It has to be remembered that this Committee was appointed for the purpose of giving compensation and not damages, as are given in the Courts. We know that frequently in the Courts people get damages, and that they are very glad, as a result, that the accident happened to them. There was no intention that damages should be given. The object was to give compensation and the Committee were directed, amongst other things, to take into account the actual earning capacity of the injured person prior to the injury, and the impairment of earning capacity attributable to the injury. Although the attention of the Committee was directed to that, they were not confined to it. The direction given was to recommend sums that, in fairness and reason, should be paid, and that, amongst other things, they should have regard to actual earning capacity. As to the case mentioned, where a person who received £10 had to pay £8 for expenses, that seems to me a case in which the whole matter was amply covered. There should not be any idea of giving a person a sum for simply having been wounded. If the girl recovered, she probably lost little or nothing in wages during the time she was ill. If the hospital charges were paid, the matter was sufficiently met. As to the case of a woman who lost an eye, to which Deputy Byrne referred, where only £20 was given, that seems to be a case that requires to be looked into. I have already promised Deputy Byrne to have a report on that case. It might be, if one knew all the circumstances, even in such a case, that the sum given was as much as could reasonably be expected. In regard to the fact that cases were decided without the claimants having an opportunity of actually going before the Committee, I do not object to that, and I do not think it can really be objected to, under the circumstances. A great number of people put in claims who, even on their own statements, were not entitled to receive anything. All sorts of people rushed in thinking that the State had a broad back and that they might as well try and get something out of it. Where it seemed to the Committee that on the claimant's own statement there was no right to compensation, I think it was fair enough that the matter should be dealt with on the papers before them. The Committee received its Terms of Reference, and no solicitor nor any person representing the Ministry of Finance was present to beat down the claims. The Committee was appointed, and acted with a certain amount of informality. It was expected to undertake any cross-examination that might be necessary to get at the truth. I believe sincerely that in all cases every consideration was given to the applicants. I do not say that mistakes may not have occurred. I do not say that there might not be cases where revision would be required, and as far as I am concerned, if there is a sufficiently strong case, I would take up the matter of reconsideration with the Committee.
I want to affirm at the same time that my general attitude is one of confidence in the fairness of the Committee. They have not been urged, nor expected, to be unduly economical at the expense of claimants. The Committee quite well understood that as there is no representative of the Finance Ministry appearing before them to fight cases, they are expected to look after all sides of the matter. I am quite confident they have really aimed at dealing fairly and giving compensation to people who are really entitled, but not giving damages in the sense in which damages were given in Courts. I am prepared to take up any case that is put up, but I must affirm my confidence in the fairness of the Committee as a whole.