to the first part of it?

It is more a question of phraseology than anything else. I think the Dáil would prefer that the nomination should be either quite definitely by the Executive Council or by the Attorney-General, or if neither of these is acceptable, then by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I think the suggestion as to the Chief Justice or possibly the Attorney-General is preferable to the arrangement contemplated in the amendment. It is not that I have the least objection to the Governor-General making appointments, but this is a pure matter of judicial administration. It is not a permanent appointment; it is merely nominating a temporary assistant to a judge who is already there to enable a congestion of business to be dealt with in a hurry. It seem to me that this is almost a mere matter of machinery and that it ought to be possible for some official on the spot, without setting the Executive Council in action, or without troubling the Governor-General, to get some immediate means of coping with the difficulty. In the past there has often been considerable difficulty in connection with the appointment of an assistant to a County Court Judge who is temporarily overwhelmed with business. It arose very acutely in Belfast at the time of the Malicious Injury Claims up there, and it occurs to me that the head of the Judiciary, or else the legal representative of the Government itself, would be a more seemly person to deal with a pure matter of administration of that sort. It seems to me like using an eighty-ton hammer to kill a blue bottle to have to call upon the Executive Council and the Governor-General to appoint a temporary assistant to a County Court Judge. In practice it will only happen during the next two or three sessional meetings of the County Court Judges. The arrears will all be cleared off then.

Is the suggestion that the section should take this form: "If the Attorney-General of the Irish Free State is satisfied that the Judge of any County Court is unable, owing to the number of applications under the Criminal Injuries Act, or this Act, which are pending in this Court, to transact the business of the Court with proper dispatch the Governor-General of the Irish Free State——"

That should be the Attorney-General.

Is that according to the Constitution. I think the Constitution provides that only the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Executive Council, can appoint Judges.

This only refers to the appointment of a temporary assistant. I know what the Constitution provides as regards the appointment of Judges, and if I doubted for a moment that this was not the appointment of a Judge, or if I thought that it was equivalent in law to the appointment of a Judge, I would not make the suggestion. But it is only the appointment of a temporary assistant.

It is merely transferring the Judge's duties to a Judge who has already been appointed.

Or to a barrister of not less than 10 years' standing. I will consider the whole matter. If the Dáil would pass the amendment I would look into the question and see if I could bring up something that would be better. It is advisable we should get in the power to appoint extra judges.

Amendment agreed to.
Question put: "That Section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 19.

I move:—

To insert immediately before Section 19 a new Section as follows:—

"Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section 6 of Section 51 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898 (61 and 62 Vict. ch. 37), or in Section 2 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1900 (63 and 64 Vict. ch. 63), or any other enactment, a rate may be made at any time for raising money for the payment of compensation for criminal injury, and the amount thereof shall not be reckoned for the purposes of any enactment imposing a limitation upon the amount of the rate that may be raised.

This amendment and the following one are rendered necessary by the repeal of the whole of the Criminal Injuries Act of 1920. The effect is to re-enact only the provisions of that Act which we thought were worth preserving.

I think this raises the question whether a new section would not be necessary in relation to the State Aid referred to under Section 13.

We did not intend to deal with that particular matter. It would give power in the event of their not doing what is required.

Question put and agreed to.

I move:—

To insert immediately before Section 19, a new section as follows:—

(1) Section one hundred and thirty-seven of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836 (6 and 7 Will IV. ch. 116), which relates to the giving in of examinations and the making of recognisances, shall cease to have effect and shall be deemed to have ceased to have effect as from the 23rd day of December, 1920.

(2) The powers of the Court or Judge under any rules of Court made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, in pursuance of Sub-section (7) of Section 5 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898 (61 and 62 Vic. ch. 37), shall include and be deemed to have included as from the 23rd day of December, 1920, power to extend or vary the time prescribed by any statute or statutory rules for making an application for compensation for criminal injuries, or for serving any notice or for doing any other act, or taking any proceedings in relation to the application in any case where it appears to the Court or Judge that such extension or variation is just and reasonable for any cause whatsoever.

Would the President tell us what the effect of Sub-section 1 would be.

It happens that certain claims must be made within a certain specified time—I think, two days. It extends the time, I think, for a week, a fortnight or something else of the sort. In the circumstances of the time it would be, I think, unfair to limit people in certain areas to particular times. In any case the old law, not contemplating anything in the nature of the damage that has been done, lent itself to exaggerated claims in order to ensure that the damage would be covered.

That is quite right. The limit of time under the old law was three days. The courts decided that being the statutory period there was no time to extend, even in cases of persons who did not even know that they had suffered damage until after the three days. This is to enable a person whose property has been destroyed to have the time extended, when the actual fact of destruction did not come to his notice till after the statutory period had expired.

Question put and agreed to.

I move the following amendment:—"In Sub-section (1) in line 52, to delete the word `several, and in lines 53 and 54 to delete the words `to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.' "

The effect of this amendment taken in conjunction with the first Schedule is to repeal the whole of the Act of 1920. We have kept the points which are material, and which I mentioned the last day were useful statutory arrangements.

Did I understand the Minister to say that the effect of this amendment was to repeal the whole of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act?

The Criminal and Malicious Acts. There were two Acts, the 1919 Act and the 1920 Act. The 1919 Act, I think, sought to take all the powers which were subsequently given by the Act of 1920, but did not, I think, specify them in legal order, legal form or something of that sort.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move:— In Sub-section (2) to delete lines 61 and 62, and insert in lieu thereof the following words:—"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 for Finance."

This amendment provides that though the moneys obtained under Statutory Order are to be repaid, the repayment is not to take place until after the amount of the decree becomes payable by the Minister for Finance. It was put to us that this would have been, as I am sure it would, a serious matter for persons who had received money. Usually when people receive money they put it to some purpose and it is not always easy to repay money once it has been received. This provides in connection with that, that repayment can be withheld until the Minister for Finance makes the compensation, so that in that case there is no real hardship.

There is obviously a misprint in this amendment. The comma after "payable" ought to come after "order." Is not that so?

That is right. The comma after "payable" comes out.

Amendment agreed to.
Question:—"That Section 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 21—NEW TITLE.

I move to delete the words "Criminal Injuries Act, 1923," and insert in lieu thereof the words "Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923."

This title is slightly more respectable and more comprehensive than the previous one. The previous title is scarcely appropriate, having regard to the various matters that are covered by the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Question:—"That Section 21 as amended, stand part of the Bill, put and agreed.
FIRST SCHEDULE.

I move:—To delete the Schedule, and insert the following in lieu thereof:—

Enactments Repealed.

(1) The Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1919 (9 Geo. 5 ch. 14);

(2) The Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1920 (10 and 11 Geo. 5 ch. 66).

The object of the amendment is to repeal the whole of the Act of 1920.

Agreed.

What becomes then of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act? Are we to assume from the information we received yesterday that it is not in operation in Ireland, and that therefore there is no need to repeal it? Are we to take it now that none of its sections are enforceable in Ireland? If that is the case ought we not to have the facts stated here that it is wholly repealed?

We have not enforced any of it.

No, but there is a danger that one sees. The mere disuse is not sufficient for Judges in the Courts as we know them, and there may be something in that Act which a Judge would fall back upon and say this is still in force because it has not been repealed. The mere argument that it has not been in use would not be sufficient to warrant the Judge in saying that it is thereby not in operation. It was the intention, a fortnight or three weeks ago, at any rate, to repeal Clause 1, Sub-section 3 of Section 1 of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act. The effect of the amendment is to retain Clause 1 of Sub-section 3 of Section 1. I think the Dáil is entitled to know why the change has taken place in the mind of the Government respecting this particular Act, and whether there is any objection to leaving in this Act and altering the third column to, say, the whole Act. That would be very acceptable, and would conform rather to the declaration of the Ministers that the Act is not in fact enforceable. It would ensure that the Judges would agree with the Ministers that the Act is not enforceable, and that is a desirable accomplishment.

We are not repealing it. It was repealed two minutes ago in a previous Amendment.

That Amendment, so far as I can see, only repeals two Acts, the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Act of 1919, and the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Act of 1920.

I want repealed the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act.

But we are not making compensation under that Act.

I know you are not making any compensation, but in the Bill as printed we put in Clause 1, Sub-section 3 of Section 1 of that Act was to be repealed leaving all the rest of the Act enforceable in Ireland. I want to know why this particular clause is now to be retained. Is that the effect of the amendment? I do not know what Clause 1, Sub-section 3 of Section 1 involves, but, I think we are entitled to some guidance and assistance in this matter, and to know why it is now to be retained, and I throw out the suggestion, although it may not have very much to do with the Bill, that if we would by this motion repeal the whole of that Act it would be a consummation devoutly to be wished.

As regards the particular section you refer to—I am speaking from memory—and so far as I remember the Restoration of Order Act, and the Criminal Injuries Act were to entitle the Lord Lieutenant to deduct from sums payable to Local Authorities decrees given against particular Local Authorities in respect of whom he had such moneys. That was the only effect of them.

That is left in now. By altering this Schedule——

Yes, but we have no Lord Lieutenant, so that he cannot deduct anything.

I would not be surprised to be told that anything that the Lord Lieutenant hitherto was empowered to do can now be done by some other person. I think you will find that we have passed an Act to that effect.

If that be the thing you have in your mind, is not such authority in connection with the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Act, a different thing to what we generally understand as the restoration of order? We take it that Parliament will not vote moneys for one purpose, and devote them to another purpose. That was the real objection to the Acts of 1919 and 1920— that the Parliament of Great Britain voted certain moneys out of taxation levied here for certain local authorities and having voted that money, and the rates for the local authorities having been struck in that year, on that assumption an Act of Parliament was passed diverting the purposes and upsetting the whole machinery of the accountancy of the local authorities in regard to that. I take it, even if the Minister for Finance, or the Governor-General, or the Executive Council were to contemplate any such action against Local Authorities that at least they would give notice before the rates would be struck, of their intention to interfere with such payment. In all justice that would appear to me to be essential. Once the rates are struck and paid on the assumption that moneys are to be devoted to local authorities, I do not think that even this sovereign Oireachtas would have any right to come in and interfere with such money. So far as I can remember that is the only way that the Restoration of Order could come in, and it is unnecessary to make an amendment of it now.

I am not sure if I made my position clear to the Minister. He has not taken up my suggestion. In the Bill as printed and passed in Committee, Schedule 1 contained a reference to three Acts. First, the Criminal and Malicious Injuries, Act, 1919; and the whole of that Act was to be repealed. The second was the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act; and Clause 1 of Sub-section 3 of Section 1 was to be repealed. Now amendments are brought forward which mean the deletion of this schedule altogether, and the insertion of a new schedule, which will in fact repeal the Criminal Injuries Acts of 1919 and 1920. So that, whatever was the intention of the Ministry in asking for the repeal of Clause 1, Sub-section 3, of Section 1 of the Restoration of Order Act, that intention either has been altered or they did not deem it necessary to insert that repeal in the schedule. It is obvious, from the Minister's statement, that it is desirable to repeal this particular sub-section, and what I desire to know is why it is not being repealed on the last stage of the Bill, as was intended in the earlier stages of the Bill.

I do not remember the precise point, if there was any, in putting in this, but I will look into it.

Question put: "That the First Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECOND SCHEDULE.

I beg to move:—"To delete the following words and figures, viz., `10 and 11 Geo. 5 ch. 66. The Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1920. The whole Act, except Sub-section 1 of Section 1, and Sections 3, 4, and 7.' "

Agreed.

Question put: "That the Second Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
Barr
Roinn