I move:—
|
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £2,090,300 ar a n-áirítear suim bhreise de £15,000 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun íocaíochtanna i dtaobh mille no díobháil do mhaoin a dineadh i rith na tréimhse 21 Eanair, 1919, go 12 Bealtaine, 1923, go huile, fén Acht um Dhíobháil do Mhaoin (Cúiteamh), 1923, fé mar do leasuíodh é, agus ar shlite eile; agus mar gheall ar dhamáiste do mhaoin, no cailliúint maoine, agus íocaíochtanna tré shlánú no tré aisíoc fén Acht Slánaíochta, 1924, agus chun deontaisí d'íoc a socruíodh a íoc de bharr mola an Property Losses (Ireland) Committee, 1916, mar chúiteamh i bhfoirgintí a milleadh i mBaile Atha Cliath i rith Seachtain na Cásca, 1916. |
That a sum not exceeding £2,090,300, including a supplementary sum of £15,000, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for payments in respect of destruction of, or injuries to, property within the period 21st January, 1919, to 12th May, 1923, inclusive, under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, as amended, and otherwise, and in respect of damage to, or loss of property and payments by way of indemnification or recoupment under the Indemnity Act, 1924, and for payment of grants awarded on the recommendation of the Property Losses (Ireland) Committee, 1916, as compensation for buildings destroyed in Dublin during Easter Week, 1916. |
Under sub-head (a), the sum asked for this year is £1,700,000 for compensation for pre-truce damage. That is less than half the amount asked for last year. It is, however, more than was actually spent last year. The amount actually paid out under that sub-head last year was £1,970,001. A good deal of the cause of that was the holding up of the work of the Commission, owing to a question that arose as to the meaning of its terms of reference. There has been delay in discharging some of the awards of the Compensation (Ireland) Commission because of reinstatement conditions being attached which have not yet been fulfilled. Our practice is make payments of instalments in such cases according as the actual work of rebuilding proceeds. We act on the certificate of the Commissioners of the Board of Works. They are moved to inspection by receiving the certificate of the architect in charge of the actual work. It is estimated that a sum of £880,000 remains to be distributed in this way. It is believed that the Compensation (Ireland) Commission will finish their labours this year and it is hoped, consequently, that the present year will see the end of payments in respect of pre-truce periods unless some unforeseen obstacle occurs.
Sub-head (b) deals with the expenses of the Compensation (Ireland) Commission. Heretofore we have only borne part of the expense of the Compensation (Ireland) Commission. As a matter of fact, our charge was 45 per cent. The British paid 55 per cent. But a new arrangement was reached, in the first instance, in October, 1924. This new agreement arose out of a dispute as to the terms of reference, and the British Government entered into an agreement to pay us a lump sum of £900,000 to discharge all their further liabilities in respect of this damage.
It was provided that we should be entitled to issue, through the Governor-General, fresh terms of reference to the Compensation Commission so as to bring in classes of cases which either were not included in the original terms of reference, or where there was doubt as to whether or not they were included. These new terms of reference were issued by the Governor-General early in the year. As a result of the change of this agreement as to the £900,000, the entire expenses of the Compensation (Ireland) Commission are now borne by us except the expense of Mr. Howell Thomas, who was the British nominee, and who is, I think, a Government official. The personnel of the Commission remains unchanged. That was also part of the agreement. That change explains the increase in the cost of running the Compensation (Ireland) Commission.
Under sub-head (c) the amount asked for is £1,750,000, that is, half the amount asked for last year, but it is considerably in excess of the amount actually paid last year, which was £875,309. When the Estimate was being framed last year there was comparatively little information on which we could go. Only a small proportion of the claims had been heard, and we had no idea of the rate at which progress would be made with the hearing of the cases for compensation under the Damage to Property Act. Also we had no experience of another matter which caused that much smaller sum to be paid out than was anticipated, the delays which have necessarily elapsed between the hearing of the claims and the lodgment of the decrees or the reports with the Department of Finance. The total number of claims lodged is, as I have said in another connection, about 26,000. Roughly two-thirds of these have been heard: 12,500 have been paid and about 3,000 have been dismissed. The aggregate amount of awards earmarked for reinstatement notified to the Department of Finance up to the present is £850,000, and £170,000 has been paid. The balance merely awaits compliance with the conditions attached to the awards. On the receipt of an award to which a reinstatement condition is attached the applicant is notified of the conditions with which he must comply; that is, to send in the requisite certificate as the work of reinstatement proceeds, and when an inspection has been carried out by the Board of Works payment is made. About two-thirds, from the numerical point of view, of the cases heard in the courts are report cases under Section 15 of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923. The reports are made in respect of losses, such as looting or commandeering by the Irregulars. Of course they are not two-thirds in value. These reports are in the nature of recommendations to the Minister for Finance, who is responsible for acting on them or rejecting them, in whole or in part, and there is no appeal, either by the Minister for Finance or by the individual. In these circumstances it is essential that the recommendations should be scrutinised in the Department of Finance before payments are made. Amongst other things, different judges adopt different standards and different interpretations of the law. Any case in which a legal matter arises is referred to the legal advisers of the Government.
Very many questions have been addressed to me in the Dáil from time to time in reference to delay. Delay arises from a variety of causes. First, there may be delay in hearing the claims; congestion in the courts has caused great delay in many cases. Then, even when the claim has been heard and decided upon, sometimes a very considerable period elapses before proper steps are taken by the applicant's solicitor to have the decree made out, signed by the Judge, and forwarded to the Department of Finance. When it reaches the Department of Finance there is also a certain amount of delay in making the investigations that are necessary in respect of claims against the decrees, liability of the holder of the decree to income tax, the question of claims against him by the local authorities, and so forth.
Sub-head (d) is compensation for damage to railway property between the 12th July, 1921, and the 12th May, 1923, inclusive. I do not think that any further provision will be asked for under this sub-head. The payments are made in pursuance of an agreement that was entered into with the railway companies about the time that the Damage to Property Act was passed. Payments are only made on the certificates of the Government's consulting engineer. Payments already made to the railway companies to the 31st March, 1925, under that agreement, amount to approximately £546,000, of which £230,000 was paid in 1924-5. The provision under sub-head (e) is for the purpose of defraying expenses incurred by the Government in connection with the investigation, defence and discharge of property claims, both before and after the Truce. It includes fees and salaries payable to counsel, architects, valuers and engineers, other than the Government consulting engineer, whose salary is borne on the Vote of the Department of Finance. It also includes the cost of advertising in the Press awards which are proposed to be discharged, and the publishing of notices. It includes the expenses of the staff employed in the office on work exclusively in connection with property losses, compensation claims, and the travelling and incidental expenses of such of the permanent staff as perform compensation work. The provision of £20,000 shows a decrease of £5,000 on last year's figures. That is not a very large reduction, but it has to be borne in mind that as building progresses, the expenses in connection with applications for advances on foot of decrees will increase, and while the expenses of investigation in connection with pre-Truce claims will decrease very considerably, it is anticipated, on the other hand, that similar expenses in connection with post-Truce cases which are now being rather rapidly disposed of, will increase.
Under sub-head (f) provision is made for a contribution towards the expenses incurred by county councils prior to the 12th May, 1923, in investigating and opposing claims for damage to or loss of property after the 11th July, 1921. In certain cases councils did not take up the attitude that was generally adopted, where they have made up their minds from the beginning that no part of the damage then being done would be borne on the local rates, and refused to take any steps towards defending or contesting claims that were put in. A few councils did decide to oppose the claims, and incurred expense in having them investigated with a view to opposition in the courts if changes in the law had not been made by the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, and if they had still been liable under the Malicious Damages Act. It is felt that the action of these councils did save the State considerable sums by preventing bogus and inflated claims being got away with, and it is proposed to give a contribution towards meeting the costs that were incurred by two or three county councils in that regard.
Sub-head (g) is for compensation under the Indemnity Act, 1924, for damage to or loss of property. The committee set up under the Indemnity Act had not been able to get to work to any extent before the end of the last financial year. A sum of £90,000 is now asked for the purpose of paying reasonable compensation to persons who incurred loss during the national struggle. The committee has now made very considerable progress with its work. It is felt that this provision will be ample and that the work will be completed, or almost completed, in the present financial year. The expenses incurred by the committee are not very much; they are confined practically to the salary paid to an investigation officer whom it was considered advisable to appoint for the purpose of reporting for the information of the committee his opinion on the merits of the cases referred to him and of submitting estimates of the compensation which might be paid.
The Supplementary Estimate which has been circulated is for £15,000. It arises out of a settlement with the British Government on outstanding matters in which various claims were put forward and admitted on each side. There are considerable numbers of cases which have been extremely difficult to settle. For instance, in connection with liability for personal injuries, and for liability where it was difficult to determine which side did the damage, we came to an agreement whereby we were to take on directly the outstanding liability for property losses in 1916 amounting to £45,000. As far as £30,000 of that is concerned, the British Government will recoup us as payments are made.
As regards £15,000 of it, it was set off against a claim of the British Government to an additional contribution of £13,000 in respect of personal injuries compensation, and another claim for a refund of £2,065 in connection with personal injuries. The net result of the bargain roughly is that we are the better by about £65 on the transaction.
