Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Nov 1922

Vol. 1 No. 27

COMPENSATION CLAIMS. - MOTION BY MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

MINISTER for FINANCE (The President)

I move:—

DE BHRI go gcaithfidh tamal aimsire imeacht sara dtiocfaidh an reachtúchán san i bhfeidhm a chaithfidh Oireachtas Shaorstáit Eireann dhéanamh chun feidhm do thabhairt do chó-rún na Dála so den 22adh lá de Mheadhon Fhoghmhair, 1922, ach gurb é mian na Dála so go n-éisteofaí agus go socrófaí leis an ndeabha is oiriúnach maidir le ceartmhiosúr cabhrach don lucht fuiligthe na héilithe ar chúiteamh i dtaobh damáiste no lot maoine ón 11adh lá d'Iúl, 1921, i leith.

“THAT INASMUCH AS some time must elapse before the coming into operation of the legislation which must be passed by the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann for giving effect to the resolution of this Dáil of the 22nd day of September, 1922, but it is the desire of this Dáil that the claims for compensation in respect of damage to, or destruction of, property inflicted since the 11th day of July, 1921, should be heard and determined with such expedition as is compatible with a just measure of relief to the sufferers.

Sé oipineon na Dála so, go dtí go ndéanfar an reachtúchán san mar roimhráite, gur cóir gach céim tosaigh do dhéanfadh an t-Aire Airgid le riachtanas no le ceart (i leith is go mbeadh an reachtúchán roimh-ráite i bhfeidhm cheana) d'fhonn na héilithe roimh ráite d'éisteacht agus do shocrú go tapaidh, gur cóir gach céim tosaigh mar sin do dhéanamh gan mhoill chó fada agus is féidir é agus go mór-mhór, gur cóir go ndéanfaí gach socrú ceart chun na héilithe roimh-ráite d'fháil, do roint agus do chlárú sna fuirmeacha san agus do réir an cheistiúcháin a bhaineas leo, a leagfhaidh an t-Aire Airgid amach, agus gur cóir go socrófaí gach éileamh dá shórt fé údarás an Aire Airgid, agus pé comhairle dhleathach agus eolgach is oiriúnach leis do bheith aige, agus go mbaileoidh sé an t-eolas agus an fhínéacht a bhaineann leo chun go ndéanfar na héilithe roimhráite d'éisteacht agus breith do thabhairt ortha (nuair is féidir tosnú air sin go dleathach) leis an ndeabha is mó is féidir; agus órduítear leis an gcó-rún so don Aireacht an méid sin uile do dhéanamh.

THIS DAIL is of opinion, and hereby instructs the Ministry, that, pending such legislation as aforesaid, all such preliminary steps as would necessarily or properly be taken by the Minister for Finance (were such legislation as aforesaid already in operation) with a view to a speedy hearing and determination of the said claims, should so far as possible be taken without delay, and particularly that all proper arrangements be made for receiving, classifying, and registering the said claims in such forms and subject to such relevant inquiries as may be prescribed by the Minister for Finance, and that all such claims shall be examined under the authority of the Minister for Finance with such legal and expert advice as he may think expedient and information and evidence relevant thereto collected by him, so that the hearing and adjudication of the said claims (when the same may be lawfully commenced) shall be prosecuted with the utmost expedition.”

That is the form of the Resolution I propose. I would remind the Dáil that on the 22nd September a Resolution was passed approving of the principle that while a proportion of the compensation which will be recoverable in respect of damage to or destruction of property inflicted since the 11th day of July, 1921, being the date of the Truce between the Forces of Great Britain and Ireland, should under approved conditions be borne as a National liability, nevertheless a date should be determined as from which such liability should remain wholly a burden of the local authorities now primarily responsible for the same. In order that the general arrangements contemplated by this Resolution, under which compensation will be given in cases of post-Truce damage to or destruction of property, may be carried into effect, it will be necessary for the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann to pass legislation in due course. That is a point that must be borne in mind, that the present law is insufficient to deal with such cases. It is, however, I believe, agreed on all sides that it would be very undesirable to do nothing, pending such legislation, in the way of making the necessary advanced preparations for having awards speedily determined and discharged when the proper time arrives. In a matter such as this the mere work of ascertaining the particulars of claims and examining them with reference to the conditions which must govern eventual awards is extremely laborious, and there is a great deal to be gained by proceeding at once with the completion of this preliminary task in a manner which will not prejudice final awards. Under the present Resolution it is proposed immediately to make a prescribed form of claim available on application to offices of the County Councils, on which all persons claiming compensation in respect of post-Truce property damage will be required to set forth all relevant particulars under such heads as will facilitate speedy examination when the matter comes before the County Court. These forms should be available in a few days. In view of the heavy financial liability which it is proposed that the State should undertake in this matter it is intended that on the hearing of claims a special solicitor for each county should be entitled to appear on behalf of the Minister for Finance. All claims received on the prescribed form will be made immediately available to this solicitor and such expert staff as it may be necessary to place at his disposal, so that they may have an opportunity of making adequate investigation into all the facts before the matters come into Court. Claims on the prescribed form will also be directed to be sent to local authorities and to County Councils so that their solicitors and officers may also have full opportunity of investigation. The solicitors acting for the Government will, it is hoped and believed, act throughout with the fullest harmony and co-operation with the officers of local bodies and in such a manner as to secure that the best possible local information is always available for checking claims. It is the view of the Government that by proceeding in this manner we are making the most effective arrangement that is reasonably practicable for expediting the settlement of this important problem and relieving the natural anxiety of sufferers throughout the country. There are two main sides to this question—namely, as regards the machinery to be employed for assessing compensation, and as regards the basis on which the assessment should be made. I am not at present dealing with the question of the basis, but I may say that the several points arising in this connection have been very fully examined, and that preparations in this respect are well advanced for embodying our proposals in the legislation to which I have referred. The question of machinery is practically settled by the present Resolution, taken in conjunction with the fact that the claims will be heard by County Courts, we expect, early in January. The fact that in the County Courts we shall have a large number of tribunals working simultaneously on uniform lines in this matter should secure that the compensation is made available much more rapidly than if we were to set up a special Commission or tribunal for the purpose. The spreading of the preliminary work of investigation among bodies of officers working in the several counties is an important factor. In the case of the Shaw Commission it has been found by experience that the enormous volume of claims has itself constituted a big problem in the merely mechanical sense, quite apart from the labour of determining awards. It is largely on this account that it is only now, after several months' work, that the awards of this Commission have begun to come in in any considerable number. It will be remembered that when making a financial statement in the Dáil on the 6th of last month I indicated that with improved procedure the number of awards of the Commission was on the point of expanding rapidly. As an indication of this I am now glad to be able to inform the Dáil that within the last few days we have received from the Commission notification of a batch of 113 awards, and that the advertisements preliminary to payment in these cases are being published at once. I may say also that satisfactory progress is now being made in disposing of defended pre-Truce claims for property damaged, and that 89 of such claims were advertised for payment on the 18th of last month. I think the amount involved in connection with the 113 cases would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £300,000, and we have already advanced in other cases something in the neighbourhood of half a million, so that we are rapidly mounting up towards one million in connection with the amount of money we have made available in these cases. I formally move the adoption of this.

Mr. P. HUGHES

I beg to second the motion.

Mr. THOMAS JOHNSON

I think it is commendable on the part of the Minister to have taken steps to expedite the hearing of such claims as will be sent in for losses consequent upon the damage or destruction of property inflicted since the 11th July, 1921; and we shall support the Motion, provided that there is an agreement to include, not merely the damage or destruction of property, but also claims for loss of employment consequent upon such destruction. We have had to complain and regret that the Shaw Commission, at any rate, decided that it was not possible for them to include the loss of wages following destruction. But I hope it will not be the decision of the Dáil that we should follow that bad example. It is lamentable and tragic that so much damage has been done to property—property of a kind which meant employment and the destruction of which meant a great deal of distress throughout the country. But perhaps the most important consequence of such destruction has been the deprivation of an opportunity to earn wages. I have not any enumeration of cases. This again is a motion which came to us late, and there has been no time even to study the Resolution itself, or to adduce any detailed argument or instance where claims for loss could be brought forward. It should be clear to the Dáil that if any person has suffered monetary loss through the destruction of a building, that building has to be rebuilt, and machinery to be provided to recompense the sufferer. The men and women who have been deprived of employment, and therefore of their wages, are equally entitled to consideration and have a right to have their claims heard and compensation granted on an equitable basis with the owners of the property. I therefore beg to move as an amendment, after the words "July, 1921," to insert the following: "or for loss of employment consequential upon such destruction or damage." I do not suppose I could say any more to support this amendment, even if I were to talk for half an hour. To me, at any rate, perhaps looking at this question through a particular glass, I can see no reason why anybody should oppose such an amendment, and in that faith I will move my amendment and ask somebody to second it.

Mr. J. LYONS

I second the amendment. I would like to add that in Athlone there has been a printing works destroyed. The employer has got his award for compensation, but the employees, who lost thirteen or fourteen weeks' wages, have received no communication of any description, nor have they got any allowance or any compensation for the time they lost. I believe that the Government, about a year ago, asked those employees to send on certain forms, stating the amount they were at a loss, and that was to be forwarded to the Secretary of the County Council, who was to forward it on here, but this was nearly two years ago. Those people have received no compensation. I am speaking now of the time before the Truce. There has been a very great deal of loss to the workers throughout the country— for instance, to men working in firms where these firms are unable to send out their material, and those employees are at the present time working on half time.

That is owing to the critical state of the country. I think it would be well that the Minister for Finance should take these things into account, because these people are suffering. They are not suffering through being burned out, but nevertheless they are suffering extreme loss, and if it be possible that, when a firm is burned out, the owners receive compensation, I think it is only just that the employee should also receive compensation. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. ALFRED BYRNE

I would ask the Minister to consider the advisability of issuing instructions to any Commission that may sit that they will make a small advance of, say, 10 per cent. on claims to people who are about to build, or who want to build. It is only this week that I met a trader who stated that if he even got 10 per cent., or had an assurance from the Ministry that he would get even 10 per cent. of his claim within a certain period, he would put in foundations with a view to rebuilding. I understand there is no assurance given to any of these people that they will get the slightest assistance until this Commission has sent in its final decision. I would ask the President and the Ministers to consider that point, and allow the owners of destroyed property to go on immediately with their rebuilding operations. Another point I would urge on the Government, or anyone who is likely to be on that Commission is this: you should put in a special clause that no owner of property shall get an award of any sort from the Government unless there is a definite guarantee to rebuild. I was made aware quite recently that there is a case in the North of Ireland in which compensation was awarded to the extent of, I think, £20,000 for a mansion. When the owner of the mansion got his £20,000 he put it in his pocket and crossed to England, and there is no possible chance of that mansion or the little industries around it that were destroyed ever being built again, because there was no condition put in when the award was made that he was to rebuild. I hope the Government will take steps to see that no man will get an award for property destroyed unless he gives a definite assurance to rebuild.

Mr. D. MORRISSEY

I would like to support the amendment moved by Deputy Johnson, and in doing so I wish to point out the hardship that is inflicted on the workers by the destruction of property since the Truce. In most cases the destroyed property consists of mansions throughout the country, and really an extreme hardship has been imposed on the workers that have been thrown out of work as a direct result of this. They are not even entitled to the unemployment dole. I might mention that I have a case in my mind at the present moment. I have one case in mind of a place burned down where there were 25 men thrown out of employment, and this case would not be outside the amendment we are discussing. The crops in that particular place are going to waste. There are ten or twelve acres of potatoes, and the same acreage of oats and barley, that cannot be attended to and that are going to waste. I think that is one of the things that should be looked after. The workers, since the Truce, deserve consideration, especially as most of these employees are men who have grown old in the employment of those whose houses have been burned down and they have no chance of getting other employment at the present time.

The PRESIDENT

Legislation will have to be introduced, as I have already stated, with regard to this matter. I am not personally disposed to agree with any extension of the principle that is laid down. I am not in a position to assure the Dáil that the country will be able to stand the enormous claims that are in hands for compensation by reason of this damage. Now, this matter of unemployment was under consideration by us, and I was informed by people whom I consulted in the matter—I have not got the notes now—that there was a very considerable sum of money made available for unemployment. I have already told the Dáil we have made available for Local Authorities a sum of £275,000 early this year, and we have earmarked £100,000 for the relief of distress on the whole western seaboard. We put something like £1,000,000 in for housing. We have an army of 30,000 and we are making up a Civic Guard of 3,000 or 4,000. Compared with the order which is largely affected by this Resolution, I must say that the balance is in favour of the order represented by the Deputies opposite. We have claims in at the present moment—most extravagant claims—for every conceivable sort of loss. We have claims for loss of business, for depreciation of shares as a result of what has happened, for dislocation of business, for business interruption, for money and jewellery from people who never possessed much money and who never sported such jewellery, and for consequential damages. There is an order not mentioned by anybody here who have stood, I think, very considerable loss during the last three or four or five years—that type of person who was "on the run," and who certainly had to bear a good deal of expense by reason of that particular class of experiment—and then there is the loss suffered by farmers through losing markets, and so on. Now, as regards the 10 per cent. that has been mentioned by the Deputy, I think some of those who are making claims would be very well paid if they got 10 per cent. of the claims that they have put in. This does not refer to everybody. But I have seen some of the claims, and I am positively satisfied that if you said, "Will you close for 10 per cent?" they would say, "Oh, certainly, and at once, thank you." That is the position we are in, with claims for over thirty millions. If we open the door any wider I do not know what the sum is we would be in for. There has been a general loss throughout the entire country. Each order has borne its share, and I would say that the order which has, perhaps, borne its share most patriotically is the order represented by the Deputies opposite. I think they did it in a fine patriotic sense of their duty to the country, and I think they will benefit by the distribution of these awards when they are made, and that there will be, as result of the sacrifices they made, a greater security for their employment for the future. But I think that if the terms be extended the country will not be able to bear it. People are rather inclined to smile about the depreciation of shares; but that sort of thing does affect business, and business houses in making up their accounts, when they have to write down their reserves, or anything of that sort, owing to depreciation in shares, will seek to recoup their losses in some way or other by minimising their expenditure; and people opposite know what economy in that direction means.

It means cutting down the wages bill. I do not know that it would be possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy any such loss as has been mentioned by Deputy Johnson. In cases where places have been closed people go away and get other employment. That has not been always the case, but generally it is so. If my recollection is correct, when Deputy Johnson appeared before the Dáil last December, when the Treaty was under consideration, the number of unemployed at that time was in the neighbourhood of 100,000, and the figures reported to us last week here show a reduction of about 50 per cent. on that number.

Mr. T. JOHNSON

For half the country.

The PRESIDENT

. I do not know exactly what half is mentioned—whether it is the 26-32 or the 6-32.

Mr. T. JOHNSON

100,000 was quoted for the whole country, and there are 47,000 still in the Northern half, or one-third, or whatever fraction you call it. The number in the twenty-six counties is about the same—35,000 officially registered.

The PRESIDENT

If that be so then I say we are showing some form in unemployment in the South; and the case would seem to be admitted by reason of that. However, it comes to this, that whatever little charity I may have possessed has, I think, fled since I became Minister for Finance. This is a matter in which I am out for getting in money, and I am very slow to put it out. Now, these are the circumstances of the case. There is an expenditure of some £10,000,000 or £13,000,000 beyond the estimated receipts, and these estimated receipts are on the basis of a very honest type of citizen who has not shown himself up to this. I hope we will be able to see him before the first of April with his full payment of Income Tax. I ask the Deputies not to press this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would point out that the Resolution as it stands means prejudicing the legislation which is referred to in the Resolution and limiting the direct authority. If it is not that, if, in its wisdom—and I hope it will be wise enough—it includes in the enactment these people whom I am desirous of bringing in then the work that is going to be begun now will have to be begun all over again. It is said, of course, that the country cannot stand that. Then there will have to be pro rata deduction from those who have suffered from whatever cause and whatever kind of suffering or loss. It is not germane to speak of the "order" of the working class. We are not asking for a contribution for the working class and the unemployed. That is not claimed at all. We are asking that if a printer has been disemployed by virtue of the burning of a printing works, his claim for losses is just as good as the claim of the owner of that printing works, and to say that you have advanced money for housing and that you have advanced money for road-making, or for other things, does not affect that printer's loss, and unless under very extraordinary conditions you cannot get that printer to build a house, because he cannot do it.

The PRESIDENT

He could occupy one.

Mr. T. JOHNSON

Every conceivable claim, the Minister says, has been sent in for all kinds of losses, real and imaginary. They will have to be sifted. Claims that would be sent in if this amendment passed would be very clear and easily tested, and if advantage has been taken of the moneys that have been expended, and if men have received other employment, then, of course, that would be taken into account in the fixing of compensation. There is no just reason for depriving the workman of compensation for loss of wages which does not apply equally to any of those other people who have put in claims, which are alleged to be exaggerated to the extent of 90 per cent. in many cases. We are not asking in this case, as I have said, for a vote to meet general unemployment, and we have been told that the Government have no plans to deal with unemployment. That is all the more reason why men who have lost their employment by virtue of destruction of the kind that is under consideration should have some title to compensation pro rata with the compensation that is allowed to the owner of the destroyed property. The case seems to me to be a perfectly sound one and a perfectly logical one, and I would urge on the Minister to accept the amendment, so that in the preparation of cases for the tabulation, classifying, and registering of such claims, claims for loss of wages should be taken into account and should receive at least equal attention from those responsible as claims for loss of property.

The PRESIDENT

I do not know whether I am in order or not, or whether Deputy Johnson was in order in what he was stating——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Johnson was scarcely strictly in order, but he proposed the amendment.

The PRESIDENT

What I wish to say with regard to this case is that if you make the terms of reference as wide as Deputy Johnson has mentioned, it is meaningless. You could not possibly do it. If you confine cases of this sort to a particular set—take, for example, the printing works that Deputy Johnson has spoken of—and if by reason of the burning of that place these men lost their employment, and they did not afterwards get employment by reason of the place being destroyed, there might be something to be said for considering a claim of that sort; but I would remind Deputy Johnson that if the particular case he mentions is the Athlone Printing Works, my recollection is that it was burned by the Black and Tans.

Mr. T. JOHNSON

I only gave an imaginary illustration.

The PRESIDENT

A rather dangerous one. That is one of the cases that is under the Lord Shaw Commission.

Mr. T. JOHNSON

I did not mention Athlone.

Mr. LYONS

I did. I mentioned Athlone.

The PRESIDENT

I think this case would come under the Commission. I do not think you would get the Dáil to adopt this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

Chance that.

The PRESIDENT

If you had any particular case, and if you had evidence to show that it should be included, that would be a different matter. I am quite sure you would appreciate it if we were to be made responsible for loss of employment during the last three, four or five years, but the nation could not afford it.

Mr. T. JOHNSON

May I explain that we are dealing with the Resolution and we are not touching four or five years. This is a specific period for special classes of property destroyed and damaged. I am prepared to add the words "directly consequential upon such destruction," if the Minister would accept that.

The PRESIDENT

It is rather too wide. I am afraid I cannot accept anything so wide as that.

Mr. P. HOGAN

I may say that for myself I would be totally against accepting any such amendment. We have to remember the implications of any such amendment. If a workman is entitled to compensation because he is thrown out of employment by reason of the destruction of the particular works— the particular printing works, say—or any other works where he is usually employed, then surely there is no case for not giving an employer compensation for loss of profits.

Mr. JOHNSON

That would depend on legislation.

Mr. P. HOGAN

If on the one side a worker is entitled to compensation for his loss of employment, I want to know is there any case in life for refusing an owner of property, whose property has been destroyed, compensation for loss of profits? I think that is a fair question. I think no just man will deny that when you once admit consequential damage on one side you must have consequential damage on the other. We have still got loss of property in this country. You have got to remember that. If you admit consequential damage on one side and the other, what is the bill going to be like? Will 100 millions cover it? And where will we get money for land purchase? There are a lot of landless men in the country and they are all looking for farms. Land purchase must be completed, but where is the money to come from? After all, we are not children here. We have got to make our arrangements—add and subtract, multiply and divide—and get the sum out right. Where is all the money to come from? Deputy Johnson stated at the beginning that this was a matter of faith rather than reason with him, and I think it is still the position. There is no reason whatever, I urge. It would be quite out of the question to entertain this amendment, and I appeal to the Dáil to reject it.

Amendment put:—To insert after July, 1921, the words "or for loss of employment consequential upon such destruction or damage."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 36.

Tá

• Pádraig Mac Gamhna.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Ailfrid Ó Broin.
• Liam Ó Briain.
• Tomás Ó Conaill.
• Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.
• Séamus Eabhróid.
• Liam Ó Daimhín.
• Seán Ó Laidhin.
• Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.
• Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.

Níl

• Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
• Donchadh Ó Guaire.
• Uáitéar Mac Cumhaill.
• Seán Ó Maolruaidh.
• Seán Ó Duinnín.
• Seán Mac Haol.
• Domhnall Ó Mocháin.
• Peadar Mac a' Bháird.
• Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.
• Seán Ó Ruanaidh.
• Micheál de Duram.
• Domhnall Mac Cártaigh.
• Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
• Earnán Altún.
• Sir Séamus Craig.
• Gearóid Mac Giobúin.
• Liam Thrift.
• Eoin Mac Néill.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Pádraig Ó hOgáin.
• Pádraig Ó Máille.
• Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Criostóir Ó Broin.
• Ristéard Mac Liam.
• Caoimhghin Ó hUigín.
• Tomás Mac Artúir.
• Séamus Ó Dóláin.
• Proinsias Mag Aonghusa.
• Peadar Ó hAodha.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Uinseann de Faoite.
• Domhnall Ó Broin.
• Séamus de Burca.
• Micheál Ó Dubhghaill.

Motion put and carried.

Tá.

Níl.

Pádraig Mac Gamhna.Tomás de Nógla.Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.Tomás Mac Eoin.Ailfrid Ó Broin.Liam Ó Briain.Tomás Ó Conaill.Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.Séamus Eabhróid.Liam Ó Daimhín.Seán Ó Laidhin.Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.

Liam T. Mac Cosgair.Donchadh Ó Guaire.Uáitéar Mac Cumhaill.Seán Ó Maolruaidh.Seán Ó Duinnín.Seán Mac Haol.Domhnall Ó Mocháin.Peadar Mac a' Bháird.Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.Seán Ó Ruanaidh.Micheál de Duram.Domhnall Mac Cártaigh.Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.Earnán Altún.Sir Séamus Craig.Gearóid Mac Giobúin.Liam Thrift.Eoin Mac Néill.Liam Mag Aonghusa.Pádraig Ó hOgáin.Pádraig Ó Máille.Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.Seoirse Mac Niocaill.Criostóir Ó Broin.Ristéard Mac Liam.Caoimhghin Ó hUigín.Tomás Mac Artúir.Séamus Ó Dóláin.Proinsias Mag Aonghusa.Peadar Ó hAodha.Liam Mac Sioghaird.Earnán de Blaghd.Uinseann de Faoite.Domhnall Ó Broin.Séamus de Burca.Micheál Ó Dubhghaill.

Mr. W.A. DAVIN

The President in opposing the amendment which was moved by Deputy Johnson stated that the benefit of the distribution of the grant would be derived in a fair share by the workers later on. I think that the case such as that referred to by Deputy Alfred Byrne, of people who, when they get the amounts they have claimed, excessive or otherwise, are going to be allowed to clear out of this country, ought not to get money without some conditions being laid down whether they are going to rebuild or carry on their former business. I think the workers are not going to get very much out of it so far as these cases are concerned. It is rather unfortunate that in a good many cases in the country, large mansions have been destroyed— places where a good number of people have got employment. The people who owned these mansions were, generally speaking, the remnants of England's loyal garrison in this country, who have cleared out to a more congenial home, and as far as I can gather, at least from newspaper comments, do not intend to return to this country. I presume they will take whatever will be given by the Irish people so far as money is concerned, and they are not going to spend any part of that particular money in this country any more. This is a result largely of that clearing out we hear of so much from the other side to-day about a proper settlement of the claims which have been made by that particular class. Representations have been made to the Provisional Government, I understand, by the British Authorities to hurry or speed up the settlement of these claims. That particular aspect of the matter is receiving attention as far as I can see in the political claims of the party in conflict in England at the approaching general election. Now, I think if the British Government has any right to interfere with the Provisional Government in this particular aspect of this business, which is the business of the Irish Government, we are equally entitled to ask the British Government, in reply, how they are dealing, or why it is they are not dealing in a proper way, with the legitimate claims of the Catholics of the Six Counties, that their forces were unable to protect. I hope the aspects of the matter that have been raised by Deputy Byrne will receive the very careful consideration of the Government, that any claims made by people— big claims—in regard to the destruction of mansions and property within the Twenty-Six Counties will not be given without proper conditions being laid down, so that they will have to rebuild and carry on the work heretofore carried on by them.

The PRESIDENT

In regard to the point raised by Deputy Davin, directly application was made to us in the first instance in respect of those refugees in England, we accepted liability, and we were entitled to accept liability, because we were discharging the functions of a Government and we accept liability for affording protection to all citizens. And in the same letter in which we accepted that liability we made a claim for the people to whom, he has mentioned, Sir James Craig was not able to afford sufficient protection.

No time whatever was lost in regard to that. I understand the number of refugees in England exceeds the number of refugees from the North, and, I believe, as in the case of refugees from all countries, that some of them are cases that are not strictly bona fide, although I do not say that about the whole of them, as I have not seen the lists nor got any particulars about them. In so far as we are concerned for the Government of this country, we know no order in the community. Every order in it has a right to protection and every order in it should get that protection, even though these people are the class or the order that Deputy Davin spoke of. These people must get all the rights and privileges of citizenship in this country, and if they have been robbed, or deprived of their property, that property must be restored to them. That is a moral obligation on our part, as well as a legal obligation. We, on our part, will also claim for those citizens of Belfast or other places in the Six Counties who have been driven out. The real cause of complaint, I understand, is the slowness of the Shaw Commission. There is a very large number of claims, and it would be, I think, impossible for that Commission, sitting continuously, to have dealt expeditiously with the cases. We have, however, set up other machinery, and we are getting more rapidly through the cases. The particular machinery we are setting up in this case will be much more extensive than that of the Shaw Commission. It will rather resemble extra machinery that has been brought into play in order to expedite the work of the Shaw Commission. In the resolution that will be introduced all those matters that have been referred to by Deputy Davin can be safeguarded. It is our intention to attach a building condition, where buildings have been destroyed. I think you will find that in the Bill when it comes before the Dáil, and any other safeguards that are considered necessary may also be considered at that time, but I refrained in making my statement from going into any details, simply enabling the Government to get the claims tabulated and segregated, to see what class of machinery would be best adapted for dealing with them. Therefore, I recommend the Dáil to pass the Resolution.