asked the Minister for Finance if he will state whether the award of £43,244 made by the Shaw Commission for the destruction of the Irish House, Tipperary, as advertised in the Iris Oifigiúil of 6th December, 1922, has been paid in full or in part, and also whether the condition attached by the Shaw Commission that £11,000 of the said award should be expended in the reinstatement of the structure has been waived, and, if so, on what grounds.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. (ORAL ANSWERS.) - DESTRUCTION OF IRISH HOUSE, TIPPERARY.
The unconditional portion of the award referred to by the Deputy was duly discharged in the month of September, 1923. A cash payment in respect of the unconditional portion was made to the applicants two months later on rthei acceptance of a sum considerably smaller than the amount allowed by the Compensation (Ireland) Commission. This case was the subject of an agreement with the British Government and the compromise which was effected on the request of the applicants resulted in a saving of, approximatingly, £6,000 to the State. The applicants subsequently started proceedings in the High Court, but these proceedings were dropped.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, there was a condition in the award made by the Shaw Commission that £11,000 should be expended in reinstatement. I would like to know whether the action taken in this case is to be regarded as a precedent. Why should an exception be made in this particular case, or why should other people not be allowed to forego a certain proportion of their award on condition that they would not be asked to rebuild? The Minister's answer, to my mind, is not satisfactory. They got £43,000 odd from the Shaw Commission for property they purchased, which, with the increased stock, did not reach half that. There is £11,000 earmarked for reinstatement of the building, but in consideration of a sum of £7,000, they were not asked to rebuild. The Minister's answer is not satisfactory.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, is the Minister for Finance empowered to alter a conditional award into an unconditional one? That seems to have been done in this case. Is the Minister empowered to alter the decision of the Wood Renton Commission and to make a conditional award into an unconditional one?
Not without agreement.
Might I ask whom the agreement was with?
Apparently with the persons concerned.
Does the President mean by that that if the person concerned is willing to take an unconditional award — a great many of them would be — then the Minister for Finance will make that unconditional award instead of a conditional one?
Not of necessity, but in certain cases where there are special circumstances.
Perhaps the President or the Minister could inform the House what were the special circumstances in this case, because, as far as I understand, this was a large drapery house in the town of Tipperary, and it would benefit everyone in that town if the building was restored.
Generally speaking, I understand that a condition of this kind is attached for the benefit of the general public. In this case it is claimed by the Department of Finance that by the compromise that was effected there was a saving to the State of some £6,000. Presumably the Minister considers that sum of £6,000 as balancing and offsetting the benefit that would accrue to the general public by the fulfilment of the reinstatement condition, and agreed to the waiver. As to the question that has been raised of the precise power that the Minister has to agree to such a waiver, I would prefer that that question would be addressed direct to himself.
I wonder would the Minister for Justice invite the Minister for Finance to read the discussions in the Dáil on this particular question when the Bill was before us, and when the intention of the Dáil regarding the reinstatement clause was made clear?
This is in reference to damage to property in respect of property that was damaged preJuly, 1921, and in respect of which there is an international agreement as to the compensation.
The Minister has stated that there was a saving of £6,000. The saving is only one of £4,000. While there will be a saving of £4,000 to the taxpayers, the ratepayers will be at the loss of £65 a year for this particular house, and I fail to see that in most instances the interests of the taxpayers and the ratepayers are not one, because the ratepayer is, as a rule, the taxpayer in this country.
Following that further, from the President's statement just a moment ago, does the Minister not consider that the expression of opinion made by the Dáil in regard to a certain type of cases after a certain date is nevertheless the opinion of the Dáil in regard to the exercise of any discretion by the Minister prior to that date?
The Minister had all these facts before him when he came to this very well-reasoned decision.