HC Deb 31 December 1916 vol 88 cc1609-10
84. Mr. GINNELL

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to his predecessor's undertaking that no public money should be spent on the founding or maintaining of a Government newspaper in Dublin, if he will explain the payment, in priority to duly vouched claims, of over £63,000 of public money to the "Freeman's Journal" Company for alleged destruction of property not valued or verified by any competent and independent person, including consequential losses disallowed to other claimants, such as £600 for rent ana £3,700 for loss of revenue; whether he will allow the particulars of the "Freeman's" claim to be examined; how is the "Freeman's" undertaking given for this special treatment affected by the change of Ministry; and whether, in addition to the £63,000, the "Freeman's" staff will continue, under the new Government as under the old, to be made recipients of positions of emolument at the public expense?

Mr. DUKE

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The premises of the "Freeman's Journal," Limited, and all their contents were completely destroyed during the late disturbances in Dublin. A claim for the loss sustained was duly lodge with the Property Losses Committee and was reported on to the Government in the usual course after a valuation of the loss had been furnished by a competent and independent firm of assessor Applications for payments on account were received from many of the suffering, including the "Freeman's Journal," limited, and in each instance such a sum was recommended by the Committee as the valuation of the loss previously obtained from their assessors justified. In the case of the "Freeman's Journal," the payment on account so recommended was £20,000. As regards claims for rent and loss of revenue, no distinction was made by the Committee between the treatment accorded to the "Freeman's Journal," Limited, and that accorded to other claimants.

Mr. GINNELL

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered that part of the question asking him to allow an independent examination of the claim in this case?

Mr. DUKE

The proper means promised for an examination of these claims has been used. I know no distinction between this case and a multitude of other cases, and I do not propose to be a party to setting up a separate examination as to either or all of these cases.

Mr. GINNELL

Did not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman calls the proper means amount to means for hushing?