Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 Jul 1941

Vol. 84 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Neutrality (War Damage to Property) Bill, 1941—Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move:—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

As the House is aware, after the occurrence of the incidents of bombing by foreign aircraft in this country at the beginning of this year, the Government undertook that compensation would be provided for the damage caused, whether or not the foreign Government responsible accepted liability and agreed to pay compensation. This Bill makes provision for such compensation in so far as injuries to property are concerned. It was, at first, the intention to bring within its scope compensation for death and personal injuries as well but, on further consideration, it was thought better to keep such compensation in line with what was done or is contemplated in the case of other civilian classes like the Air Raid Precautions service, the Local Security Force and the Local Defence Force; differentiation could hardly be justified and might lead to complications because of the absence of uniformity. I, therefore, propose to deal with compensation for death and personal injuries by a scheme to be made pursuant to an order under the Emergency Powers Act, 1939. The scheme is at present in course of preparation. Death and personal injuries are accordingly not provided for in the present Bill.

As well as injuries arising from the dropping of bombs, the Bill embraces damage to property caused by the explosion of mines washed ashore, drifting balloons and kindred incidents occurring while the country is neutral. It covers all such incidents that have occurred, or may occur, including the County Wexford incidents of 26th August, 1940. The Bill follows generally the lines of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Acts, 1923 to 1933, but it requires all applications for compensation to be submitted in the first instance to the Minister for Finance who is given power to negotiate directly with claimants with a view to settlement of their claims. In the event of no agreement being reached, and only in that event, applicants can present their claims to the Circuit Court. This arrangement is, I think, an improvement on the 1923 and 1933 Acts procedure. It should save litigation and trouble, and make for economy and the speedy disposal of claims.

The Bill provides for compensation for all damage to property except, on the analogy of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, such personal effects as watches and jewellery not forming part of the owner's stock-in-trade, coins, currency, stamps, postal orders and so forth, as well as consequential loss, such as loss of business profits. On the analogy, too, of that Act, damage to streets, roads, bridges, water-pipes, sewers and kindred items maintained by local authorities is also excluded, the idea being that local authorities themselves should be able, with their own labour and materials, to make good any such damage without being much out of pocket. Another thing excluded is damage to ships and vessels, including equipment and the personal effects of the masters and crews which are not registered in this country or, not being capable of registration, are in non-Irish ownership. The object of this is to preclude the owners and crews of foreign ships and vessels from benefiting under the legislation; the risk of damage should be borne by themselves or covered by insurance.

The compensation to be awarded by the court for damage to buildings will be conditional on full reinstatement, and must not exceed the cost of complying with that condition less the amount, if any, by which, in the opinion of the court, the value of the building as reinstated would, because of reinstatement, exceed its value immediately before the damage took place. The Bill gives power to compromise with claimants who have been awarded compensation by the court and find it impracticable to comply with the reinstatement condition, for instance, where a local authority under a town-planning or rehousing scheme is opposed to reinstatement. In negotiations with claimants for direct settlement of their claims, I propose to follow the provisions in regard to reinstatement which govern the court, and to make an unconditional offer of compensation only in cases where I would be prepared to waive a reinstatement condition imposed by the court. Where the property damaged is found to have been insured against the damage caused, the amount of the insurance will be deducted from the compensation payable.

Some of the compensation under the 1923 Act was payable in the form of securities—compensation stock. Under the present measure all compensation will be payable in money; for this purpose I propose to bring in a special Estimate as early as possible. The Bill provides for a contribution by local authorities on a national basis of 25 per cent. of the total compensation paid in each financial year or whatever would be produced by a rate of 6d. in the £, whichever is less. This more or less follows a corresponding provision in the Act of 1923 and is, it is felt, preferable to the alternative of a contribution only from the particular local authorities in whose functional areas the damage to property occurred.

In my reply to a parliamentary question by Deputy Byrne on the 24th June I referred to the arrangement between the Department of Local Government and Public Health and the Dublin Corporation, under which the corporation have authority to carry out repairs to damaged dwelling houses sufficient to make them habitable, to provide temporary accommodation for people left homeless and to make cash advances to such people for the purchase of furniture and clothing. Similar arrangements operate in other areas where damage has taken place, and power is taken in the Bill to recoup the local authority out of voted moneys the expenditure incurred. Where a house has been extensively damaged it is not intended that the local authority should carry out the repairs; generally, they should only take on the job where the expenditure is not likely to exceed £100, although no objection has been taken to this limit being stretched, to £130 or even higher where it was found as the work progressed that the cost cannot be kept within £100. There is nothing to stop the owners of damaged houses from making their own arrangements for repairs. The advances for furniture and clothing may be up to £50 and £30, respectively. Money expended by a local authority on repairs, etc., is not to be taken into account by the court in assessing compensation under the Bill, but I am authorised to deduct the amount of such expenditure from the compensation.

Compensation recovered from an external Government in respect of damage to property will, under the Bill, be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer, but should the amount in any case prove greater than what was awarded under the Act, the excess may be distributed among the parties concerned. The House will appreciate that I cannot say at this stage to what extent we shall succeed in recovering compensation for all the damage caused.

I propose to go into more detail on the various sections. The definition section, Section 1, speaks for itself. Section 2 prescribes the injuries to which the Act applies and says that the Act shall apply only to injuries to property which occur while the State is not engaged in war. Damage caused by our own Defence Forces, for instance, by anti-aircraft shells fired by them does not come under the Bill but falls to be dealt with otherwise by the Department of Defence.

Section 3 indicates the persons entitled to compensation. It precludes payment of compensation to local authorities for injuries to streets, roads, bridges, viaducts, subways, waterways and so forth which they are required by law to provide, maintain or repair. I have already mentioned that the idea here is that the local authorities themselves with the resources of labour and materials at their disposal should be able to make good any such damage without being much out of pocket. Sub-section (3) is to protect the interests of the Revenue Commissioners in the matter of estate duty. Sub-section (4) is to preclude people from getting compensation for injuries who have been compensated for them directly by a Government or authority outside the State; this has happened already in one or two cases where property was injured by aeroplanes, etc., coming down in this country.

Under Section 4 all applications for compensation must be made to the Minister for Finance in the form and manner to be prescribed. This may require applications to be in the form of a statutory declaration. Applicants are obliged under the section to furnish all necessary information and particulars. Applications must be made within three months after the occurrence of the injury or, where the injury occurred before the passing of the Act, within three months after its passing.

Section 5 directs that the Minister shall consider every application which is duly made to him and make an offer of compensation to the applicant or inform him in writing that he does not intend to make any offer. The Minister may attach to an offer any conditions he thinks proper in relation to the expenditure of the compensation offered. Generally the conditions envisaged here will be concerned with the reinstatement of damaged buildings and I propose in this connection, as I have mentioned earlier, to follow what is prescribed for the court. The applicant is given six months to consider the offer made to him and if he accepts it or, by his silence, is deemed to have accepted it within that period, the compensation offered will be paid to him subject to compliance with any conditions attached to the offer whereupon he will have no further claim under the Bill.

Section 6 enables a person who has refused the compensation offered by the Minister, or to whom he has made no offer, to apply within one month to the Circuit Court for compensation and for the hearing and determining of the application by the court in the normal way. Section 7 provides for the fixing of the compensation by the court and the making of an order that the compensation shall be paid by the Minister for Finance.

On the analogy of the 1923 Act Section 8 excludes from compensation watches and personal effects, coins, currency, stamps, postal and money orders, the loss and value of which would be difficult or impossible to prove. Injuries to foreign ships and their equipment and to the personal effects of their crews are also excluded and, again on the analogy of the 1923 Act, provision is made for preparing a scale of compensation for injuries to documents such as muniments of title to property, stock and share certificates, wills and so forth.

Section 9 deals with the compensation to be awarded by the court in respect of injuries to buildings and fixtures. It makes the compensation for damage to a building conditional on reinstatement, that is, the money must be used for erecting a new building on the site of the injured one or replacing the injured building, but so that the new or repaired building shall be not less valuable than the injured one and shall be of the same character or of a character suitable to the neighbourhood. The compensation is not to exceed the cost of reinstatement less the extra value, if any, of the new or reconstructed building as compared with the old one. The reinstatement condition is also applied to fixed machinery and plant, but the court is empowered to waive it upon such terms as it may think reasonable. The Minister is given power to waive reinstatement where the court has awarded compensation for injury to a building if he is of opinion that, owing to special circumstances or unforeseen events, compliance with that condition is inexpedient or impracticable. A case in point, as already referred to, would be where a local authority objects to reinstatement for reasons associated with town-planning or a building scheme.

Section 10 restricts the awarding of compensation to actual damage done and excludes consequential loss and particularly loss of the use of the property or of mere pleasure or amenity. This also follows the lines of the Act of 1923. By Section 11 the court is required to ascertain whether each person to whom it awards compensation was insured against the loss involved and, if so, to state in its order particulars of such insurance and the sum the person has been or is entitled to be paid under it. The Minister is empowered to deduct the amount of any such insurance when paying the compensation.

Section 12 provides that chattels lost or supposed to have been destroyed in respect of which compensation has been awarded and which are subsequently discovered shall be the property of the Minister and shall be disposed of by him for the benefit of the Exchequer to the person who got the compensation, or otherwise if that person does not purchase.

Section 13 is the expenses section, and provides that the compensation awarded, less any deductions, court costs payable by the Minister, and administration expenses shall be defrayed out of voted moneys.

Section 14 provides for the payment out of compensation awarded to a person of any debt due by him to a Government Department. It is on the lines of similar sections in other Acts.

The disposal of compensation recovered from an external Government or authority is dealt with in Section 15. All such money received will be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer, and if it transpires in respect of an injury that more is received than the amount of compensation awarded under the Act, the amount of the difference may be paid to the parties concerned out of voted moneys. Provision is made for the recoupment or partial recoupment from the same source to local authorities of their contribution towards the cost of compensation where compensation is recovered from abroad.

In Section 16 provision is made for a contribution by local authorities (county councils and county borough councils) towards the cost of compensation under the Act. The amount, which is limited to 25 per cent. of the compensation, is to be levied on a national basis at a flat rate in the £ valuation within a maximum figure equivalent to the produce of a rate of 6d. in the £. Section 17 empowers local authorities to enter on and inspect damaged buildings and, after notice, to repair them unless the occupier or his immediate landlord undertakes to do so.

Provision is made in Section 18 for the recoupment out of voted moneys to local authorities of money expended by them, under authority given by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, in relation to or in consequence of injuries to which the Act applies. This relates to the advances I have already referred to for the purchase of furniture and clothing within the limits of £50 and £30, respectively, as well as to the expenditure incurred in repairing dwelling-houses. The court is not to concern itself with these items when fixing compensation but the Minister is authorised to deduct from it the appropriate amount in respect of them. Section 19 contains in relation to any expenditure by Government Departments provisions similar to those in Section 18 as regards expenditure by local authorities.

Section 20 fixes a time limit of three years, from the date an award is made by the Minister or by the court, for the payment or recovery of the compensation awarded. Section 21 prohibits court actions against any person to recover damages in respect of an injury to which the Bill applies. Section 22 excludes from the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Acts injuries to which the Bill applies. The making of regulations is provided for in Section 23. Section 24 gives the short title.

In conclusion, may I say that our assumption of responsibility to pay compensation for damage to property, irrespective of whether or not the external Government concerned accepts liability, may impose a heavy burden on the Exchequer. It is not possible at this stage to give any firm estimate of what the total cost will be, in relation to the incidents that have already occurred. I regret, as I am sure the whole House does, the circumstances that have led to the bringing in of this measure, and I feel that the proposals in it are fair and reasonable. I ask the House to approve of it.

Mr. Cosgrave

Every member of this House will agree that the last statement of the Minister deserves our commendation. We all deplore the circumstances which have arisen which necessitate the introduction and passing into law of this Bill. We feel very much for the people who, without any notice and very violently, had their houses and property destroyed, and who were left, in a number of cases, without any roof over their heads. Generally speaking, there is scarcely a comparison between this particular set of circumstances and the circumstances when the Act of 1923 was passed. I had some responsibility for that Act. At the time, very large estimates had been made of the damage that was done, and the Act was framed with a view to limiting, as far as was reasonably possible, the liability on the citizens for repairing the damage and reimbursing those who had lost their property. The circumstances of to-day are very different. In quite a number, if not all of the cases, in connection with the damage covered by the Act of 1923, people were removed quietly—in comparison with the incidents which this Bill deals with—from their houses. In certain cases they were allowed to take some of their valuables. In some cases, of course, the incidents were not very far removed from those with which we are dealing now.

Our problem is to compensate those who have been rendered homeless, or whose property has been destroyed by reason of damage done by belligerents since the commencement of the present conflict. It is a case, to my mind, which would call for more generous treatment than was given in 1923. The damage then was going on while the Bill was under consideration. The general impression on the public mind was that it would run to say, 20 or 25 million pounds. It was not until hostilities had ceased that anything like a measurable estimate could be made, and even then it was purely speculative. Notwithstanding all that, the Act of 1923 was found, subsequently, to be scarcely fair to the persons concerned; and in 1925 or 1926 an additional ten per cent. was given to these people. One of the reasons which operated to bring about that additional percentage of compensation was that, in the case of the City of Dublin, when the cases came before the court, the judge struck out any provision in the claims regarding foundations.

It was quite a reasonable striking out, but subsequently when they lodged the plans with the corporation, the corporation insisted on new foundations, so they were caught. If they had taken the precaution, and had enough capital, to have started rebuilding the moment the destruction had taken place, the corporation would have insisted then on foundations and they would have had a case to go before the judge. I know one such case in which the architect insisted on new foundations, and that case went before the court on that basis. Generally speaking, however, in quite a number of reinstatement cases in O'Connell Street, the judge quite properly struck out the foundation costs and the corporation quite properly insisted on the carrying out of new foundations. That was one of the reasons. There was another. It was discovered, after reinstatement had taken place both in Dublin and Cork, that the valuation of the new premises far exceeded that of the old premises. Provision was made in a subsequent Act—somewhere about 1925 or 1926—remitting for some seven years two-thirds of the rates, and leaving the person liable for only one-third of the then valuation for rates. So far as I can recollect—it is some days since I read it—this Bill makes no such provision.

The first complaint is that this is a skinflint measure. There is no doubt about that. Some consideration should be given to the special circumstances, the extraordinary disturbance, when people were fired out into the street and left for a period without anything in the nature of shelter. To that extent the provision which was inserted in the 1923 Act, of consequential loss or compensation for disturbance, should be reconsidered by the Minister. The consequential loss case is very much stronger than it was in 1923. In the area in which most damage was done recently, most of the premises destroyed—quite a number of them on the street front—were business premises. These people may be unable to continue in business for a period. Anybody with experience as a shopkeeper will tell you that customers going away to other premises do not come back as quickly as formerly. There is an interruption of business and there is a loss. If they were unable to earn any money in the period before any restoration would take place at all, surely in equity they are entitled to consideration for that.

The consequential loss which it was proposed to avoid, in the case of the 1923 Act, was on a much larger scale. It had in mind elaborate and extravagant claims arising out of the events of the period, and claims for the loss of property which might in some cases exceed the value of the property which had been destroyed. A clause or provision could be inserted in respect of that, in quite a harmless way, which would give these people some consideration. Take a case in point. It will be found, in the case of the 1923 Act, that provision was made for a report by the judge in certain cases. The Minister was not bound by the report. He could consider it and he could weigh up the case as to whether the sum awarded in compensation was in excess of the equities. If something of that sort were done in this case in respect of compensation for consequential loss, it would be reasonable.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

How are you going to measure consequential loss?

Mr. Cosgrave

Take the case of a man in business. Several of the persons in that area were licensed traders, grocers and general shopkeepers. Could not the Minister assess compensation on the basis of their income-tax returns? They may be out of business for three months. We can see at once what their position will be in that event. Take the case of the employees who are thrown out of employment. If the employer thinks that they are very good men, he may pay them. Surely a man who puts himself to the pin of his collar to do that should be treated equally generously by the Minister. I have not thought of an ideal solution of the problem but the minds which are capable of formulating a measure to prevent people getting money should be capable of exercising the prerogative of mercy, as well as dispensing justice, and of formulating a scheme which would meet the equities of the case.

The next criticism of this measure which I have to offer is in respect of the making of no allowance for loss of currency, postal orders and so forth. I know the Civil Service mind in regard to that aspect of the question; everybody outside the Civil Service is a dishonest man who could not possibly give a correct account of the cash which he has in the bank or in his cash box or anywhere else; only a civil servant could do that. Some damage has been effected, whatever it is. Compensation in respect of that damage would be no loss because, if currency notes have been destroyed, the Minister will get the compensation back by and by. I am sure it is not his intention to tax the people to that extent in connection with this scheme of compensation. Surely these business people had some money in their shops. All shopkeepers are not rich. There are occasions when a few pounds may be of some moment to them. When I was down there, I saw one poor woman with 2/- in her hand. If to that be added 4/- or 5/- which she might have had in the house and which she had lost, it is scarcely just to say that she should be left without compensation. It is obvious that extravagant claims will be made. Personally, I should prefer to meet five extravagant claims to doing one man or woman who could not afford it out of a few pounds. On reflection I am sure the Minister would feel the same way about it.

The exclusion of watches and jewellery is due, I suppose, to the precautions certain people took, when their premises were destroyed, to describe the value of the jewellery on the premises. That there was some jewellery there I have no doubt. No matter how modest or unassuming a lady may be, she will have some article of personal adornment. If it is lost she should get some compensation for it. The estimate of value may be 50 per cent. sentimental, 25 per cent. excess, and 25 per cent. accurate. That is not a general rule, but it may be applicable in a particular case. A little relaxation might be made in connection with that matter. The provision in respect of the tax of 6d. on the local authority is not on all fours with the provision in the 1923 Act. In the period prior to 1923, 3,000 bridges were destroyed in different parts of the country These were repaired by the State, and the State imposed a charge on the local authorities of 6d. in the £ for five or seven years in order to get some compensation. That brought in about £250,000 a year. That figure might have been £280,000. It is many years since that was done, and figures get mixed up in one's mind. About £1,500,000 came into the Exchequer in connection with that matter. It is unlikely that that paid the cost of the restoration of the bridges. The local authority will have its own troubles in respect of water mains and other things of that sort which will need repair. Then there will be loss in respect of the valuations put out of commission. No rates will be paid from the moment of the destruction of the premises. It would be practically impossible for the Minister to mention a figure in connection with the compensation we are providing here. As long as the damage was kept within the limit of £250,000 or £500,000 it would be well, in view of the very violent evictions that took place by reason of this destruction, that these people, who must be shaken in mind and body, should get consideration in which justice would be very largely tempered with mercy. It is unlikely that it would put an additional cost of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. on the whole job, taking it from the beginning to the end. It would be better that we should spend that extra money than that complaints should afterwards be made that we gave these people a lot of sympathy but very little else.

The Minister is probably wise in introducing the measure in its very skinflint form if he is prepared afterwards to modify his view. I think there is a case for modification. He ought to see that, when the premises are restored, no extra cost will be imposed on the people concerned in respect of valuation. I am sure that it is not necessary to inform him that in respect of one particular street in the North Strand—nobody amongst the persons concerned has spoken to me regarding this matter—the valuation of the premises, when reconstructed, is likely to be increased by 100 per cent. There will be no extra business and, in that connection, it would be scarcely fair if these people were subjected to extra costs in rates, seeing that they will not be compensated in respect of certain items and that they will have to face special competition arising out of their being out of business for a period and some of their customers going away. It is a good thing the measure has been introduced, but it occurred to me that it was a pity to leave out of it the damage that might be occasioned by one of our own aeroplanes coming down. Aeroplanes have a habit of coming down. No provision is made, so far as I know, in that respect——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, by the Department of Defence. They have paid such claims.

Mr. Cosgrave

Very good. The other point mentioned by the Minister does not call for any comment here. By the time the war is over, the belligerents will have enough to do to pay their own accounts without paying ours. I should not count very much on what we would get from them.

Mr. Dockrell

I should like to make a few remarks and, though they are more in the nature of queries that might be raised on Committee Stage, it is as well to have them cleared at the earliest possible moment, because there are points which are not quite clear in the Bill. In the first place, we start with persons entitled to compensation. Consequential damages are rigidly ruled out. I suppose there is a very good case for that, but at the same time there are certain individuals who feel that they have a legitimate grievance. I can cite the case of one individual who lost his job as a result of one of the earlier bombings, and who is now out of employment. I do not know whether the Minister could consider a case such as that. I know it opens a very wide door.

The next point to which I wish to refer is the time limit for the payment of compensation. It looks all right on the face of it to say that there are three years within which compensation may be paid, but this is not the only country that after the cessation of hostilities will be rebuilding. There is the question then as to when building costs will become normal. This whole Bill is framed on the basis of the cost when the injury took place. It may be many a long day before the cost of reconstruction comes back to that point, so I should like to suggest to the Minister that he might at least take power to vary that clause. The Minister has mentioned his power of compromise. That, I take it, is to deal with a case where a person feels himself unable to comply with the conditions and goes to the Minister to obtain some compromise. I think the Minister will be placed in a rather invidious position. Mention was made here some time ago of an occasion when so many buyers went to a fair and would not bid against each other. In this case there will be only one buyer at the fair. The Minister will say to the applicants: "Take it or leave it." I would suggest to the Minister that he should make the award a marketable commodity. Perhaps the Minister may ask: "What do you mean by that?" I shall tell him what I mean.

I take it that the Minister in inserting a reinstatement clause wishes to prevent a person getting an award and then saying: "Well, I shall invest that in securities and I shall live on the interest of my money." I presume that is the object of the Minister in inserting that clause, but I would suggest to him that he is drawing the conditions too tightly. Remember that there is a considerable area involved in which all sorts of new conditions will arise. In one case there may be a dilapidated building and the person living next door may be a trader who wishes to acquire those premises. I would suggest to the Minister that he should make those grants negotiable subject to certain conditions, namely, that they should either be spent in the area or in the city, whatever way he likes to put it. That would then enable certain people to market their award and would get the Minister out of the invidious position of being the only buyer at the fair.

Deputy Cosgrave raised a point with reference to the remission of rates. I suggest that the Bill ought to contain a clause that the liability for rates ceased, at any rate, when the bomb fell. I think that should be the logical outcome of this Bill, namely, that the liability for rates at any rate stopped whatever else was done. I shall give the Minister an imaginary instance of an unfortunate person who finds himself with a house destroyed in that area and I hope, if my method of computing his losses is incorrect, that the Minister, when replying, will set my figures right. I take the case of a person who, say, went into court to get compensation under Section 9 (b). I suppose it does not much matter whether he was offered compensation by the Minister or was awarded it afterwards in court. Say that A has a tenement house and that he pays £30 a year to B on a long-term lease. The house has been wiped out. A, for that house, paid outgoings amounting to £70 for rates, insurance and repairs. Then he has a head-rent of £30 a year making his total outgoings £100. We shall assume that the gross rental he received was £200 so that he had a profit rent of £100 a year. My reading of 9 (b) is that the condition of the house at the time of the injury would be taken into account in fixing the reinstatement cost.

We shall assume that it would take £2,000 to reinstate the house. Evidence would probably be tendered that it was an old house and that it was not in a good state of repair. He would probably be offered five years' purchase of his profit rent of £100, namely, £500. The amount by which the estimated reinstatement of the building exceeds the market value—although market value is not mentioned in the section I take it that is what it means—is to be deducted. Say that the reinstatement cost was £2,000 and that the value was £500, £1,500 would be deducted from the £2,000 and he would be awarded £500. How is that person going to rebuild a house such as that? It is not an economic proposition. He will be unable to rebuild that house and he will be thrown on the mercy of the Minister. He will have to go around and see what the Minister's powers of compromise are. I do not know what the Minister's idea of his powers of compromise are but I should like to ask him what he would offer by way of contribution towards that £500.

Is he going to say: "My poor fellow, I see you cannot put up that house and here is £500 for you," or is he going to say: "That is less x per cent.”? I should like the Minister to give us his idea of what x ought to be in the way of deduction from the amount that the person asking to make a settlement comes forward with. That is why I am suggesting to the Minister that he ought to try to divorce these compensations from the site.

The Minister may say to me: "Yes, but what about the ground landlord? He must have some security for his rent. If I let a person walk off with his compensation, the ground landlord may find that he cannot get his rent." I think that the Minister could very easily find some sort of formula in which, if a person wanted to take his grant away from the site, the landlord who held the site would either have to get a new tenant or be compensated or, in some respects, would have to have his interests protected. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the provisions as to compensation have been far too tightly tied to the site. Of course, the Minister must have ideas as to what is to be done with the grant and, where it is in the area of the city, I leave the Minister to make up his mind what would be the most satisfactory solution. The more negotiable and the easier it is to trade in these grants, the easier and better and quicker a solution of this unhappy incident will be found.

General Mulcahy

Deputy Cosgrave, towards the end of his remarks, spoke of some of those people as being stricken in body and mind. There has been one aspect of the situation almost completely overlooked in the drafting of the Bill and that, I think, in spite of the fact that representations have been made to the Minister with regard to the matter, and I feel he must have sensed some of the necessity for compensation, in respect to some of the matters upon which I am going to touch, on the occasion of his visit to the destroyed areas.

Let us take the South Circular Road, Donore Avenue or the North Strand as they were before any damage took place, and let us speak of private families living there. If a measure were introduced here that increased the debts of these families, by a stroke of the pen, anything from £25 to £100, the Minister can imagine what a crushing blow that would be to the heads of these families.

The Minister can appreciate that there are very few heads of families at the present time who do not work along the border-line of evading debt, with all the crushing effect it has on the morale. Very few of them escape without having a certain amount of debt hanging over them; they have just enough to enable them to scrape along and be able to relieve themselves of a little debt now and then. If, some fine morning, by an Act of this House, their debts were increased by anything from £25 to £100, a very crushing blow would have been delivered to those families and yet, apart from the disturbance caused by the bombs, apart from the dislocation and the personal loss, this Bill does, in fact, even in the stricken condition in which these families are, increase their debts by anything up to £100.

Let us take a few cases and see some of the expense these families have had to bear, expense that is regarded as consequential loss and that will become, if this Bill is passed, an added debt. Let me take the case of a man with nine in family. He was out of his house for three months and three weeks. He had to make a contract to take a house for three months and only by a certain amount of graciousness and good will was he able to escape making a contract for another three months—he had to go into the second period of three months. The rent of the house he went into was £26 and he had to pay £7 10s. in rates. The removal and storage of furniture cost £24. Under this Bill there is going to be no payment made to that man for the period when he was away from his home.

His house is going to be repaired. The implication of Section 9 (1) (b) is that, even when his house is repaired and the painting, wall-papering and other decoration have been done, somebody will come along and say that it was two years since the house was repaired and that it is now repaired absolutely up to date and, instead of paying him the full amount of the cost of decorating and repairing, he will take off 20 per cent. There you have a case in which £60 is going to be placed as a dead weight of additional debt on that man, apart from the family disturbance over that period. Take a second case, the case of a pensioner and his daughter. They had to go to a flat and they paid £1 5s. weekly for six months. The removal and storage of furniture cost £37. Take another case, that of a brother and two sisters. They had to go to a flat for 17 weeks at a weekly cost of 26/-. The removal and storage of furniture cost £15 8s.

In another case there was a widow with two daughters, and her source of income was entirely from boarders, except for the rent from a garage, which was destroyed. I do not know what expense she was put to by reason of a dislocation of her business, but at any rate she lost her boarders and her income over a fairly considerable period. In the case of a father, mother and daughter, they had to get alternative accommodation at £3 a week for a month. They were with a friend for a considerable period at a rent of £1 a week. The removal of the furniture cost them £9, and it will probably cost them as much to get it back. They had part of their furniture stored at £2 a month.

These are only sample cases of individual losses, but they cover a very large number of houses. In Donore Terrace, out of the number of houses damaged there, only nine families had to leave. The Minister will understand that the same thing applies to a larger number of persons in the North Strand area. When the Minister considers the matter, I do not think he can leave the Bill in its present form, with this additional debt hanging over people who have gone through so much. There has been a considerable amount of fear, partly arising out of the fact that the local authority simply took on a certain type of repair, leaving the less pressing repair and re-decoration of houses to be done later on. It would be helpful if the Minister would state explicitly that compensation is going to be paid for the complete doing-up and decoration of houses, as well as for repairs. The impression has got abroad that compensation is not going to be paid in respect of out-buildings, dividing walls and things of that kind. It would also be well if we had an explicit statement from the Minister that such is not the case, that compensation will be paid for motor cars that were damaged.

Consequential damage of the kind I have referred to must, I submit, be provided for if serious hardship is not going to be inflicted on a great number of people. It was sustained by the majority of those who suffered as a result of the bombing. Hardship should not be inflicted on families in assessing the amount to be paid for the painting and re-decoration of houses. They should not be put in the position that, while their houses were re-painted and re-decorated after the damage, they are going to be asked to pay a certain portion of the cost. In connection with the points touched on by Deputy Dockrell, I think a conflict is bound to arise between Section 9 (1) (a) and Section 9 (1) (b), because, in my opinion, it will be found that you cannot do one and the other. It is almost inevitable that there will be cases in which some of the people concerned will not be able to make a reinstatement of a kind that would be considered suitable. Take the North Strand. Nobody is going to suggest that there should be a replacement of the kind of houses that were there. Anyone who visits the district week after week will see that the area of deterioration and destruction is widening gradually. Some of the property there was in a very old and damaged condition. It would be impossible, I think, to expect the people who occupied some of those houses to reconstruct them in accordance with modern conditions and at the same time bear the additional cost of doing so. You also had some houses there that were off the main road. No one in their senses would ask for the replacement of these small little houses—groups of one-storey houses running along the side of the railway, and another group of two-storey houses running in some other direction. A city planning authority would give no consideration to the erection of such houses. It would be absurd to restore houses in that location and of the type that the old houses were.

Mr. Byrne

I must express my disappointment at the contents of the Bill, and of its inadequacy to meet the requirements of those who suffered from the recent bombing in our city. It is not so much what is in the Bill that worries one, but rather what is left out. For example, no provision is made for hospitals and medical expenses, or for the payment of compensation for the loss of money and jewellery. I know that money and jewellery were lost. I saw small parcels of £1 and 10/- notes being burned in a small shop on the North Strand. The singed parts were handed to the authorities. I think that people who had £25 or £30 in notes put by for the rainy day, and lost them as a result of the bombing, should be compensated. No provision is being made to meet consequential losses such as the temporary refitting of business premises or workshops. I know a shoemaker who had to get a temporary hut erected as a workshop. In his home that was destroyed he had an electrical machine. To get the hut erected and the electrical machine coupled up cost him a £10 note. His relatives, and not any public fund, helped him with that amount. There is no provision to cover removal expenses incurred by those who had to find alternative accommodation, and, apparently, it is not proposed to compensate people who were rushed out of cottages and rooms for which they were paying rents of 5/- or 6/- a week into other accommodation for which they have now to pay 10/6 and 12/-. A difference of 6/- a week in his rent is a very serious matter for a man in receipt of £1 2s. 6d. a week unemployment benefit for his wife, family and himself. I have eight letters before me dealing with cases of that kind, as well as a large number of pawn tickets. The people who have had to undertake this expense were just struggling along. They are now being called upon to pay higher rents than they had been in the habit of paying, and that means taking so many loaves off the tables of their families. If some committee would examine a few of those cases, I think a few £10 notes or £25 notes would quickly be parted with.

Another matter for which no provision is made in the Bill is the reinstatement of those shopkeepers, when the premises are rebuilt, at the old rents. It is all very fine to tell a person at the end of a couple of years that she can go back to her greengrocer's shop, but the rent of the new shop which has been erected on the site of the old one may be £2 or £3 a week, while the old rent was only 12/- or 14/- a week. The widow who ran that greengrocer's shop, and made her living there, will not be able to pay that high rent, as well as the high rates which, no doubt, the Commissioners of Valuation will impose on the new building. There is nothing in the Bill to say that there will be freedom from rates on the new premises for any period of years. There is nothing in the Bill to say that the people can continue for a number of years in the new premises at the old rent or at the old rates in order to give them an opportunity to recover their trade. There is nothing in the Bill which provides for the compensating of persons who may have been out of business for a couple of years, while rivals in the trade captured their businesses. There is nothing in the Bill to tell the widows of at least two men who lost their lives that they will be provided for pending a settlement in the courts of any compensation claim which they may put forward. It is not right or proper that any person should have to write to a Deputy of this House and say: "My daughter and myself were also badly injured, and we are at present dependent on relatives." In this Christian country, people who suffered loss such as that should not be asked to depend on relatives, and they should not be told by any authority in this country that they should go and apply for poor law relief. I would ask the Minister to make inquiries as to whether any of those people were told to go and apply for poor law relief. I think the Minister should also provide for the payment of costs in cases where some of those people seek legal advice in putting forward their claims. There is nothing in the Bill to say that those costs will be paid by the Government, or whoever it is that intends to pay the compensation.

In Shamrock Cottages, Shamrock Terrace, which Deputy Mulcahy and myself visited, we found people in five-roomed houses with four of the rooms rendered uninhabitable, the ceilings being down and the plaster off the walls but they are still paying the rent of a five-roomed house. I earnestly hope that whoever is responsible for the repairs will see to it that those unfortunate people will have their rooms made habitable for them as soon as possible, and that when the plaster is put on the walls again the paint and paper will not be forgotten. Those are a very decent type of people, who were in the habit of keeping their cottages in a condition which was a credit to any citizen of this State, and their homes should be repaired for them as quickly as possible. They always did everything possible to keep their houses clean and tidy, but now at the banging of a door or the opening of a window the plaster comes off the walls on to their bread and butter. There is a number of things which I think the Deputies of this House should go and see for themselves in the bombed areas in order to realise how those people are suffering. With the exception of one or two people the corporation had housed all the victims. The corporation was very fortunate in having a housing scheme very nearly completed, so that they were able to house most of those people, but I understand that there are two who have not yet been provided for. It is unfortunate that those two people are the widows of men who lost their lives, but I was informed to-day that they will be housed in the course of a few days.

Consequential loss was referred to by Deputy Dockrell, who mentioned the cases of men who had lost their employment as a result of the bombing. That would apply to a number of shop assistants who were employed in various shops in the North Strand. I have personal knowledge of at least one case in which a man who was employed in a butcher's shop there lost his employment. I do not think he was insured. At any rate he lost his job, and nothing has been done for him so far. I hope the Minister will see that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be interpreted in the widest possible way. As far as I remember, it was Deputy Cosgrave who said—I think it would also be the Minister's personal view— that it is better to pay two people a little bit more than they are entitled to rather than do an injustice to one. Keeping that in mind, I hope the Minister will see that no injustice is done to people who had the misfortune to suffer as those people have suffered.

There are many other points to which I had intended to refer, but I think most of them have been dealt with by other speakers. Deputy Dockrell referred to the difficulty of getting the necessary materials for rebuilding those premises. The Minister should see to it that every assistance is given to those who find themselves in that difficulty. My attention has also been drawn to the fact that a number of people had to pay removal expenses, and some of them found it very difficult to get the necessary money. I earnestly hope that all those matters will be considered by the Minister, and I hope that those people, some of them unemployed, who are suffering such hardships at the present moment, will get some assistance out of whatever funds are available.

Mr. Benson

I think it is regrettable that the Minister should have decided to deal with compensation for buildings and compensation for personal injuries in two different forms. I think provision to deal with the second of those should have also been introduced by way of a Bill, so that it could have been freely discussed in the House and the best possible arrangements arrived at. With regard to this Bill, my principal objection to it is in connection with Section 9, which has already been referred to by other Deputies, and more particularly sub-section (1) (a), which provides that compensation awarded by the courts shall be expended on the reinstatement of a building on its original site. Admittedly, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, sub-section (2) makes it possible for the Minister to vary that qualification, but I think it would be better if the Bill itself did not contain that restriction. I think it is obvious to anybody who knows or has seen the area of the North Strand that to suggest reinstatement there would be ridiculous. I think everybody will agree that the only proper course to adopt in that particular case is that the corporation should develop the whole site anew. Already there have been suggestions as to the manner in which that can be done, and there is no doubt about the fact that it can be done in such a way as greatly to improve the site from every point of view. Yet if the restriction suggested in this Bill is there, that development cannot take place without the Minister's sanction. I think that the Minister, when he was Minister for Local Government and Public Health, was both interested in and sympathetic towards town planning, and I am sure that although he has changed office he cannot have changed his views, and he should give consideration to the matter and simplify the position in that regard.

The Minister might also consider whether it is desirable that in this Bill should be introduced some scheme which would make the acquisition of a site of that description easier for the corporation, perhaps, than is possible under some of the existing legislation. There is another thing about Section 9 which appears to me not—shall we say? —to go very well with Section 6. Section 6 allows a person who has been either not made any award, or who is not satisfied with the award that the Minister has made, to go to the courts, and Section 9 then deals with the award which the court makes. I think it may be presumed, however, that every case that does go before the court will go there because the person concerned is not satisfied with the amount of the award that the Minister has made, or because of some of the conditions he has attached to it. Yet, having gone to the court on those grounds and having got an award from the court, he finds that under sub-section (2) he is back with the Minister again, because if, for any reason, he is unable or unwilling to build on the site, sub-section (2) gives the Minister power to vary the conditions of the award. Therefore, we start off with the Minister, then go to the court, and then come back to the Minister again, which seems a most extraordinary proceeding.

I think there is no doubt that if the Minister insists on retaining that restrictive clause as to redevelopment on the site, an opportunity may be lost to Dublin. We hope that we are finished with this unfortunate damage but, if not, and if there is more damage done, it may even be in a more important site from the point of view of town planning, and if this reinstatement-on-site provision is insisted upon, it may be that we will find ourselves, on a smaller scale, in the same position as London after the Great Fire of 1666, when there was a magnificent town plan produced, but the redevelopment took place on the old lines in most cases, with the consequence that London still consisted of a mass of narrow streets, courts, and so forth, up till last Christmas, when that position was modified somewhat.

There is another matter which I should like the Minister to clear up and that is with regard to Section 12, which deals with chattels. I do not suppose the ordinary man in the street has a very good idea of what a chattel is—I know that I have not—and I should like the Minister to clear up a situation such as this. Supposing a person leaves his car in a garage for repair, and that car suffers damage. I take it, from Section 12, that the person to lodge a claim on that account is the owner of the motor car, it being his chattel, because it is not part of the stock-in-trade of the garage and, therefore, presumably, it would be the owner of the car who would have to lodge the claim. That applies to various other trades besides that of motor repairing, and covers all trades which hold goods in charge for other persons. It appears to me, too, that there is a certain conflict between Section 15 and Section 16. Section 16, if I read it aright, requires that on certificate the Minister for Local Government will demand from all the county councils and county borough councils an amount of 25 per cent. of the total compensation, with a limit of 6d. in the £. As I understand it, this applies to all county councils and county borough councils, whether their area has or has not suffered damage. The Minister, so far as I could understand, did not advance any reason why the ratepayers should pay this, rather than the taxpayer pay it entirely, but possibly, when he is replying, he will advance some reason for that. However, the inconsistency —if I read the Bill correctly—arises under Section 15 (e), which is concerned with the disposal of compensation that has been recovered from an external government or authority. For myself, I do not consider that this is of much importance, because I cannot see the Minister realising anything from it, but it would be well to clear it up. Section 15, paragraph (e) says:

if any money has been paid to the Minister under the next following section...

that is the section which demands the money from all the county councils and county borough councils,

.... by the corporation of the county borough or the council of the county in which the said injury occurred, the Minister may pay through that corporation or council, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, such sum by way of recoupment or partial recoupment of the said money so paid to him as he shall think proper

It appears, therefore, that he is going to demand up to 6d. in the £ from all county councils and county borough councils, but the repayment, if any, will be merely to those in which the injury has occurred. I agree that there is a certain amount of equity in that, inasmuch as the county is going to be under certain expenses in the repairing of roads, bridges, and so on, but possibly the Minister will be able to explain the matter further when he is replying.

Another point which has already been mentioned, and which I should like to stress, is in connection with Section 20, which limits the period of payment to three years from the date when the compensation was awarded. I think that, in fixing that period of three years, the Minister is unduly optimistic, because, even going on the assumption that no further damage is likely to occur, I believe that, if the Minister thinks that all that can be reinstated within a period of three years, he is certainly much more hopeful of the world situation than I am, because the war, undoubtedly, will go on for some time yet, and after the conclusion of hostilities practically the whole world will be on the lookout for building materials, and our place on the priority list, I am sure, will be pretty low, and the possibilities of the buildings being completed within that period, I fear, are very remote.

I think that this stage of the Bill ought not to be passed without some expression of appreciation on the part of somebody in this House of the work which was done by the A.R.P. services at the immediate time, and at a subsequent period by the city manager and officials of the Dublin Corporation in looking after and re-housing the unfortunate people who were bombed on the North Strand.

Dr. Hannigan

This long-expected Bill has at last arrived, and one might have expected it to excite much more interest on the part of members of the House. I welcome the Bill if for no other reason than that it is the first positive sign of the Government's awareness that, in the titanic conflict which has been raging around our shores and throughout the Continent of Europe almost for two years, many of the capital cities and towns in almost every small country in Europe—neutral countries at that—have been subjected to devastating aerial bombing by one belligerent or another, and that the same fate may some day await this capital and the towns and cities throughout the country. We all hope that such an unhappy event will not occur. But had there been, as well there might have been, an aerial bombardment on a big scale here, the Government would have found themselves, like the foolish virgins of old who failed to trim their lamps, not merely unprepared, but hopelessly so, in so far as the provision of compensation for loss of life or damage to property is concerned.

I find it somewhat difficult to find words to describe this Bill. It is the goodly apple rotten at the core, the whited sepulchre, the innocent flower with the serpent underneath; in fact, it may be described as the unfinished symphony of the Minister for Finance. It is all these things and more. It is the meanest, the trickiest, the most cynical measure which this Government or any other Government have tried to foist on this House. The Bill is characterised not so much by what it proposes to do as by what it proposes not to do. The first notable deficiency in this Bill is its failure to provide compensation for personal injuries sustained as a result of hostile action by one or other of the belligerents. In effect, that means that the head of a family may be struck down and that no compensation is available for his dependents. If he loses a limb, an eye, or is deprived of any of his organs of sense, if his injury is such that he is in any way prevented from earning his livelihood, no provision is made in this Bill for compensation. This Bill takes on a particularly important aspect when we bear this fact in mind, that practically every insurance company has what is known as a war clause inserted in its policies since the outbreak of the war which protects it from providing even as much as one penny piece compensation for personal injuries sustained as a result of hostile military action by one or other of the belligerents.

This Bill authorises the payment of compensation for property, but only certain types of property. For property such as watches, articles of personal ornament, jewellery, money, and so on, which are set out in the Bill, no compensation is to be given; nor, as has been pointed out, is compensation provided for in respect of consequential losses sustained as a result of injury to property. Where the Minister decides to make an offer of compensation to a person claiming damages in respect of property, the following conditions are made to apply: The Minister may offer as much or as little as he likes. He may attach to the offer such conditions as he thinks proper in relation to the expenditure of the compensation. The applicant is at liberty to accept or refuse the offer within a specified period. If he accepts the offer, he may have to accept it with certain conditions laid down by the Minister. If he refuses the offer, he has the right of appeal to the Circuit Court. But there is an important point in that, as the maximum sum which can be secured in the Circuit Court is £300, that is the extent of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.

It is specifically stated in Section 10 that the compensation awarded by the court shall be awarded in respect of the actual damage done to property, and that no compensation shall be awarded in respect of consequential losses. That is in the nature of a directive section for the guidance of the court. It is also laid down in Section 10 that compensation will not be paid for damage to property by the civil authority in an effort to prevent the spreading of fires. The fire brigade or the auxiliary fire brigade and all those services which are at the disposal of the city may be called out. Considerable damage may be done in their efforts to prevent the spread of a fire, but there is no provision for compensation for damage caused in that way.

The Bill actually precludes local authorities from seeking compensation in respect of civic property, such as bridges, streets, sewers and watermains, which the ratepayers are obliged by law to provide and keep in repair. One can readily visualise that damage may be done to property of that kind on such a big scale as to place on the shoulders of the ratepayers a burden that would be beyond their capacity to bear. I fail to see why the Minister has seen fit to preclude local authorities from securing the compensation which, according to the law, it has been the practice to award. It was rather interesting to note in connection with injury to property that the Minister lays it down definitely as a condition in the Bill that new property must be built on the original site. It will be interesting to see how far that condition fits in with modern town-planning ideas. It seems to me that in Part II a very glaring injustice may be done. We can all recall how eloquent and how glib the Government were before they came into office regarding the injustice inflicted on tenants by many ground landlords, and especially the promises that were made to the electorate to curb the activities of these people. This Bill, like many other actions since the Government assumed office, does not show any evidence whatever on the part of the Government to protect these tenants in any way. Under the Bill, if a person's property is destroyed he is obliged to continue paying ground rent. That seems very unjust. One might ask why the Minister went to such trouble to protect ground landlords in this respect.

I have received a communication from a committee that was set up in one area, and when the Minister is replying I hope he will undertake to keep some of the points they refer to in mind. It is pointed out in the communication that none of the following conditions are covered by the Bill: the painting and decorating of houses that have been damaged, removal and storage of furniture, alternative accommodation and the replacement of buildings destroyed. As far as I can ascertain, this Bill compensates for damage to property at the lowest possible limit, and provides various devices to escape making any payment.

It leaves the whole question of assessing compensation to officials and prohibits payment of compensation for consequential losses. Finally it provides in Section 16 that one-fourth of the compensation awarded shall be recovered from the local authorities— the ratepayers—while they are to be denied any right of compensation for damage done to their property. As I pointed out, the Bill is a very mean measure. It is a tricky measure, and might well be compared to a tricky cross-word puzzle in a Sunday newspaper. It is full of pitfalls for the unwary. At a later stage I hope the scope of the Bill will be extended considerably so as to make the provision for the victims of the bombing really valuable.

I should like to protest against the fact that when the Minister was having the Bill drafted he did not see his way to consult local authorities, either through the managers, accountants or corporations. If he had done so I am sure many of the glaring deficiencies in the Bill would not have arisen. I understand that the City Manager of Dublin Corporation has taken the trouble to prepare a case for counsel, emphasising the disadvantages to and the adverse effect on the city of certain omissions from the Bill. I hope the Minister will take the trouble to communicate with the City Manager before the final stages are reached.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

When speaking on this Bill Deputy Cosgrave described it as a skinflint measure. The last speaker was not so elegant in his language, but I gathered that he had in mind something similar to describe it. I happen to be the custodian of the public purse, and I have long experience in public life and a long connection with local authorities, and from my earliest entry into public life the principle I worked on always was, that I must be much more careful of public money than I would be of my own.

I know that is not a popular view. I know that it is not popular with many Deputies who are members of local authorities, in all Parties and not in any particular Party.

Mr. Hickey

Oh, it is.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is not, unfortunately. I have had Deputies say to me: "What is the money there for, except to spend? Give it out." I have had that kind of statement made to me more than once by Deputies who are members of local authorities, but I do not act on that principle. I would fight over every penny of public money, and want to see full justification for its expenditure, before I would sanction it. That is the principle I go on with regard to any public moneys under my control. What I do with my own is my own affair, but I can afford to be more generous with it, if I wish. I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that we ought not to be skinflints in this matter, but I, like Deputy Cosgrave, have a conscience. I know that Deputy Cosgrave has a conscience with regard to public matters, and public moneys in particular—he and I were brought up in the same school and worked together—and I know that he would be at least as careful of public money as I would, but he has not the responsibility now of controlling the Exchequer, or controlling public funds and their expenditure that I have.

When he wound up his speech, he said that he would not give much for the compensation we are likely to get from foreign Powers, and that they will have more than enough to do to meet their own debts, when the war is over. I think he is right. I think the chances of getting full compensation, though, in justice, we should be paid full compensation—and we are going to ask for it and, in some cases, have asked for it—are not rosy, and, therefore, we have to go on the basis, I think, that this expenditure will have to be borne by ourselves. If the money comes later, we shall be very thankful and anything we get over and above what we have already paid we shall divide out amongst those entitled to it.

From my point of view, I think we have to examine very carefully all the commitments we are entering into in this Bill. We shall have to do it, as Deputy Cosgrave suggested, with mercy and charity, as well as with justice, and I am prepared to do that within the limits I have laid down as to the responsibility and the care that must be exercised by every public man in the expenditure of public money. He must guard that money jealously and he must defend the Exchequer, whether of a local authority, or of the nation, and see that every penny he proposes to give out is fully justified. He must take much greater care of it than he would of his money, whatever it may be.

I think Deputy Hannigan must not have been here when I was introducing the Bill. I explained, and explained at length, why it was that personal injuries were not included in this Bill, and I need not go over it again.

Dr. Hannigan

I gather from the Minister that he is opposed to providing compensation for personal injuries.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I announced at the beginning what is proposed in that connection.

Dr. Hannigan

When speaking on his Estimate, the Minister for Industry and Commerce said he was examining the question of preventing people emigrating from this country to England, unless he got an assurance that they would enjoy the same privileges in respect of compensation for personal injuries as British nationals. If that is the policy of his Government, I should like him to say why it is he expects the Government of another country to do for our people what he himself is not prepared to do for them.

An Ceann Comhairle

That scarcely arises on the Bill.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That does not arise here, any more than does the statement by the Deputy on personal injuries. If he had been in his place when the Bill was introduced, he would not have made that statement.

Deputy Cosgrave said that the circumstances of to-day and the circumstances of 1923 are different. They are unquestionably different in many respects. The circumstances under which we have to pay compensation are, admittedly, different, but there is going to be the same type of charge on the national Exchequer, and the national Exchequer is not any better able to bear a heavy charge to-day than it was in 1923, that is, the national Exchequer meaning our own people, because our own people will have to bear this out of their own pockets eventually, I believe, and taxation will have to bear at least 75 per cent. of it.

I do not think I am any less charitable—charity is scarcely the word, because it is not charity—in the sense of having less heart than any of the Deputies who have urged more generous treatment. I realise the position of these people, many of them, and probably the greater number, thrown out of their houses—some of them escaping with their lives and others losing members of their families— owing to the bombings which took place at different times in different places. We all have some realisation of what harrowed feelings the survivors must have experienced. No money will compensate people for such sufferings, and no money that we could give would adequately compensate people for the loss of a husband, a wife or others dear to them. That we cannot compensate for. Personal injuries we must try to make up for, but suffering we cannot provide for. Property is something which is measurable in value and which can be provided for, to some extent. We have to try to provide for it as far as we can and, within reason, to restore to these people homes, again within reason and as nearly as possible, similar to those they had before the bombings took place. That may be possible in some cases; it will not be possible in others.

Most Deputies talked on the question of consequential loss, including Deputy Cosgrave, Deputy Mulcahy, Deputy Byrne and Deputy Hannigan. Consequential loss is something which it is very difficult to measure. It is hard to get what the Americans call a proper yard-stick for measuring it. You might measure the actual out-of-pocket expenses of some people who lost employment in shops in the North Strand and that neighbourhood. I doubt if there were any involved in the South Circular Road. In the North Strand, employees lost their weekly wages.

That is one kind of consequential loss. A trader blown out of his business loses the revenue that he derived from his business. It is proposed to compensate him for the loss of his property, stock in trade, where he had a workshop with plant and machinery— it is proposed to provide compensation for that. But loss of profits, if it were attempted at all, would be a very difficult thing to estimate accurately. I have no doubt, and Deputy Cosgrave agrees, that there would be exaggerated claims. There have been such claims in similar circumstances in the past, and there was no compensation paid for consequential losses in the past because it was realised that it raises a very difficult problem. I went into it before the Bill was drafted. I discussed it with those who have had experience of administration of previous Bills in the past, and it seems to me that it is not possible to arrange for consequential loss. There might be some way by which consequential losses could be justly measured. I do not think it is possible, but I am prepared to look into it.

Similarly with currency. Deputy Byrne said that he knew of a case of an individual who had the ashes of currency notes. If there is anything at all by which a currency note can be recognised, if its number or part of its number even can be distinguished, the Currency Commission will repay it. They do that frequently. People come with charred or burnt notes, with numbers gone, to the Currency Commission. They have to sign forms, but if there is any evidence at all that the currency note did exist, they will be repaid for it. The same, I think, applies to postal orders and postal money orders. I do not know that it would be equitable to ask the State to pay for coin or jewellery the value of which one has no means of measuring. That problem arose before, and the State at that time turned down that proposition. I can realise now the difficulties they had. They had many pressing appeals made to them to pay for jewellery, but the State at that time and the State to-day sees that there is the greatest difficulty in finding any evidence on which one can base the value of jewellery or coin that has disappeared by burning.

Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Dockrell raised the question about the period over which payment may be made. I am quite prepared to reconsider that. I think Deputy Benson also mentioned that fact that three years would be probably too short a time. I am sure the period would have been extended had it been done before but, if Deputies think three years is too short a period, I am quite prepared to make it four or five years. Deputy Dockrell was anxious that the compensation awarded should be a marketable commodity. I think under the present Bill it can be a marketable commodity. A person can sell his interest.

Mr. Dockrell

But do not make it too difficult.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I know. I will look into that matter. On the other point that several Deputies mentioned, including Deputy Benson and Deputy Dockrell, about the section which makes it essential to rebuild on the site, there is power in the Minister to waive that requirement but if we had not that section in the Bill, modified as I say, we would have no power to see that the ruins of any of these places, North Circular Road or the North Strand would be cleared. The ruins might remain there for ever and be a disfigurement to the city. There are cases—and the majority of cases— where people will want to rebuild on the site, subject to the local authority's town planning and other conditions that they will lay down.

Mr. Dockrell

The corporation may take over these sites after a certain time if there is nothing done to them?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They can. They have the power to do that if they are derelict sites for a number of years. Under an Act passed recently they will have that power but we need to have power to encourage people to build. It is not intended that it should be mandatory on everybody to build exactly on the same site, on the same foundation, but we want to have power to see that the site will not be left a ruin. There is power in the Minister to waive that condition. We have thought of town planning and, as Deputy Dockrell reminds us, we have in the last few months given local authorities power, whereby if the site be left derelict for a certain period, they can take it over. I think the question that Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Cosgrave and others raised about rates is one that is worth considering. I am glad it was mentioned and I will go into it.

Deputy Mulcahy raised the question raised by that committee. I got the letter and I saw the committee. It came to me long ago on deputations. I think the question about painting and decoration can be got over. I am not so sure about the removal and storage of furniture and of alternative accommodation. These are consequential and I am not quite sure if I can meet them. But I can meet the others.

General Mulcahy

It is a very definite draw on money on these people.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I wish it was the only draw that most of them will have. They will have that, possibly, but they will have worse and heavier demands.

General Mulcahy

Where can they recoup themselves for that great expenditure?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am prepared to look into it but I am not holding out any hope that it is going to be admitted.

General Mulcahy

I wish the Minister could give us some indication that we have made some impression on him, because if the Committee Stage of this Bill is going to take place next week —will it?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I hope so.

General Mulcahy

Then if we have not made a definite impression on his heart or on his mind now, some of us will have to do a considerable amount of work during the next few days to collect such a volume on that point as will really make an impression on him. I think the number of cases that has been quoted already sufficiently emphasise that these people will be out of pocket £50, on an average, for alternative accommodation for their families, for storage of furniture, etc. That is putting it at a small figure and it is an appalling shock for the ordinary person.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I would be glad to hear the Deputy again in Committee.

General Mulcahy

I wish I had not to go to all the trouble I will have to go to in the meantime to accumulate the information which the Minister knows as well as I do is there.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Replacement of buildings and garages would certainly come within the ambit of the Bill, and also the motor-car that the Deputy had in mind. I take it that the owner of the motor-car would make a claim.

General Mulcahy

What about outlying structures and dividing walls?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They would come within the Bill, and also the rebuilding of workshops and business premises. The corporation were authorised to spend up to £100 on repairs to dwellings.

Mr. Byrne

That is not in providing new buildings, but in repairing. I am talking about the workshop of a shoemaker who had to get alternative accommodation for a small electric machine, and who found it difficult to get the money.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

He would be compensated for damaged plant and machinery, certainly. The legal costs Deputy Byrne asked about will be as the court decides. If the court decides that the costs are to be paid by the Minister, they will be paid. Section 13 (b) allows for that.

Dr. Hannigan

May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that he overlooked making any comment on the observations made that there is no provision in the Bill to exempt people whose property was destroyed from the obligation of paying ground rent?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I have not looked into the question of ground rents, but will do so when I am dealing with rates. I wonder how it will be possible for us to deal with that.

Mr. Byrne

May I just correct one point? I said that all the landlords of the houses collected rents on the very day the bombing took place. I am aware of at least one case where the landlord in Shamrock Cottages forgave the rents. I think the gentleman's name was Higgins, and I would not like people to think that I included him earlier. There may have been others who did not collect rents, but I am sure he did not.

Mr. Benson

Would the Minister say if this Bill overrides the corporation's powers under the Public Health Act regarding the setting back of fronts? It would be necessary for the Minister to deal with that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It would not override the local authorities' powers under the Public Health Acts.

Mr. Benson

The Minister did not reply to the point regarding Section 15.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That requires amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

When will the Committee Stage be taken?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I suggest next Wednesday.

Mr. Dockrell

That leaves very little time. This is almost Friday morning, and amendments would have to be handed in before Monday afternoon.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

If the Deputy or the House is not ready, we can postpone it. I do not wish to rush it.

Mr. Dockrell

It would be hard to read the implications of this Bill and get ready for the Committee Stage in a couple of days.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Committee Stage could be fixed provisionally for next Wednesday.

Ordered accordingly.