asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that Mr. William J. Cleary, 21 High Street, Waterford, has received notice from the Office of Public Works that he has to leave his business premises by 10th December next otherwise he will be evicted by court order and whether he is aware that the difference in the compensation offered and asked is a mere £200 and if in the circumstances he will endeavour to have this man compensated in full for the loss of the business he has built up over such a long number of years.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Waterford Compensation Claim.
The house referred to is one of a number of old houses in a dangerous condition which were acquired by the Commissioners of Public Works, and which it is necessary to demolish, in connection with a scheme for the erection of a new telephone exchange and Government offices. The tenants were warned as far back as August, 1947, that the premises would be required for State purposes, and formal notices determining Mr. Cleary's and the other tenancies were served in July and September, 1950. Although the commissioners were advised that the tenants were not entitled to any compensation, it was decided to make ex-gratia payments to them in consideration of their vacating the premises, the sum offered in Mr. Cleary's case being £200, together with a waiver of rent from August, 1950. Mr. Cleary agreed to accept this offer but later changed his mind, and the commissioners were obliged to institute proceedings. Recently, Mr. Cleary consented to a decree for possession on the understanding that the original ex-gratia offer would be allowed to stand and that the decree would not be executed before 10th December, unless in the interests of safety it should be found necessary to have the premises vacated earlier. I am advised that the offer is a generous one.