Vol. 8 No. 3
I move Vote 15:
That a sum not exceeding £507,250 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for certain payments of compensation in respect of personal injuries, or death.
I wish to draw attention under this Vote to the treatment of Dublin citizens by the Personal Injuries Committee. Within the last few months, by Question, I drew attention to a few cases in which lives were paid for by awards of sums of £10. I had one case in hand in which an ex-British soldier with a pension of £1 a week, residing in North Great George's Street, who, while sitting at his own tea-table during the attack on Fowler Hall, was shot dead.
Under which sub-head is the Deputy raising this question?
I have not got the Vote with me.
It is apparently sub-head D, but before the Deputy goes into that, and before we come to sub-head D, Deputies wishing to raise anything on the previous sub-heads would be excluded if we are now going to discuss sub-head D.
Under sub-head A, which deals with compensation in respect to injuries sustained during the pre-Truce period, I wish to know what is the procedure for dealing with these cases. In some cases the relatives of the parties concerned appealed to the courts and awards were made. In some cases they were not paid. In other cases no appeal was made to the courts in the matter, and were afterwards, I take it, referred to the Personal Injuries Committee. I think there is a good deal of confusion with regard to these pre-Truce cases both as to the procedure that should be adopted and that which is being adopted. In this connection, and in view of what Deputy Byrne has stated, to the effect that he was going to draw attention to cases where the Personal Injuries Committee awarded £10 where life was lost, I wish to mention a very sad case which came under my notice. I bring it forward as a typical case in which a young man was killed by the Black and Tans. I think most Deputies will remember the incident. It was in connection with the deaths of Lord Mayor O'Callaghan and Mr. Clancy in Limerick. On the same night upon which that incident occurred a young man named O'Donoghue was killed. He was a working man, a butcher's assistant, I think. The Personal Injuries Committee refused to give any grant by way of compensation. His mother applied for compensation to this Committee, but no grant has been given. I think, in view of all the circumstances of the case, it was one in which compensation should have been given to the relatives of the deceased man. The point has, I understand, been made that no dependency was proved, but I think that that was not sufficient reason to refuse compensation in a case of this kind. It is the most glaring of the cases brought to my notice in regard to pre-Truce claims which come under sub-head A.
I think that this is also under sub-head D.
Perhaps I may remind the Deputy that under sub-head A the Personal Injuries Committee had nothing to do with it as it was pre-Truce.
With regard to sub-head A, it is the usual practice when Bills are brought before the House that the Minister in charge of the Bill in question should bring it before the House and explain its salient features. I think that that would be a good thing in regard to estimates of this kind, instead of letting them be introduced and allowing Deputies gather the general purpose of them. Here is a case in sub-head A where there is an increase of £385,000. We can formulate a guess, which may be accurate or not, as to the cause of the increase, but I think that this is a case in which a prefatory statement might save a lot of questions afterwards. I would like to put a question as to what the causes are for this increase that appears in sub-head A.
Before the President replies, I would like a point cleared up in connection with the payment of these claims generally. I understood, from a discussion that occurred during the last few days, that some of the payments were to be made by way of bonds and not entirely in cash. Do I understand in connection with this particular estimate that the payments for injuries are to be entirely in cash and that provision is made accordingly?
So far as I understand, any compensation award pre-Truce which has not since been re-heard or re-investigated, must be paid in cash.
There were no such things as reports or recommendations for pre-Truce compensations. It is only during the period from the 11th July, 1921, until the 12th May, 1923, which was subsequent to the Truce, that these reports came into existence. From what I can gather the claims which were made before 11th July, 1921, the awards in which were made and which have not been re-opened or re-heard, must be paid, when they are paid, in cash. But as regards the cases which have been made re-opened, I, in company with the last speaker, would like to know whether those awards are to be paid in cash, because these cases were tried under the then existing Criminal Injury Code. Of course they were not defended, and it is because they were not defended in those days that power has been given under the Damage to Property Act to have the whole cases re-opened and retried. But I do think that it would be well if we could understand in those cases that have been re-opened, and where awards have been made, whether those awards are to be paid in cash or otherwise.
I would like to ask a question regarding the position of the tribunal in respect of damage done by British troops or police, which is alleged to have been without authority. I understand some question has been raised in connection with this tribunal regarding the purpose of the tribunal, the terms of reference, the intentions of the tribunal, and that a case had been made by one party represented in the tribunal that this did not affect damage done by British troops who were acting under authority, but only damage done when inflicted by troops or police without authority. I would like to know from the Minister whether he can throw any light on the position in regard to this intention, where the contention has been upheld and is being acted upon, or whether it was a contrary intention, which I think was the general expectation on this side of the water, that all damage done by Crown forces, as they were called, whether under orders or not, was to be charged against the British authorities.
In cases of decisions being arrived at, I should like the Minister to tell us, where those who made application are dissatisfied with the decisions, if there is an appeal from those decisions, and if so, to what tribunal. I have in mind at least a score of cases where the people are dissatisfied, and I think rightly dissatisfied, with the decisions that have been arrived at. But there is some confusion, and a good deal of lack of knowledge as to what to do in these cases. Like Deputy O'Connell, I have one particular case in my mind where liability, if not denied, is at least questioned. For the guidance of the Minister I will give it to him as more or less typical. It is a case where a man resigned from the R.I.C. and went with an active service unit of the I.R.A. The man was killed in action. When in the R.I.C. the man was the sole support of his wife and two children. The widow and her two children are trying to exist ever since, while the Government are questioning their liability in the case. These are cases in which we should like some definite ruling from the Minister, cases in which claimants are dissatisfied and have a genuine case for dissatisfaction.
Do I understand we are not taking these Estimates seriatim, A., B., C., D., or are we to be allowed to discuss them all together?
I am always against the discussion of several things at the same time. I would like to have the discussion taken seriatim. That is why I stopped Deputy Byrne when he began on sub-head D. I think Deputy O'Connell spoke on the Personal Injuries Committee, and not under sub-head D. I am not sure whether Deputy Hogan was talking of the Personal Injuries Committee or the International Commission.
The International Commission.
What was originally called the Shaw Commission.
Yes.
That is sub-head A.
Before the President replies—
I think it would be better to reply to some extent. I think it is fairly well explained in the sub-heads what it is actually that we are dealing with. In sub-head A, and on the following page, there is a note describing exactly the large increase. Increase is not a good word there, neither is it a good word as used by Deputy Figgis. The fact is, we have not been able to deal with those cases earlier, and in consequence they appear in that particular form. But it is not an item that will go up and up year after year. We must deal with them at some time.
I only used the word that was in the note.
The note ought to have explained the point that Deputy Figgis and Deputy Johnson were raising with me. Payments under that sub-head are made in accordance with terms of agreement that were made between the Provisional Government and the British Government in respect of Personal Injury Claims, arising out of the Anglo-Irish conflict. It was agreed that the awards that were obtained were such that they would stand. The British Government discharged their obligations in respect of their supporters in connection with those awards. In our case persons on our side had to be dealt with. In the vast majority of cases they had not got those awards. The claims in respect of supporters of the British side under the Acts which were then in force were claims for damages, and you will want to mark the difference between damages and compensation. We have at no time undertaken to pay damages. We have undertaken to pay compensation, and in that connection there must necessarily be a very considerable difference between compensation which is paid by us and the damages that are paid by the British Government. We cannot have it both ways. We contested the legality and the morality of those Personal Injuries Acts when they were put into operation here, and we cannot now claim that, having contested them for some years, all the provisions of these particular instruments should be enforced. To that extent there is, and must be, a remarkable difference between sums awarded in court, under these particular Acts, and sums awarded by the Personal Injuries Committee, under the terms of reference which were read out here, and which were within the knowledge of every member of the Dáil at the time that I announced that Committee was about to be set up, and that they would deal with those cases according to terms of reference which were published at the time.
Now, apart from dealing with what are called supporters of either side, there is another class of person who was not actively engaged on either side, and in respect of that type of person it has been agreed that the charge for compensation would run in the nature of fifty-fifty. In consequence, it will be observed that there is at the bottom of page 51 the following:—"The receipts in connection with this service are estimated as follows: Extra receipts payable to the Exchequer (Repayment by British Government)—£130,000." These payments that are being made— it was mentioned last year, and I think there was nobody under any misapprehension about it—are purely ex-gratia payments.
One particular clause in the Terms of Reference was to the effect: "That the Committee would recommend to the Minister for Finance what sums should in reason and fairness be paid in the several cases above mentioned, regard being had to the actual earning capacity of the injured person prior to the injury, and the impairment of earning capacity attributable to the injury, and the actual extent of dependency on the deceased person prior to death or injury of that person, and to any effective provision made by the deceased person for his dependents by way of insurance or otherwise."
In that particular case it is to be seen at once that we limited whatever compensation would be paid in the nature of an ex-gratia payment by all these circumstances, the impairment of earning capacity and the actual dependency, having taken into account any sums of which the deceased was in possession either by insurance or otherwise.
Are those not the Terms of Reference under sub-head (D)?
I understood you were dealing with sub-heads (A), (B), (C) and (D). Deputy Figgis may not have been referring to them, but they were all mentioned.
Deputy Figgis wanted an explanation on all the sub-heads.
I was asking particularly in regard to sub-head (A).
If the President would dispose of sub-head (A) it would simplify the matter.
I have nothing else to say in regard to that.
The President did not reply to the question in regard to payment.
In any case, and in all cases, payment will be made in cash. That applies to all sections dealing with personal injuries.
I believe, but I am not quite sure, that what I am about to refer to comes under sub-head (A). It really arises out of the point referred to by Deputy Hogan, as to what was the tribunal to which any person having a grievance could appeal. People might hold the opinion that the compensation award was not fair and right.
That would come under sub-head (D).
I will refer briefly to the case of a friend of mine who was shot by Black and Tans in Thurles during the struggle. He was newly married, and he was the only one in a position to earn anything. As a result of his death the shop in which he carried on business was closed. Five months after the man was shot a child was born. As a result of appeals made to her by the local Commandant of the I.R.A. and by the Thurles Urban Council, the widow refused to bring a case into court. It was only recently a decision was arrived at by the Personal Injuries Commission by which a certain amount of compensation was granted. I hope that decision is not final. I contend that if all the considerations referred to by the President were taken into consideration by the Committee the compensation granted in this case should be much more than what was given. This particular case I have in mind was mentioned to the President and at least three other Deputies, some of whom are acquainted with the facts.
It is the first time I have heard of it.
In a case of this kind, where there is apparent dissatisfaction on the part of the dependents, the wife and child, what is the form through which the aggrieved person must go in order to bring a case before a higher tribunal? Is it the Minister for Finance who will look into it? What is the method of appeal? I think there is good ground for a complaint here. In addition to the small amount of compensation granted there was £1 a week given to the woman from the date of the birth of the child until the date the Personal Injuries Commission made its award. The Personal Injuries Commission, or the Minister for Finance, has given instructions that the amount granted by the Irish White Cross Society must be deducted out of the award made. For my own information, and that of the person involved, I want to know to what place an appeal can be made, as there appears to be a great grievance in this instance. If that case were taken into court against the wishes of the local Commandant of the I.R.A., and the Urban Council, thousands instead of hundreds would be granted.
To some extent sub-heads (A) and (D) are bound together. A case such as has been mentioned by Deputy Davin, which does not come under sub-head (A), but which in point of time and circumstances and by right would come under that sub-head, had the person gone into court, now comes under sub-head (D). To that extent we might take all the sub-heads together.
The Minister's control over sub-heads (A) and (D) is quite different in character.
Yes.
The case mentioned by Deputy Davin is on the same plane as Donoghoe's case in Limerick. Assuming those people went to court and got an award, who would be responsible for paying that? Would the British Government?
No.
No, the Free State.
Would the money, even if it were paid by the Irish Government, not be made good by the British Government?
No. I explained in connection with those cases that responsibility for payment to supporters of each side was accepted by the side in question. In other words, in the case of a British soldier who lost his life during the period of the conflict, his dependents would be compensated by the British Government. One of our supporters who was injured would be compensated by us, or in the case of his death his dependants would be compensated by us. In this case the committee which hears those cases is the final and only court. If there are grounds for believing that certain facts were not taken into consideration, or that the decision was unfair, a representation to the Minister for Finance, with particulars of the case, would receive and has already received very sympathetic consideration from him; but only to that extent, and there is no appeal from him. In some cases there have been such appeals, and I have heard him here in the Dáil state he would consider any representations put before him in connection with cases where persons think they did not get fair treatment by the committee.
I desire to make reference to the case of an ex-British soldier who resided in North Great George's Street, and who was in receipt of a pension of £1 per week from the British Government. He was living with his mother, and during the attack on the Fowler Hall this man was shot dead in his own room. His mother made a claim, and in that case the Personal Injuries Committee decided that as his pension was only sufficient to keep himself his mother had proved no dependency upon him. They wrote her a letter—a very heartless letter, in my opinion—that in this case no award could be paid. No award was paid in that case. They never took into consideration that this man a few days before had an offer of employment. He was only three months home from the Army, in receipt of this pension. He was on Guinness's unemployment roll and was about to be sent for. As reasonable wages are paid, as we all know, in Guinness's, the mother had happy prospects of being maintained by her son. But the Personal Injuries Committee turned down her application and said that no dependency had been proved in that case. I hold that evidence of that should have weighed with the Commission and that something should have been allowed that unfortunate woman.
Another case I wish to deal with is from Buckingham Place. I have a letter from the mother of the victim in my attache case, which is full of similar letters, and if I could get the Ministry to deal with them I would be very grateful. I just wish to mention the dissatisfaction that exists amongst parents and dependents of those who were seriously injured or lost their lives, through no fault of their own. This is a case in which the Personal Injuries Commission wrote to Mrs. McKeever, 10 Buckingham Place, Dublin, awarding her an ex gratia grant of £10 in respect of the death of her son, Arthur McKeever, on the 28th June, 1920. That woman paid £17 to bury her son. In this case he was a soldier who had just returned a few months previously from the British Army and whose name was on Guinness's list for employment and who had prospects, also, of getting in. In that case, as a result of the loss of what was hoped to be the breadwinner of the family, a woman was put to the expense of £7 for the burial of her son, following the burning of the Four Courts. There is another case in which the rifle of a sentry at the City Hall went off about 12 or 18 months ago. A brass finisher was fixing a brass plate on a door in the street. He was a married man with a large family. That man was shot and disabled, as a result of the carelessness of this sentry. The man is unfit to follow his occupation, and his claim has not been dealt with yet. Judging by what I see of the way they are treating similar cases, that man's prospects are very poor. As a result of his losing his employment, through the carelessness of this soldier, one of his children—a little girl of 14½—was compelled to go out and work in a factory. This unfortunate man's daughter was burned to death in this factory. The report of the inquest was published in the newspapers about six or eight months ago. I just mention that to show what the result of these accidental shootings sometimes is. If it had not been that this man was shot, this little girl of 14½ would not have been compelled to go to work in this factory. As it was, this man lost his employment and he lost his little girl. There is another case in which, in the year 1922 or 1923, Free State troops occupied the Central Hotel. Amongst them there were a couple of officers—majors or captains —and through some accident or some jollification that went on, the porter of the hotel was shot through the jaw. His tongue was split, his jaw bone smashed, and he was disabled and is now incapable of working. His sister made a claim and, as far as I can gather, there has been no compensation paid in that case whatsoever. She got a letter stating that the Government were not responsible for the actions of the officers in the hotel. There were, I think, four cases in which the highest award was £10, and in three cases not even funeral expenses were paid to the people. I have some particulars of cases in which a Government Department wrote and said they were not responsible and that no funds were provided for payment of those cases. They said they were not responsible for the acts of their servants or that the military car in which some officer was driving was being used at the time for unofficial purposes. Somebody who was joy riding killed, or seriously injured, some pedestrian, and the Government denied liability in such a case. I think there ought to be a Court of Appeal and that those who composed the Personal Injuries Committee ought to have had more consideration for the dependents of those concerned and less consideration for the Government. It would appear by the decisions and awards I have seen, that the Personal Injuries Committee did their utmost to whittle down the claims of the people and did not show them fair play or give them any justice whatsoever. I would ask the President to consider those cases and not leave these people discontented and dissatisfied citizens, because these awards have not been made.
I take it, sir, that we are now permitted to discuss sub-heads A, B, C, D, E, F altogether. Is that so?
The President has done it.
That being so, I presume I can follow. I desire to raise this question of the Personal Injuries Committee, which comes under sub-head D. This Committee was set up as a substitute for the law which existed, as enacted by the Criminal Injury Acts of 1919 and 1920. These Acts were repealed by the Damage to Property Act, 1923, whereby there is now no legal claim whatsoever for personal injuries in this country. But, at the same time, this Personal Injuries Committee was set up, and, I venture to say, that when this Committee was set up, which, admittedly, was not to deal with legal rights, because those had been abolished, but only with ex gratia claims, that still it was in the minds of the members of the Dáil at the time that this Committee would, by their investigations and subsequent decisions show that they had some regard, at any rate, for, if not the legal, certainly the equitable rights of people, especially non-combatants in this country.
I regret very much, for personal as well as for other reasons, that the Minister for Finance is not in his place to-day. I hope we will see him here soon again. This is a question with which he is intimately concerned. On more than one occasion I have put down questions to the Minister, as have other Deputies, complaining of the awards of this Personal Injuries Committee, and, after a considerable amount of pressure from various quarters of the Dáil, the Minister stated that if special individual cases were brought to his notice he would do everything to have them reconsidered and, if possible, give satisfaction. Since that statement of the Minister I have put down no less than half a dozen questions in regard to what I consider to be exceedingly glaring cases, and the reply I got in almost every case was the inevitable Ministerial answer, that he saw no reason to depart from the award of the Committee.
Take one case. I asked whether it was not a fact that a young woman was accidentally shot in the streets of Enniscorthy. It was upon the occasion when two National Army officers were coming out of the Cathedral, having heard Mass there. Shots were fired, and one of them hit this young woman in the thigh. Her thigh had to be amputated. She had to go to hospital. She had to pay for the amputation. She had to pay the hospital. She had to have no less than four operations.
She was led to believe by the setting up of this Committee that there would be some chance of getting something in the nature of fair compensation. I say she was led to believe, because it was on the strength of this committee being set up that she went to her solicitor and employed counsel. She employed medical and other witnesses and had to get a train of motors to proceed from Enniscorthy to Waterford, where the case was heard. When the result was made known, she was told that the committee had thought fit to award her the sum of £300. I say that this sum is nothing like adequate compensation to a young woman for the complete and total loss of her leg. Apart altogether from that, it has actually cost her more than £300 in medical treatment and legal proceedings. I further say that she never would have gone to the expense of undertaking these proceedings if she had not been led to believe—as we all were—by the setting up of this committee—that something in the nature of adequate compensation would be given. I think the treatment in that particular case is scandalous to a degree. I brought that case again upon paper to the Minister for Finance, and I was told that he saw no reason to depart from the conclusions arrived at by the committee. I followed it up by asking him whether he thought £300 was adequate compensation to a young woman for the loss of her leg, but he did not reply.
However, I put another case to him, that of a young girl of eighteen years, who was shot dead while walking in the streets of Limerick, her parents being resident in the County Waterford. The result of the claim for compensation was that her father and mother were informed that because they were not dependent upon this young woman they were not to get one penny piece by way of compensation for the loss of that young life. When I put a question as to that case to the Minister I got a similar reply.
I could go on giving instances of these cases, but I do not intend to do so, because we have heard enough already. Everyone in the country knows the method adopted by this committee so that the dissatisfaction that exists throughout the country is not at all to be wondered at. There is grave dissatisfaction. In the first place, people understood, and naturally so, that when the legal rights to compensation for personal injuries were abolished, as they were by the Act of 1923, and when the substitute was set up, they thought that it was to be a substitute of some sort or another and not a sham one. Everyone knows now that that is not the case. I do not believe that I am overstating the case when I say that if that was not in the minds of Deputies when the Act was passed last year if they did not think then that this committee was to be a genuine one, the Damage to Property Act would not have passed in its present form.
There are other complaints, and just ones, in regard to this Committee. Sittings were held in various districts in the country. I do not know why more sittings are not held. It may be said that the number of Commissioners is limited. I do not see why, for the sake of expedition, more Commissioners could not be sent out to other districts in the country to hear these cases. The cases must be limited, and they will all have to be gone into at some time. I suggest that the proper way to do it would be to send out more Commissioners to more districts, and not, as is at present done, to send out a certain number of Commissioners only to certain limited centres in the country. Take, for instance, the Committee that sat in Waterford. People had to go from the north of the County Wexford down to the City of Waterford to have their claims heard. Is that right? Why could not a Commissioner sit in some portion of the County Carlow, Wexford or Kilkenny? Instead of that, people had to go long distances at considerable expense, at great inconvenience, and then we know what the result is. I do not know from this Estimate how much of these claims have been gone into. I would like to know. I would like to know how much the £150,000 last year represented—what proportion of the claims. I would like to know how much that so-called increase of £122,000, which I quite agree is not an increase at all, in the proper sense of the term, represents of the amount of claims which have yet to be gone into. I would like to know, further, how many claims remain outstanding, and to suggest again that it would be a far better method to adopt to have more Commissioners at more places more frequently trying these cases than to be doing them in the dilatory manner in which they are being done at present. I do not know upon what principle these claims are being awarded. We know that they have no legal basis, but what other basis have they? There must be some basis. Is it the circumstances of each case? I doubt that very much because of the cases and such like which I have mentioned, and others which you have heard this afternoon.
took the Chair.
It is a very common commentary in the country that according to the law to-day that if a person was attacked and if his hat was smashed that person was entitled to compensation for his hat; but if the same person was attacked and his head was smashed that he would not be entitled legally to a penny-piece compensation, or his dependants, because probably he would be gone. That, it may be said, is the state of the law in England. It is, but then we have an Act last year, the Damage to Property Act, where we went a step further than the English law, and we say that if a man's hat is taken away by Irregulars he is entitled to come in and to get, at any rate a report, or a recommendation, that the Minister for Finance shall pay him the value of his hat, but that if his head is broken open he is not entitled by law to get anything. But we have set up, as the Government said last year, this Personal Injuries Committee to deal with personal injuries. Well, the Personal Injuries Committee has been set up; it has dealt with personal injuries, and we know the manner and the method of its dealing with them. I say that this is all most unsatisfactory; that it would have been far better for the Government to have said candidly that they would do away with the claims for personal injuries; as they did by the Act of 1923—"We will have no more claims of any sort or kind, legally or ex-gratia, for personal injuries.” But they did not do that; they said: “We will repeal the Acts of 1919 and 1920; we will do away with all legal claims for personal injuries,” but—and I think it must have been in their minds when they added this “but” that if they had not made some such provision as this Personal Injuries Committee they probably would not have been allowed actually to do away with the legal rights. I think it would have been better if the Government had been candid in this matter, and had done away completely with all claims, legal or ex-gratia, for personal injuries rather than to have done away with the legal ones and then to have set up this sham committee. Anyone from the country will tell you that it is nothing else. It has been masquerading through the country as a body which is supposed to have been genuinely investigating cases. From the results which I have seen, it cannot have genuinely investigated them or, if it did, it came to conclusions which the evidence before it did not warrant.
I have seen a good deal of the results of this Personal Injuries Committee's findings, and I say without exaggeration that though there may have been grievances, as there are always, and always will be, in regard to various Government Departments in regard to various findings of various courts of law, those grievances are nothing compared with the acute feelings aroused through the country by the methods and by the findings of this Personal Injuries Committee. I hope that Deputies will give expression to-day to their feelings and let the Government know, if they do not know already, what has been said and thought through the country in regard to this Committee, and tell them that it would be advisable in the interests of the Government, and more especially in the interests of morality, that this Personal Injuries Committee should be conducted on proper, on moral, and on equitable lines in the same way in which people have been induced to go before it to make their claims. I think that it is most unfair to hold out to people a prospect of a just consideration of their case and put them to expense, inconvenience and trouble which in so many instances has resulted in nothing. Therefore, sir, I have ventured to give my opinion and my views in regard to the workings of this Committee, and I hope that other Deputies will do likewise, and that the result of it may be that the Committee may work in the future on somewhat different lines from what it has done in the past.
I do not want to make any implications of unfairness or of partiality on the part of the Committee with which we are dealing under sub-head D. I have no doubt that, like all other men, they are striving to do their best according to their lights. But I do want to impress on the President that their Terms of Reference appear to have been drawn up most unfortunately, and that the procedure is such as to convince applicants who do not get what they wanted that they have been unfairly dealt with. As to the Terms of Reference, they are altogether too narrow. I will only quote one case. A man was bicycling home from his work, and when he got to the corner of Parnell Street he met a motor car without a number, driving at far more than the legal speed in the opposite direction. This motor car was believed to contain Irregulars who were wanted by the police. In their speed they knocked him off his bicycle. He was severely injured and had to have his arm amputated. He made application to the Commission through a solicitor. I believe it is necessary that applications be made through a solicitor, and in this case the man, of course, was put to expense because of that. The reply he received from the Commission was that his case was outside their terms of reference. Were it not for the generosity of his employer, who kept him on, even though he has only one arm, he would be reduced to a condition of pauperism. I do not think the President will contest the proposition that, ethically, the man has a right to a remedy against somebody.
He cannot bring an action against the people who knocked him down, because he has no means of tracing their identity. The motor car had no number that would enable him to trace it, and, as he had no opportunity of tracing the people who knocked him down, for the purpose of seeking compensation from them, I think he has a claim against the State. I venture to think he has a claim against the State for two reasons. The first is, that the police are supposed to restrain the speed of motor cars in the city; and the second is that they are supposed to see that motor cars have identification marks on them when they are being driven. In passing, I might say that it is a great inconvenience to the public that army motors do not show a number in front. In this case I submit that, on two grounds, this man has a claim against the Government. These two grounds are: (1) that the State was not fulfilling its duty; and (2) that it was not enforcing the law. I submit, further, that the man's claim should not have been shut out by the Committee, who simply decided that it was outside their terms of reference. I now turn to the methods of the Committee. As a rule, certainly in all the cases that I have seen, the Committee simply announce their decision, but they do not give any reason as to why the decision was arrived at. The applicants are left to find out that for themselves, which, in practice, means that they come along to Deputy Byrne, or to some other Deputy, to get questions put here in the Dáil about their cases. I put a question to the Minister for Finance some days ago, and he said he thought that the applicants generally knew very well the reasons for the decisions given in their particular cases. I do not think they do, and Deputies have no means of discovering what is at the back of the minds of the members of the Commission in arriving at a particular decision. The second point is that the President has just now told us that applicants who are dissatisfied with decisions in their cases have the right of appeal. I do not think that applicants are told that.
If there has been any misapprehension of what I said, I would like to correct it. I said, where there is a case in which there would be very great dissatisfaction, and possibly some grounds for that dissatisfaction, that the Minister for Finance would consider an appeal from such a person, but to say that he is a Court of Appeal, that is not the case.
The President knows that in every case where the application is refused, there is dissatisfaction. I should say that there are very few genuinely bogus cases put up. There is no applicant, I think, who would put up an absolutely unfounded case. In every case the applicant says that there are good grounds for making him a grant. I do not know who is to be the judge as to whether a case is genuine or not. Is it the Deputy to whose notice the case is brought? If that is so, it will mean that an enormous burden of work will be thrown on the shoulders of Deputies, if they have to investigate these cases and decide whether they are genuine or not. I would urge that this commission should work with more publicity, and that they should give reasons for their decisions. I think, too, that they should be given power, where cases of genuine hardship arise—even though these cases are outside the terms of reference—to recommend ex gratia grants. I may say that I am wiser now than I was some months ago, and I know with what joy a commission discovers that a statement is outside their terms of reference and that they need not go into it. If the responsibility were imposed upon the commission of investigating cases that were outside their terms of reference, with a view to seeing whether or not they were cases of great hardship, I believe that more justice would be done.
I turn from that to sub-head (F). The amount involved is very small. It is a sum of £250 for incidental expenses. But, if the President will turn to Vote 9, on page 28, he will find on another Vote for this commission a sum of £350 for travelling and incidental expenses. I very much dislike the practice of bringing in incidental expenses for one purpose on two different Votes. That is calculated, in the case of Deputies who do not read the estimates carefully, to give them a false impression. No doubt, they are for a different purpose—one for travelling, and possibly the incidental expenses are those incidental to travelling, such as tipping the porter. I think they should be both shown on the same Vote. even if separate amounts are not shown. It is a bad practice, and I shall always call attention to it whenever I get the chance.
I desire to draw the attention of the Minister to the position of railway men who received injuries and have been refused compensation by this commission. A couple of cases, typical, I think, of a larger number, have been brought to my notice. It will be generally recognised that, under a great deal of provocation and pressure, the railway men stood up to their duty and ran trains, notwithstanding opposition and threats during the period prior to the Truce. In some cases they were attacked and beaten, and suffered by one means or another, and applied for compensation. The position the commission seems to have taken up is that the responsibility lay with the railway company, the men's employers, and that the only claim that they were entitled to make was a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Now, the compensation that is allowed here by the law under that Act is considerably lower than what is allowed in Great Britain, and no account is being taken of the reduced value of money as compared with the time when the Compensation Acts were passed.
Notwithstanding that, the fact that a person received his injuries in the employment of a railway company is thrown back upon the applicant as a sufficient answer to his claim for compensation. He is told that his claim is against his employer—the railway company—notwithstanding the fact that the risk he ran was abnormal to his occupation. It was a risk that he ran, as a matter of fact, in defence of the State, and the compensation that is allowed by the company in virtue of the Compensation Acts does not suffice to keep the applicant in anything like a decent condition, taking into account his previous earnings. The Commission appears to have turned down many applications on the ground that the claim lay against the company, and that the company should pay. I do not know how many cases of the kind have been so dealt with. I know that a couple have been brought to my notice. There was one some time ago which may or may not have been reconsidered, and I cannot speak of the recent facts. There was another case of a watchman in Waterford who was attacked and beaten badly and utterly broken up. He was a comparatively young man, with a considerable family, and he had taken service as a watchman on the railway. Goods were taken out of the company's stores, and the man was very severely beaten and damaged. He happened to be an ex-R.I.C. man who resigned during the conscription agitation, and he has, I understand, been awarded a pension on that score, but the combined pension and workmen's compensation allowance do not at all meet the requirements of the case. The Commission says that the man is not entitled to any compensation from them because of the fact that the compensation should be paid by the company. It must be borne in mind that the compensation laws are revisable, and there may be claims at a later period for consolidation and commutation of the present allowances. There is nothing at all permanent or certain in the present sum that is allowed under the old British Act which we are carrying through. The principle involved is, perhaps, of more importance than the individual case I am quoting. These men, under great stress and great risk, served the railway company undoubtedly, but served more the State's interest, and ran abnormal risks. They suffered in consequence, and are being deprived of any compensation for injuries suffered in the State service, and because of their loyalty to the work which they undertook. I think that that is a kind of case that should be borne in mind as being well worthy of further inquiry. I do not know how many cases of that kind may have been involved, but I think, from the two cases which have been specially drawn to my notice, that the action of the Commission is not satisfactory, and should be reviewed and reconsidered.
I would like to refer further to the case that has been mentioned by Deputy Davin, because it is a case of a particular type which is rather disconcerting to Deputies who are called on to deal with it. It is a case of an award to a widow with one child whose husband lost his life because his premises were made available for Volunteers in Tipperary town before the British left. The amount awarded in compensation was £800. The woman was a young widow with, certainly, ten years prospects of life, and when you come to examine the amount you find that it was practically the amount of what a widow of a private in the National Army with one child might hope to receive over a period of ten years. It is very hard, when the circumstances of a case like that are put up to you by way of complaint, with the object of taking it up with the Minister for Finance, to find that the Minister for Finance is more or less obdurate in the matter, and that the amount paid to the widow is the amount which the widow of a private in the National Army would receive for ten years. There is clear inadequacy there.
The amount which the widow will actually receive will be £614.
I quite agree with a lot of the criticisms of the awards of the Personal Injuries Committee, but I think there are worse things even than those. I know a number of cases which have not been brought before the Committee. There was the case of a man named Michael Riordan, 56 years of age, a shoemaker who was shot in Blarney in September, 1922, by the accidental discharge of a soldier's rifle. On two or three occasions I visited Portobello Barracks to see if it was possible to have compensation paid, as his right hand had to be amputated. I was referred to the Personal Injuries Committee and then to the Army Finance Officer, who, after I visited him three or four times, said that the State solicitor was considering the matter.
About two months ago I put a question to the Minister for Defence to know if he gave any decision in the case, and I was informed that a decision would be given shortly and that payment, if any, would be given as soon as possible. Since then nothing has happened. This man has been unemployed for a year and ten months. He has not a single relative in this country and he is trying to exist on the charity of his neighbours. Owing to the loss of his right hand he is unable to follow his ordinary occupation or even to sell papers. If he were in Dublin or Cork he might be able to earn his living by selling papers, but he could not do so in a place like Blarney. That case has not been before the Personal Injuries Committee, but, if it had, a decision, at least, would have been given. I may mention another case in which a friend of mine, named Maurice Condon, was arrested by the military in Dungarvan and placed in a cell in the barracks. About two hours later one of the military officers visited him, kicked him about the face, tied a pull-through round his head, tightened it, and inserted between the pull-through and his head a bayonet, which he twisted two or three times hurting the man's head severely. He was in the local infirmary for five or six weeks, and he applied to the Ministry of Defence to know if he was entitled to compensation, but the only answer he got was that disciplinary measures had been taken with the officer who was responsible. He has got no satisfaction, and he was at the loss of his wages due to unemployment during the period in which he was in hospital, and he has had to pay the doctor's fees plus the trouble he was put to. I would like to know whether this case comes within the terms of reference of the Personal Injuries Committee, and I would like also to know whether it is intended to give any compensation whatever, as in the case of Michael Riordan, of Blarney.
I would like the President to give an explanation why no award has been made and no decision given to the dependents of people who were shot so far back as early in 1919. Specific cases have been given by practically every Deputy who has spoken, and I could give a number of specific cases also, but I do not think that there is any necessity to do so. I may, however, mention the case of a man who was shot by the Black and Tans in 1920, in Thurles. His mother has received no intimation as to whether she is to get compensation or if any award is to be made to her for the loss of her son. I would like to bear out what has been said by Deputy Davin and General Mulcahy in connection with the other case in Thurles with which I am familiar.
I certainly think that the amount awarded in all the circumstances was a disgraceful amount. It is certainly not at all what any reasonable person would consider fair. There is no doubt, as has been stated by Deputy Mulcahy, that the reason why this man was brought out and murdered by the Black and Tans was because of the fact that his house had been made available for the soldiers of the State at the time.
There is a kind of case that I do not think any reference has been made to by any Deputy up to the present but which I have a little experience of, where compensation has been claimed for injuries received and where the claim has been turned down on the plea that the individual concerned was capable of bearing any loss sustained. I know of a case where premises were commandeered without any notification whatever by the Free State Army. On the night following, before the man or woman of the place could remove any of their belongings or get out of the place, it was attacked, with the result that the wife of the owner of the premises became seriously ill and had to be taken to hospital and treated there for several weeks. A claim was made before the Personal Injuries Committee and it was turned down. I have gone into the case, and I have been given to understand that the claim was turned down on the plea that the individual making the claim was capable of bearing any loss sustained and of paying medical expenses or any other losses incurred through his wife's illness. I think that is an absolutely ridiculous answer for any Committee to make. Irrespective of what the conditions of life of the claimant may be, if a person's health has been injured because the Army has gone into occupation of a premises, without any notice, and loss is sustained, not only pecuniary loss, but loss of health, because of that action, it is a ridiculous argument to advance that because the individual is capable of bearing the pecuniary loss the State must not pay anything. The least that ought to be expected is that the medical expenses incurred should be defrayed by the State. I would like to know if the President, or the Minister for Finance, is prepared to re-open such cases. There are many such cases throughout the country. I think it is not a fair attitude for the Committee, or the State, to take up.
When I intervened in the earlier stages of the debate I was in doubt as to what heading certain matters I wanted to raise should be discussed under. It was more or less to get a ruling on a certain point. I want now to bring to the notice of the Minister a case in which compensation has been denied to a postmaster who happened to be brought out by the Irregulars, badly beaten, and is permanently injured as a result. It is the case of a postmaster in a very large town in the West of Ireland, who had 28 sub-offices under his supervision. In April, 1922, when, in the words of the Minister for Justice, it was usual for unauthorised individuals to hold interviews with bank managers and railway men, especially those in charge of cash, this postmaster took all the precautions he thought necessary to protect the property of the State. What is said to have led up to his being kidnapped and beaten is that he acquainted the local military authorities with the fact that he had reason to believe that a raid was to be made on one of the sub-post offices, and military forces were supplied for the protection of the office. At any rate, he was kidnapped and brought away five miles from the town. He was partially stripped, his boots and waist-coat being taken, and he was told to make his peace with God, as he was very soon to be sent to an unknown destination.
Body or soul?
Both body and soul. At any rate he was very badly beaten. He was kicked and bruised and fired at, but was not hit. He found his way home through the courtesy of some friends in the early hours of the morning. He was examined by a doctor and had to be brought to Dublin, where he was under the treatment of a very prominent surgeon for three months. This man submitted his case. For some reason, which I cannot explain at the moment, the case was listed for hearing at the County Court. A couple of days before the court was to be held he received a wire stating the case was not to be tried there and that it was referred to the Personal Injuries Compensation Committee. He stated his case and received the reply some time ago that the Committee had given very careful consideration to his case—part of his case was that he had incurred considerable expenses by the employment of this surgeon and during the period he was in hospital; also by the fact that he had to keep practically two homes during this time—and that there were no grounds put forward to show why compensation should be granted.
I saw the Postmaster-General in connection with the matter. I thought he would be the proper channel through which to deal with the Minister for Finance. This man did all he possibly could to protect the property of the State. It was because of his endeavours in that direction that he met with the treatment I have referred to. If that man had not taken these precautions, if he had just gone along and taken it that everything would be all right he would not have received this treatment, and he would not be the physical wreck he is to-day. This is a very serious case from my point of view. I am aware of cases where banks were raided and where managers when confronted with people with revolvers, defended the bank property at the risk of their lives. In a few cases, one in my own constituency, bank managers lost their lives in defending the property of the bank. It is very serious if the State is going to deal with the case of a civil servant, acting in the same way, differently from that of the banks. For reasons that are obvious, this man could not go back to his post office district in the West of Ireland. As a result of the attentions that were being paid to him he had to be transferred to a post office in County Dublin. His case was put up to the Minister for Finance. Personally I do not believe that the Minister for Finance sees any of those cases. I believe it is the paid officials of his Department who are the judges in most of these cases. At any rate, an official of the Ministry of Finance replied to the appeal that was sent to the Postmaster-General, stating: "The Minister regrets he cannot see his way to have the case re-heard." I do not believe the Minister ever saw the case. I think it is a very serious state of affairs, if one believes, as I believe in this case, that the Minister is the final court of appeal, to find an answer given in the way I have read it out. I think, at the very least, there is a case for the expenses incurred in this man's case. I am not making a case for big compensation, because he was paid his salary. The fact is, he had to keep two homes going for four or five months, and as far as I can see he is a physical wreck for the remainder of his life, a nervous wreck at any rate. I contend that the least the Government should do, in a case of that kind, is to clear the medical expenses of the man who defended the property of the State in these circumstances. It is a case like the one Deputy Baxter has in mind, and I would certainly like a ruling from the President, acting for the Minister for Finance, as to whether or not this is considered to be proper treatment for a man who has taken all the risks I have stated. If it is, it is certainly not an encouragement or an inducement to civil servants, who in future may be placed under the same circumstances, to take any physical risk in defending the property of the State.
Deputy Redmond, in dealing with this matter, stressed the fact that there were certain legal rights before the Criminal Injury Acts were repealed by the Damage to Property Act. I stated here before Deputy Redmond entered the Dáil that there were legal rights, but they were legal rights that were not negotiable. They were legal rights that could not be enforced, and as such they had very little value. Whatever may be said about the terms of reference of the Committee, or the manner in which they did their work, I think they interpreted their terms of reference as fairly as they possibly could in the circumstances, and whatever amounts they recommended—and they have recommended very considerable amounts—have been paid, and we have honoured the non-legal character of the awards that have been made in these cases.
It would appear the Committee in question has had something like 1,200 cases before it; 2,500 cases still remain to be considered. Sums amounting to about £180,000 have been awarded so far in something like 532 cases. In 675 cases there have been no reports at all. That would include 65 pre-Truce cases and 610 post-Truce cases. Last year we considered—and I am still of opinion— that one Board should deal with all those cases. It was pointed out last year that the amounts which were awarded in certain county courts varied very considerably, and naturally gave some dissatisfaction. With one Board at least the same rulings and the same basis of awards would run from beginning to end. There is no use in blaming this particular Board if they are bound by terms of reference which restrict, perhaps, the otherwise charitable inclinations which might animate them.
We had the terms of reference before the Dáil last year, and there is an extraordinary difference between the terms of reference here and the provisions of the Personal Injuries Act. Reading into these terms of reference very carefully, I find some of the cases in which complaints have been made would have been open to a decision in the light of the recommendations made. In one case it was mentioned that a man had £1 a week. That was his entire income at that time, but it was mentioned that he had other potential means of income. I do not know whether an examination of the terms of reference would lead one to suppose the Committee was entitled to consider potential income or wealth that the man might possibly come into. On the facts of the case—I do not know anything but what was mentioned here—I would say that a better case would have to be made before the Committee than was made here, if one were to indict the Committee for what it did.
The members of the Committee were restricted by the terms of reference, and if they once opened the door to an extension in such cases as were mentioned by Deputy Johnson, I do not know to what extent they might not be called upon to extend their consideration. In some cases it would be asked: "What did you do in such and such a case, and cannot you do the same here as well as there?" The incidental expenses mentioned in Vote 15 are those of the Ministry of Finance, and they have nothing to do with this Committee. The incidental expenses in the Vote for Temporary Commissions are those of the Committee, and I believe they are properly shown there. That point was raised by Deputy Cooper.
Some Army cases were mentioned, and on page 200 there is a sub-head dealing with compensation for damage or injury by the Army. That deals with payment by the Army in cases where people were accidentally shot or injured by soldiers. In quite a number of cases applications have been made quite innocently, the applicants thinking they had a claim before the Personal Injuries Commission. When it was ruled out by them it comes under that particular heading in the Army Vote. The amounts which have been recommended for payment in pre-Truce cases in the first report which we received from this committee total 18, and the amount recommended for payment was £8,710. In post-Truce cases in the first report the number of cases mentioned was 281, and the amount £112,217. The total in all numbered 299 cases, and the amount was £120,927. That report was dated the 7th December of last year. The second report was dated the 17th April of this year, and the pre-Truce awards numbered 75, the amount being £19,300. The post-Truce cases numbered 158, and the amount, £30,797. The total in that case was 233 cases, and the amount, £10,532. The terms of reference were before the Dáil when we introduced and passed the Damage to Property Act last year. I do not know that the Dáil had an opportunity of considering or making any recommendations on it.
For many months it had been pointed out that the terms of the Personal Injuries Act were not terms we could entertain here in future. Mention was made of one or two cases in which individuals had suffered loss. One was a case where a motor car had knocked down a person, and it was alleged there were Irregulars in the motor car. They might have been belonging to what, in the absence of a better term, we may call the Irregulars No. 2—bandits or persons like that. In every country there are losses from the activities of such persons, and I do not know that even in England there are any means of compensating persons in such cases. Even where there are policemen on point duty and other duty through the country, we know that very eminent and respectable citizens occasionally speed-up, and that is against the law.
In those cases where such incidents as that occur, it would not be fair to say that the State, by reason of its responsibility for law and order and regular proceeding, should accept responsibility where accidents occur.
Does the President suggest that any ordinary person should drive a motor car without a number-plate, and not be apprehended by the police?
I have seen them driving through the city very often without number-plates. The police occasionally get them, but they do not get them in all cases. We have had evidence on more than one occasion recently where that has happened, and we have also had cases of where, even with a number-plate, the owner, or the person in whose custody the car ought to have been, was not in possession of it, and it was not by his instructions that the car was out at that particular time.
I am glad the Police Estimates are coming on.
I think even if we had twice the number of police it would be impossible to avoid cases of that kind. Even in that very respectable country which lies alongside us, these things occur. I read the other day in the newspapers of a lady who presented a revolver at the back of a taxi-car driver. If he had been shot, there would have been no compensation either. The Minister for Finance has not constituted himself in this case a court of appeal, but if there are cases in which Deputies are satisfied that there are reasons why they should be reconsidered I would undertake to see that those cases would be reconsidered, but they must be reconsidered within the terms of reference of the committee. In other words, the Minister for Finance has not got the right to take upon himself a greater degree of latitude than he has prescribed or than has been prescribed for this Personal Injuries Committee.
Would the President say in what order the claims are taken by the Personal Injuries Committee? Would he explain, for instance, why a claim by the dependants of a person shot dead in 1919 should not be heard and that a claim should be heard and an award made in respect of the dependants of a prisoner shot in 1921 or 1922?
In the ordinary way, as far as I know, claims were dealt with in the order of their presentation. In particular cases, where the committee had to go round the country, claims were decided in the order of the locality into which they went.
Can the President give us an assurance that the medical expenses or the burial expenses in the case of persons who have been shot, will be covered at least by any grant that is made?
I cannot answer that question offhand. I believe they would. I believe that those expenses at least ought to be met, and I would like to know of cases in which they have not been met, if there are such.
There are.
But I would say those expenses ought to be reasonable.
I do not know if the President is aware that no costs are allowed by this Committee, with the result that in some cases—I mentioned one—the amount awarded does not cover the costs of bringing the case before the Committee, and certainly does not cover the medical expenses.
It was not originally intended that counsel and solicitors would appear in these cases. As a matter of fact, the Committee was so constituted that any person going in there would get fair treatment, and it was known that in many cases those people were unable to pay such costs. I believe there have been cases in which there was exorbitant expenditure. I do not know whether that was as regards ordinary legal costs, but the medical expenses were certainly out of proportion to what would have been ordinarily borne by the persons concerned if they were not of opinion that all medical expenses would have been paid.
Would it be possible for the President to have conveyed to the Committee—without assuming in any way to dictate to them —that it would be only fair that claimants should have their expenses in coming to this Committee paid? I mentioned, as part of the case I made, that claimants have to go from the North of the County Wexford as far down as the city of Waterford. In the case I was acquainted with, the woman had to pay for a fleet of motor cars to bring down witnesses and doctors and lawyers. Would it not be possible for the President to arrange with the Committee to allow the necessary costs of transit?
I would like, if I am in order, to bring to the notice of the President the action of certain solicitors as regards costs in these cases. I know two or three cases where excessive costs have been charged, and I will put the thing mildly by saying that the thing is as much a fraud as anything else. In the case of an award of £1,000, a solicitor in the Co. Cork wants to charge £300 costs.
I am afraid that matter does not arise.
Such a charge as that for costs would justify a motor car without a number-plate being used.
Deputy Redmond has made a definite statement on this point. Would he be surprised to find that costs have been deducted and that the solicitors have taken all possible precautions? The Ministry has assisted them, inasmuch as it has made the cheque payable to the solicitor, and the solicitor has deducted the costs.
I do not know if Deputy Davin rightly understands me. What I am anxious about is that the costs should be paid by the State to the individual applicant, in order that he will not eventually be mulcted.
The President said it was not the rule to allow costs. A great deal of hardship has occurred in regard to the question of costs. I think it has occurred owing to the fact that the Committee, desiring to put the matter on some sort of formal basis, has required that cases should come before it only on the application of a solicitor.
Only?
So far as I understand. I know one case which they desired to have put before them in some legal form, and it was suggested that a solicitor should frame the case. If that is going to be done in that way —and I know cases where pressure has been brought to have it done in that way—it is surely right that the Committee should take proper cognisance of it and that whatever expense in the way of costs is incurred it should be incurred with the cognisance of the Committee.
The costs should be taxed.
Would the President consider the question of letting the Committee take within its cognisance the taxing of costs? I think it would largely help.
It is not in the terms of reference, as far as I can see, and to ask them to do that would mean reopening every one of those 600 cases, seeing in what cases a solicitor's expenses had been charged, and in certain cases, perhaps, where large amounts might have been awarded, this would hold up other cases, prejudicing the whole business. I can quite understand a case being made that medical expenses and things of that sort should be allowed, but at this stage to bring in the question of solicitors' costs, when they have not been allowed up to this, cannot, I think, be justified.
