Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Oct 1937

Vol. 69 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 14—Property Losses Compensation.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

—I move:

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1938, chun íocaíocht i dtaobh mille no díobháil do Mhaoin (Uimh. 15 de 1923; Uimh. 19 de 1926; Uimh. 35 de 1933; Uimh. 18 de 1937; a 17; agus ar shlite eile).

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for payments in respect of destruction of or injuries to property (No. 15 of 1923; No. 19 of 1926; No. 35 of 1933; No. 18 of 1937, Section 17; and otherwise).

This Supplementary Estimate for a token sum of £10 is rendered necessary on account of Section 17 of the Finance Act of this year, which empowers the Minister for Finance, when he thinks proper, to pay in money, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, any compensation, or other sum, which he is required, or authorised by the Compensation (Damage to Property) Acts, to pay by the issue of securities. The object of the section is to enable compensation awards to be discharged in cash, instead of partly in cash and partly in stock, as has hitherto been the case. The original Vote for property losses compensation for the current year would not cover the payment in cash which previously fell to be made in stock, and, therefore, this supplementary token Estimate is necessary It is not anticipated that the total payments which will fall in the course of the present year will exceed £1,550, and as against that there are anticipated savings on other sub-heads of £1,490, which reduces the amount required to a net sum of £10.

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Minister say in respect of this if it has reference to particular payments or portion of certain awards; that is to say, has somebody been awarded £1,200, in respect of which the Minister will issue stock for £1,000 and cash for £200, or is it a series of persons getting in all £1,500 in cash, who otherwise would have got stock?

Mr. MacEntee

We anticipate that there will be a number of persons who might otherwise have got stock but who will get cash instead.

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Minister say, in regard to the stock, if it is 4 per. cent. stock that has been issued, he is saving money on the transaction, or what is the purpose of it?

Mr. MacEntee

The purpose of it, naturally, is to wipe out these two compensation stocks. The amount of the original 5 per cent. compensation stock which might fall to be issued would be about £3,500. It is not thought advisable to continue to issue stock when such a small amount remains to be issued. In regard to the 1933 stock, it only carries interest at 3½ per cent. Of the total amount that has been issued from time to time — about £40,000 — 50 per cent. or more has been redeemed, and it is anticipated that, by the exercise of the powers which are given to us under the Finance Act, 1937, all that will be redeemed in the course of this year or next. We wish, in fact, to wipe out the whole of the compensation stock altogether.

Mr. Cosgrave

What I am anxious to get from the Minister is whether or not, in respect of an Act of Parliament that we passed in which we stated that compensation would be paid in stock at a certain price, there is any disadvantage to a person who is entitled to get compensation under that Act in respect of the cash payment; because, however desirable it may be to wipe out stock, if we give a certain right under an Act of Parliament it does not seem fair now to alter it. If, on the other hand, one partically equals the other, it is all right. Under the 1923 Act, the compensation stock, if I am not mistaken, was a 5 per cent. stock. If, under the Act of 1923, a case was only being settled now, the person might be entitled to some extra compensation by reason of the lapse of time. The Vote says: "damage to or loss of property, between 24th April, 1916, and 12th May, 1923, under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Acts, 1923 to 1933." If a person were entitled under the 1923 Act to 5 per cent. compensation stock it ought not to be changed now. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten the House on the point.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think that point is relevant. The House has already decided in the Finance Act, 1937, to empower the Minister to do this. This is only asking the House to make the necessary financial provision to enable the Minister to exercise the powers which the House has already conferred upon him. I do not want to enter into the merits of any particular case, but there are cases where special provisions were made to prevent the forfeiture of the compensation granted by reason of the fact that the person to whom the compensation was granted did not take any steps whatever to fulfil the conditions of the original compensation award.

I do not think any person in that category could possibly feel any grievance, if the Minister were to exercise the power which the House has already, by Section 17 of the Finance Act, conferred upon him and which the House, in conferring it, intended the Minister to exercise.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister must understand that notwithstanding what decision the House may have come to at a previous date, it has the right to pass or reject any Vote that is brought before it. We are asked to vote this sum of money and the House is perfectly entitled to know whether or not the case made for it is one which corresponds to some previous decision taken by another Dáil. Surely the Minister is not going to make the case that if he were empowered under an Act of the last Dáil to do a certain thing, conditional on his getting money from this Dáil, that this Dáil is bound to give it to him? We are entitled to know everything about this Vote.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy knows as well as I do that there was no such hypothetical condition attached to that section of the Act.

Mr. Cosgrave

In the normal course, people have under those Acts certain rights and privileges. If they are being altered to the detriment of these people, we ought to hear of it. If there is an advantage to these people, which I very much doubt, the House ought to hear of it, too. It is entitled, even in respect to a small sum of £1,500, to know the reason why this is being done.

Vote put and agreed to.