Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Jul 1924

Vol. 8 No. 19

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE 14.—PROPERTY LOSSES COMPENSATION.

The PRESIDENT

I beg to move:—

"That a sum not exceeding £4,833,000 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, 1924, for payments in respect of destruction of, or injuries to, property within the period 21st January, 1919, to 12th May, 1923, inclusive, under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, as amended and otherwise."

There have been some complaints with regard to this particular service, that delays have taken place in hearing the cases, in dealing with the cases and in the payment of awards when made. I have investigated a number of these cases personally, and I find that in very few instances have all the requirements been complied with by persons who put forward claims under the Damage to Property Act. In cases where claims have been made, sometimes plans have not been furnished and particulars not given. In other cases which have been heard, it has been brought to my notice that solicitors engaged have not presented the decrees to be signed by the judges or have not lodged the necessary particulars. If it should occur that Deputies are informed of cases in which delay has occurred, I should be very pleased to institute inquiries, in order to see that the utmost possible expedition, as far as the Government is concerned, will be used to get these cases out of the way.

I have been informed that in certain counties a number of people are very willing to start, directly the cases are heard, re-building. In any of the cases that have been brought to my notice I have not been able to find that the Government itself, or any Department of the Government, is responsible for the delays that have been occasioned. Only this morning I had a case, and I am informed that the Board of Works has not had the necessary information submitted to it to enable it to deal with that case expeditiously. I mention that case because some Deputies have spoken to me on it, and I have had many letters upon it, and some outsiders approached me on the same subject. That deals with "C." As regards "A" we are not concerned with that except to this extent, that a representative from the Saorstát is on the Wood Renton Commission, formerly called the Shaw Commission, and it is possible that some question may arise in that connection, and I should be glad to give any information that is available to Deputies.

Mr. JOHNSON

The question I want to raise on this matter is in regard to a matter about which I gather from the newspapers there has been some contention as to the payment of the compensation. I think it was generally felt that there was an understanding arrived at between the British and the Irish Governments respecting damage done on the one hand by the British troops and police, and on the other hand by Irish troops and police and others, and that each side was to bear the cost of the compensation according to the category in which the owners of the property lay, whether they were supporters of the British Government or supporters of the Irish Government. I understood that it has been found impossible to get awards paid to owners of property whose property was destroyed or damaged by British troops or British Auxiliaries or Black and Tans. The contention was that they were not bound to pay that damage, and that such damage was done by troops or police, or soldiers under orders.

I do not know whether I am stating the position correctly, but I think there are very few Deputies in the House but know that much of the damage was done by people acting under orders and that if they were not acting under orders it was a very easy thing to say they were. I think it is necessary to have the thing explained and find out from the Government how far they have given away their position, and whether these people are to be compensated equally with the others, no matter whether their property was damaged by troops or police acting under orders or not, or whether it was nominally or legally malicious or otherwise. I draw attention to the position of persons whose property was in the Six Counties, who themselves lived in the Six Counties, and whose property was damaged by officials, police or otherwise of the British Government, and who are not receiving any compensation. It seems to me that there is a great lapse here that such persons who have equally suffered or at least have suffered greatly should not be entitled or not be receiving—they certainly are entitled—any compensation for the damage done by persons acting under orders of police or military. I heard it stated, with what correctness I cannot say, that it is only damage that was done maliciously that would be compensated for in the technical sense; it cannot be malicious if done in the name of the Crown. I do not know whether that is the correct legal position or not. It is an immoral position and an inequitable position, and I think our Government should contest it to the full. I am quite sure there were many cases of damage to property by individuals which could quite legitimately be repudiated by the Irish authorities if they so wished, and possibly in such cases the Irish Treasury would be saved a very considerable sum.

I would like to know whether it is a fact or is not a fact that the Irish Government has not repudiated responsibility for damage done to private property during the pre-Truce period, even though they are satisfied that such damage was not done under orders. If the position taken up is correct in the one case, surely it is correct to take it in the other. Very few people in this country who have any interest in this Property Losses Compensation but thought the whole matter was clear and well understood between the two Governments, and that the full compensation was to be paid and shares borne by the respective Governments according to a common understanding.

I want to know from the Minister what is the position in regard to compensation for damage done by persons admittedly acting under orders of the British authority and persons who should have been acting under these authorities, but who acted upon their own account. Secondly, what is the position in regard to sufferers from damage at the hands of the British or Northern authorities, as the case may be in the northern counties. Are they being compensated, and if not, why not? I hope the Minister will be able to give us a satisfactory answer as to the line taken by the Government, and that he will assure us that the full rights of Irish citizens are being demanded in this matter.

Mr. THOMAS O'CONNELL

There is another aspect of the case in connection with this matter of property compensation that I think it would be well again to draw attention to, and in this connection my impression was rather the opposite to that of Deputy Johnson, because in these particular cases I thought the plea was that because they were not done under orders that compensation was not paid. I referred to the cases familiarly known as looting cases, where merchants and a variety of other people had their property damaged and taken by force at night undoubtedly by the agents of the Crown Forces. There have been many of these cases, and I think when these matters were under discussion before the Minister for Justice told us that it was a matter that was still in dispute between the British Government and the Irish Government as to where the responsibility should lie.

There have been very many cases of the kind. I have a particular case in mind that happened in a small town in Mayo. The owner of the business was a general trader, publican, grocer and egg dealer, and because earlier in the day the Black and Tans were refused free supplies of drink, they came back at night and smashed the windows, took away all bottles of wine and whiskey they could lay hands on, and in addition smashed up several pounds worth of eggs ready for shipment. The Minister knows there were many such cases, that many of those people had their business destroyed, and suffered very great loss. They got no compensation. I would like to know what really is the position now with regard to those cases; whether any decision has been come to? Has any arrangement been come to with the British Government as to the acceptance of their responsibility? and, if not, is it the intention of the Irish Government to compensate those people who undoubtedly have suffered loss and who ought to get compensation from somebody or other?

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

In the early months of 1922, shortly after the Treaty was approved by the Dáil, certain supplementary negotiations took place between the British Government and representatives of the Provisional Government. Amongst other matters which formed the subject of these supplementary negotiations, this question of compensation figured largely. I was backwards and forwards a good deal in connection with those supplementary negotiations, and I have a very clear recollection of the understanding that was come to with the British Government of the day—the agreement that was come to with regard to compensation for damage to property. It was different from the agreement come to with regard to personal injuries. In the case of personal injuries the agreement was a back-to-back arrangement, each side dealing with its own supporters, so to speak. In the case of damage to property, the understanding clearly come to, without any modification or qualification whatsoever, was that each Government would pay for the destruction committed by its own troops and adherents, and it was well understood that there would be very little difficulty in finding out in a particular case by whom the damage was done. I have, as I say, a very clear recollection of that, and a very clear recollection of a jest which I happened to make at the time when it was remarked that there would really be no bother in finding out by whom the destruction was done: that everyone knew in a particular case by whom the destruction was done, and that it would appear there was more definite information on the matter then than when questions were being answered in the House of Commons. I got the reply that when the time came when I was answering questions in our own House of Commons they would see how much information I would have about points.

Mr. JOHNSON

They were good judges.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It is certainly beyond any doubt that that was the arrangement arrived at in 1922. Since then people with, apparently, short memories have been attempting to put a different construction upon the agreement, and to suggest that in certain classes of cases the principle of each side paying for the damage committed by its own troops and adherents should not be maintained and acted upon. It is in connection with that matter which has arisen that I am crossing to London this evening. Many despatches have passed between both Governments on the subject. Sometime ago the Minister for Finance himself crossed to London and had a conference there with some British Ministers. The most that perhaps I can say on the subject at the moment is that that principle is being maintained, the principle embodied in the agreement arrived at in January or February, 1922. That principle is being strictly maintained by the Executive Council, and will be maintained.

Now, there are certain classes of damage which do not come within the scope of the Wood Renton Commission or the Shaw Commission, as it was known, and which are none the less a very real grievance to the people concerned—damage occasioned by commandeering, damage occasioned by deterioration through neglect or otherwise of property that was commandeered, inconvenience and loss occasioned by the occupation of houses and so on. Damage of that kind does not come within the scope of the Commission which is now sitting, or within the scope of any claim that could properly be laid before the courts. Generally it may be taken that claims which would not come within the scope of the Malicious Injury Acts could not be brought before the existing Commission, that is which would not come within the scope of the Malicious Injury Acts had the damage in every case been committed, say, by a civilian or a body of civilians.

It is a hardship that as yet there is no recognised compensation for loot. It is a hardship that whereas if a man's goods were brought out to his backyard and burned, as did occasionally happen in these good old days, there would be compensation. But if they were thrown in a lorry and driven away there would be none. That is an anomaly, and it is something that would require treatment in the future. But Deputies will appreciate the difficulties in dealing with cases of loot or of alleged loot. The law in the past, or the existing law, makes no provision for cases of common robbery or theft or loot. The taking away of property is not covered, but injury or destruction to property is covered by the law.

I take it that the guiding principle there was simply the practical difficulty of proof. It is not impossible that you would have stories of masked men coming in and taking £500 in notes out of a teapot. You do not know whether they did or not, and your belief, or disbelief, in the story will depend very much on what you think of the narrator. As I say, the law did not make provision in the past for the mere removal of property as distinct from its destruction. There have been rather prolonged negotiations on the subject. There should be established here by agreement some kind of court, tribunal, or committee which would deal with those, undoubtedly, genuine and pressing cases which are not covered by the existing Commissions—cases of property taken and not returned, or returned in a very deteriorated condition, cases of houses commandeered and occupied for a long time without compensation, and cases of loss to traders owing to restrictions imposed by the powers of the military under regulations which prevailed here at the time. The members of the motor trade suffered very considerable losses. Certain other establishments, such as printing places, were closed down and cases of that kind are not covered by the existing Commission which is dealing only with injury to, or destruction of, property. The expression has been used that we were hoping to have established here a branch of the War Compensation Court. That might easily create a false impression, and it is not a set of words that ought to be adhered to in this connection. The War Compensation Court has a very definite meaning. It is a tribunal established in England to meet cases of loss inflicted on civilians in England, due to the action taken by the military authorities there, in the conditions which prevailed in the course of the European war. The military, as of course happens in every country in time of war, were given very arbitrary and comprehensive powers which they had to use in disregard of the rights of the civilian population. That Court was established to meet cases of that kind. It had its own terms of reference, which would not be at all applicable to the conditions which I have been touching on, the conditions of this country, and the kind of cases that remain to be dealt with arising out of the conditions that existed here. Therefore, I think, neither by the members of the Executive Council nor by other members of the Dáil, ought the phrase become stereotyped that we want to establish here a branch of the War Compensation Court.

We want to establish by agreement some court, committee or tribunal which will deal with cases of loss and injury that are not covered by the terms of reference of the existing Commission. That might be done by an extension, by agreement, of the terms of reference of the existing Commission, or it may be done otherwise, but it is certainly a matter which ought to be done, and done in the near future, having regard to the considerable number of cases of genuine loss and hardship that still remain and have not yet been adequately dealt with. The main thing I want to make clear is this, that no principle has been, or will be, recognised by the Executive Council other than this, that throughout the years in which there was conflict arising out of the fact that there was one administration here based on force, and endeavouring to maintain itself by force, and another administration here based on the results of the election of 1918, based on the popular will, injuries accruing, damage to property accruing, as the result of the conflict of these two administrations, and whatever forces they could muster, have to be met; there is no fairer principle by which that could be met and no fairer principle which we would be willing to consider other than this, that the damage committed by the adherents of a particular side must be met by that Government. That is the principle on which we stood in the early months of 1922, and that is the principle on which we still stand.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is to say, whether or not these people professed to be acting under orders or otherwise?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Utterly regardless of the fact, which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to establish, whether they professed to be acting under orders or otherwise.

Mr. JOHNSON

In view of that statement, that it is on that business that the Minister is crossing to London, I do not think that it would be wise or judicious for me to go into detail. I content myself with having raised the matter in the form I have done, insisting, or shall I say supporting, the Minister in his contention, and insisting, so far as one Deputy can, that that is and must be the principle on which this whole arrangement shall be completed.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I want to raise the question of the procedure adopted by the Wood Renton Commission in dealing with cases in which the British Government would be liable. It appears that the policy in many cases is to go down and see the property which has been damaged, and, I understand, the inspectors also go, one representing the Irish Government, I think, and one certainly representing the British Government. I am speaking now with reference to my own constituency, where very considerable damage was done during 1920 and 1921. Those men do not make a detailed investigation of the property. They do not examine it in anything like a technical sense, and very often they do not even ask, for instance, in the case of shops, for returns as to the trade done. I am informed that they only take a casual stroll around the place and make a report on which the Commission bases its award. In many cases they interview the owners of destroyed property, and sometimes they come to a settlement. Very often this settlement is not agreed to by the Wood Renton Commission. It appears that the owners of property have whittled down their claims as far as they can. They are put in an unfavourable position when they come to a settlement with the inspectors, but when that settlement comes before the Commission it is turned down and the Commissioners proceed to base their award on the report of the inspector. I am afraid that Irish nationals have not been adequately protected under the policy I have outlined. These property owners have been very badly hit. Not alone have they lost considerable sums of money through looting, but they have been out of their capital for years, and that is a very serious loss in itself. The whole position is quite unsatisfactory. There should be something in the nature of a careful examination of destroyed property, and instead of making those pretended agreements, the cases should be heard and determined by the Commission, and the parties, the injured property holders, should get, as I am informed they do not get, every opportunity of putting their cases before them.

Mr. DAVIN

I would like to mention one case in which I have been interested, and which apparently cannot be settled in such a way. It is the case of an old lady who owned a house next door to the police barracks. The military authorities notified this old lady that by a certain time on a certain night she was to remove all her furniture and go out of the house, as it was to be destroyed. It was a menace to the constables in the barracks next door. The solicitor for the old lady took up the case. There is no court yet established to deal with such cases. The only way the British authorities can deal with it is to send over an official from the British War Office. After an offer was made some other person in higher authority came over and repudiated the original offer. I want to know from the Minister is that case to come before the Wood Renton Commission, or if he would bear a case like that in his mind, realising that there was more than one concerned with such a case? It is a case in which many people interested themselves. The house was in a seaside place, and the old lady relied on the revenue from this particular house as the only means of upkeep during the holiday season. No satisfaction up to the present time has been obtained, although the solicitor acting for the old lady took all the steps desirable to make a satisfactory settlement. I would like to know, in a case of that kind, who is to be the authority that will decide the amount of damage or compensation that is to be given, and whether the Irish Government will have a representative, or will they insist on their point of view being heard in regard to any unfair amount that may be offered, or in regard to the delay that has taken place in bringing such a case to a satisfactory settlement?

Mr. McGOLDRICK

This vote involves a sum for compensation for pre-Truce damage amounting to three million, five hundred thousand pounds. I think the Commission that was agreed to to assess pre-Truce damages must be proceeding very slowly. After some three years we have awards for damage withheld from several parties. It is due to the delay on the part of this Commission who have those awards assessed and returned for discharge. A great deal of capital is being made on behalf of persons who had property damaged or destroyed during the British regime and who are said to be without compensation. That can only be due to the delay on the part of this Commission. It is militating against our claim here which is that no one has suffered injury through our part in this matter. We should have a great deal less responsibility under this head than is our share. We have had heavy responsibilities placed on us through this Commission, and here we are delayed in reconstruction owing to the awards not being made. Allegations exist that the delays are wilful. We should know if this is true, and if so what course it is proposed to take. I suppose these are some of the instances the Minister will be concerned with in his proposed interview across the Channel. The terms of reference of this Commission have been clear. I do not think there is any room for trifling with those things.

As to the items on this list, all those are capable, within the terms of reference of being decided by this Commission. I do not see the necessity for setting up a separate Commission to consider those cases that are set up outside the scope of the terms of reference. If such a Commission is to be set up, when are we to expect any result from its deliberations? Is this to continue indefinitely, and is the nation to remain in bad odour over those unsettled claims? It is necessary to have all those things adjusted in order that the agreements we have entered into may be honourably carried out?

Mr. HENNESSY

I agree with the remarks of Deputy McGoldrick and the others who have spoken on this subject, and I am glad to hear that the Minister for Justice is proceeding to London to hold a conference with the British authorities to clear up the matters that are in dispute. That is why I rise to see whether we can get some points cleared up in connection with this whole matter. We know that there are many people who have had genuine claims placed before the Commission, and whose awards were made six months ago, but payments, however, have not been forthcoming. In County Cork a large amount of destruction was carried out by the British forces. I have some constituents who have placed their genuine claims before this Commission. They have been investigated, and the awards were made as far back as six months ago, but no payment is forthcoming. It is a delicate matter to touch on at the moment. We are dealing with an International Commission, but, at the same time, when one hears rumours of interference with the members of this Commission one is entitled to ask is there any such interference with the members by any outside authority? We have non-decree cases, and the terms of reference state specifically:—"Sub-head A: In cases where no proceedings have been instituted, or if instituted, have not resulted in a final decree being given." We have numbers of non-decree cases over which there has been some quibbling. I do not say it is being done by the members of the Commission. As far as I am aware, those gentlemen have always done their very utmost to satisfy me. I have no complaints and no reasons to grumble, but there are a certain number of non-decree cases hung up, and we want to know why those cases are hung up and who is responsible for the hanging up. When we hear rumours outside that certain branches of the British Government are attempting to dictate the meaning of the agreements reached between the Saorstát and the British Government, we want to know from the Minister for Justice if he has heard anything like that and if there is any foundation for those rumours.

We also want to know whether the members of the Commission take into account the political views of certain people whose claims go before them. And if they do, why do they do it, if the cases are genuine cases? We understand that this is a Commission set up by both countries under a panel arrangement. There are English and Irish representatives and English and Irish investigators. Those investigators representing both parties go into the country and they investigate those cases and place their reports before the Commission. Under these circumstances what right have any British authorities to interfere with this Commission? We have the same right. There are 30,000 claims paid up to date. The majority of those were very large claims, and no one on our side attempted to interfere with the Commission in apportioning the awards. We did not care what the political views of those parties were so long as their claims were genuine. Now we have five or six thousand claims hung up. I hope the Minister will be able to relieve the minds of Deputies in the Dáil like myself who are being worried over those matters. I have put down questions for to-morrow on this matter, and I am glad that an opportunity is given to the Dáil this evening of raising these particular points before the Minister proceeds to London.

With regard to the War Compensation Committee, I do agree with the Minister that it is time that some such Commission should be appointed here to deal with the large number of claims, claims for looting and things of that nature, which do not come within the terms of reference of the Shaw Commission. Very large losses have been suffered and very large claims have been made by traders and others under that particular heading. I hope that after this conference settles down to work within the next couple of days in London our Ministers will be able to return and tell us that payment of those claims, which are now hung up and have been hung up for the last six months, will be very largely expedited and that there will be no further worry to Deputies about them.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

There was an old recipe for dealing with Ireland's troubles under British rule, and it was to refer them to a Commission. I hope the Minister for Justice has not accepted that principle with a view to postponing claims for compensation.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Has the Deputy any suggestions?

Mr. HOGAN

I was glad to hear him say that there was a new Commission to be set up to deal with the cases that did not come within the terms of reference of the Shaw Commission, because there are very many such cases. I hope that the Minister will not take a headline in speed and in efficiency from the Shaw Commission, and that his Commission will work better and give quicker results. In awarding compensation the Shaw Commission has adopted what we may call a very bad principle. I will mention three towns in my own constituency—Miltown Malbay, Lahinch and Ennistymon—where property was destroyed on a more or less wholesale scale by the forces of the Crown, and where awards were made in a very parsimonious fashion. Representatives of the Commission went down to these districts, and they calculated according to their own ideas what the destroyed premises would be worth. They endeavoured to reconstruct these premises in their own minds on something like a fairy estimate, and they did not reconstruct them on the basis of what these premises would be surely worth in these districts. They reconstructed them from the point of view of no solid fabric whatever. They reconstructed them from some buildings that were allowed to stand, and never gave consideration to the fact that the destroyed buildings had been singled out by the forces of the Crown, because they were of a better class than those which they left standing.

There is another aspect of the matter, and Deputy Hennessy referred to it, and it is, that compensation is withheld because of political views. I think that is a mistaken way of dealing with the matter, and I am sure Deputy Hennessy would know whether that is what the Government are doing in some cases or not——

Mr. HENNESSY

I did not insinuate anything against our Government on that point.

Mr. HOGAN

Some Government is holding it up. There are so many Governments in this country that it is impossible to know what Government is doing it. I will refer the Minister to a particular case I have in mind. In that case a motor car was taken away by the Auxiliaries and destroyed; and the plea was put up that the motor car was destroyed by these forces not under orders, and that, therefore, there was no compensation to be awarded notwithstanding the fact that it was vouched for by a major in the English army that he saw these forces destroying the car. That is one side of the matter. Then these Auxiliaries went back into the garage and they took away the tools that that man might sometimes employ to make a living. What was alleged in that instance? That the tools were stolen, and that he was, therefore, not entitled to compensation. So that in both cases he was cut out of compensation. These are cases that should certainly get compensation, and they should be included in any terms of reference provided for the new Commission; and it should be a suggestion to the Commission from this Government that they should expedite their findings and consider the cases before them much more expeditiously than has been done. I could give scores of cases of a similar character, but I think the one I have given is sufficient.

Captain REDMOND

In considering this Estimate we are dealing with various classes of compensation claims under five separate heads. The whole question of compensation for destruction or injury or damage done in this country is almost bewildering at the present time, because the court to which the claimant has to make application depends, in the first place, upon the nature of the claim, and in the second place, depends largely upon the period during which the damage was done. We have what is known, or what was known, as the Shaw Commission, which deals with and has dealt with pre-Truce claims. As far as my personal experience is concerned, I think that the Shaw Commission, and the members of it, are to be commended for the manner in which they have dealt with these claims. I think they have not been over dilatory in the immense amount of work that they had to get through, but I think, taking them as a whole, they have so far given satisfaction all round, and that is saying a great deal for any Commission, especially for a Commission dealing with compensation. I would particularly like to know, in regard to all these items which are set out in this vote, what is the meaning of the figures which we see under the head of 1923-24 as against the figures under the head 1924-25. Do these first set of figures mean not only that the money has been voted but that it has been paid?

I think that would be a very interesting reply if the Minister is in a position to give it, because the complaint that is brought, and I think very justly brought, and which is brought home to every Deputy, I am sure, every day for the last twelve months, is not so much that claims have not been considered, not so much that awards have not been made, but rather that payments have not been made of the awards that have been determined by these various courts. It is especially in regard to item C, which comprises the cases that come under the Damage to Property Act, 1923 I make these few remarks. Last year £4,000,000, it appears, was voted towards the payment of these awards. What I want to know is, has that £4,000,000 been paid?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Yes, and £2,000,000 more.

Captain REDMOND

Well, I am very pleased to hear it. That being so, I cannot understand if this £6,000,000, as the Minister now says has been already paid, why the Estimate for the coming year is only to be £3,500,000, because I certainly would venture to say that nothing like 50 per cent. of the amount of claims that have come before the various County Courts under the Damage to Property Act, and the awards made thereon, have been paid. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Estimate for the coming year should show a reduction and not an increase upon the Estimate for the year that has passed. The Damage to Property Act is in existence barely only a year, and I cannot understand how the amount to be paid during the coming year is estimated to be less than the amount that was paid during the past year. The complaints that are received are so numerous, and so widely scattered, that I must confess that I think the amount to be paid in the coming year must be considerably more than the amount that has been paid up to this. I would also like to ask the Minister whether these awards—award is a term that perhaps we may be allowed to use to cover what are known both as Decrees and Reports—have been paid both in Decrees and Reports, and if not, when it is intended that what are known as the Report cases shall be paid, and when it is determined that they shall be paid, whether the Report cases are to be paid entirely in securities or cash, or partly in securities and partly in cash. There is a distinct difference, I admit, between what are known as Reports and Decrees, but what I think would be of great use to the community generally is to make it clear that there is also to be a distinction between the method of payment in regard to these two classes of awards.

The difficulty that I have been up against, mostly, has been this, that claims have been made, and that the claimants have been successful in Court, and they have walked out of Court almost on the tips of their toes, feeling at long last that they are to be compensated, but I am sorry to say in the great majority of cases which I have had anything to do with they have not been paid. I do not think that is an exaggerated statement, and that is the almost universal experience of the members of the Dáil. I think it would be well, therefore, if the Ministry of Finance could follow the example that they have already shown in the case of the Shaw Commission in regard to the claims made and the awards made under the Damage to Property Act. I think the general feeling throughout the country is "Oh, you would have been all right if your claim had come before the Shaw Commission, because the Shaw Commission would have made your award, and above all you would have been paid, but you are in a different position now, because your claim came before the County Courts under the Damage to Property Act. It is true the award has been made, but your claim has not been paid." I, therefore, sincerely trust that the Ministry of Finance, which of course is the Department primarily concerned in this matter, will expedite the payment of these sums which have already been awarded. I admit that in the matter of Reports they are up against considerable difficulty, for personally, I think that the whole system of Reports is a bad one, but that is neither here nor there, for it is in the Act. The fact is that a judge is sent down to the country, and he sits judicially and hears a case, and then his decision is to be further subject to the ruling of the Minister for Finance and that is not, I think, at all a proper or wise proposal. But there it is, and the Minister for Finance has now the burden thrown upon him of going into all these Report cases, and deciding whether in his opinion the judge who sat upon them was right in the decision he had come to. I think it is an exceedingly cumbersome and irksome procedure, and one that is prone to bring delay, but even that being so, I think that there has been unfortunate, and indeed, perhaps unnecessary delay in this regard. I do think that it is only right that the Ministry should be told that it is time that these cases, numbering as they must, thousands upon thousands, which have not yet been dealt with, finally decided and paid, should from this on be expedited.

I see that there is also an item regarding expenses in connection with investigations of these claims. These expenses are confined, I see, to the period covered by the Damage to Property Act, and I think that probably the amount is none too large. But I took occasion on a previous Vote in connection with the Personal Injuries Committee, which is another separate court to which applicants have to go for another class of injury, to impress upon the Ministry that they should provide for the Personal Injuries Committee in the same way as they have provided in this case for the damage under the Damage to Property Act, and I hope that that suggestion will be considered by the Ministry of Finance. I would also like to know whether this £6,000,000 which is down beside item A for the period 1923-24 has actually been paid. I think it is well that people should recognise that these sums have been paid, because they do not know that they have been paid. I think it worth while, therefore, calling attention to these various items, hoping that the Ministry will do everything possible to expedite the further payment of the sums already due on foot of awards that have been made under the various heads in this Vote.

Mr. McGARRY

I merely want to ask a question; I am not going to make a speech. I would like to know whether it is a fact that people who are claiming compensation for damage to property understood that a report was the same as a decree. I would also like to know whether it was a fact, and I think I am right in stating that it was, that there is no power under the Act giving any Judge, District Justice, or President of any Court power to issue a decree under this Act. I may be corrected; I suppose it would be a matter for the Attorney-General to correct me, but he is not here. I take it that I am quite right in stating that there is no power in the Act to make a decree; there was only power to report, and that all decrees made under this Act were not in accordance with the law. I would like to have an expression of opinion as to whether that is correct or not. I am advised that it is so.

Mr. WOLFE

Under heading C, I would like to bring forward a couple of cases of utterly inadequate compensation awarded, and practically under compulsion accepted by certain individuals in respect of damage done during the Irregular movement in July, 1922, under which this heading comes. In 1922 Ballymore-Eustace, County Kildare, was occupied by the Irregulars, and the Government considered it necessary to have them removed. They sent a certain number of soldiers there, and they occupied the Central Hotel and other houses there at random. The consequence was that very extensive damage was done to this hotel, which is owned by Mrs. Julia Lawlor. The doors were all smashed to atoms; the woodwork of the windows was smashed and practically all the furniture was made into matchwood. Great injury and damage was done to the roof and walls, and also to the out-offices, and a great deal of injury was done to the shops connected with this hotel. This lady is an old person and a very nervous woman, and she was reduced almost to poverty as a result of this. She claimed £600. It was too much, of course, but the amount that was offered to her and that she accepted—for she was told that if she did not accept it she would get nothing—was £120 or £125. Anybody, even a novice, who looked at the damage done could see—

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Was this case before a court?

Mr. WOLFE

The arbitrators gave £120, and she was told that if she did not take it she would get nothing. It was obviously unjust. Anybody could see that at least £350 would be a very low computation, and would only partly pay for the damage that was done. She took this money because she was absolutely poverty-stricken. I think that that was a most unfair advantage to take of this woman. I brought the case several times before the Ministry, and the last time the President said he would go into the matter. That was some months ago. These things naturally give rise to great discontent, and you can hardly wonder at that when a person's house is taken from them for defence purposes, everything in it destroyed, and nothing adequate given as compensation. There was another case in the same village where a large quantity of wood work was damaged, windows and floors broken, and only £10 was given——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Deputy sure that this is under the Damage to Property Act, or is it under the Public Works Vote for compensation?

Mr. WOLFE

It comes within these dates.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is not a question of dates; it is a question of machinery. Did these people take action under the Damage to Property Act? There is another Vote for premises commandeered by the Army under which these things have been discussed for a long time.

Mr. WOLFE

Unfortunately I was away——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy has no right to raise that at the wrong time because he was away when we carried the other Vote.

Mr. WOLFE

I wished to bring these cases to the attention of the Government, because they are manifestly unjust.

Mr. JOHNSON

I forgot to ask the Minister if he took note of the class of cases which I referred to in the Six Northern Counties, where people suffered damage to their property at the instance of Crown Forces, but have not been paid—and apparently are not to be paid unless something is done—compensation for any damage, and whether these are amongst the cases, or the class of cases, which are the subject of negotiations between the two Governments.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I might as well deal with that point now. Residents in the Six County area who suffered damage to property can proceed in the courts under the Malicious Injury Acts which are in force there, and I understand that procedure has been adopted by many with sufficiently good results and that decrees were given.

Mr. JOHNSON

Many of them were obeying the general instructions of the Government of the Republic.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Up to a date.

Mr. JOHNSON

Yes.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I am sorry Deputy Hogan (Clare) has left; he asked certain questions and made certain comments which I wish to deal with. A Deputy should not get up here and make a general sweeping indictment of delay and inefficiency with regard to anybody or any institution, without having made some reasonable investigation of the facts. The Wood Renton Commission has not been dilatory or inefficient and I think it is a very definite proof of that that £6,000,000 has been paid out in respect of pre-Truce damage. The Wood Renton Commission is not a very long time in existence. It is not quite two years in existence, and the task which it had to shoulder was not a light one. The fact that £6,000,000 has been paid out on foot of awards of that Commission in respect of pre-Truce damage is in itself some evidence that Deputy Hogan was just a little sweeping in his indictment of the work of that body. Delay, where there has been delay, is rather in respect of post-Truce damage and in respect of payment on foot of decrees given in the courts.

So far as I can ascertain the factors making for delay have been rather mixed. There has in many cases been delay, because of delay on the part of the applicants' own solicitor in complying with the necessary formalities of preparing the decree and reporting. Then there has been necessary delay occasioned by the making of inquiries as to whether a successful plaintiff has any arrears in respect of income tax rates, rates, or land annuities. If it is found that there are any such arrears the Government may deduct the amount of such arrears from the amount given by the decree. Finally, it has to be remembered that 27,000 of these cases had to be handled and the staff resources and man power in the handling of them were limited. The limitations have been the limitations simply of a human machine, but I think if the Deputies—I have no doubt that complaints are very numerous and widespread—independently made some inquiries they would find that in many cases the delay is due to factors that are within the control or should be within the control of the applicants themselves. When these cases have been traced by Government Departments, it has been discovered that in a great many of them, if not in the majority of them, the delay has been in the offices of the applicants' own solicitor.

Deputy Redmond asked me about the Estimate of £3,500,000. He thinks it small though in fact £6,000,000 approximately has already been paid out, and he has expressed the belief that at least as much would need to be paid in the future, but the £3,500,000 which is down as the Estimate for the current financial year does not take stock of the amount of securities that will be issued and it is anticipated they will be considerable. The awards actually made by the Wood Renton Commission as distinct from the decrees given by the courts appear in the next issue of Iris Oifigiúil after they are made and are paid for the most part within 10 days or a fortnight.

In the matter of meeting awards made by the Wood Renton Commission, it is well that Deputies and the public generally should know we are up-to-date and intend to keep up-to-date and awards are being paid as quickly as they are made by the Commission. There has been a great deal of ill-informed criticism on this question of compensation. A good deal of the criticism comes from the fact that certain classes of damage are not covered by the terms of reference of this Commission at all. That is not the fault of the Commission. The Commission must act within its terms of reference and there is no use blaming the Commission because a particular case which is not within its scope is not dealt with. The cases that are within its scope have been dealt with and dealt with I submit very expeditiously and very efficiently indeed.

Both Deputies Hogan waxed eloquent about the way in which this Commission gets about its work, that people go down, simply take the air of the locality, come back and present a report. Now, that is drawing the long bow, and I submit there is another side to the picture, a very different side. The Deputy knows the physical ailments which is contrary to shortsightedness, the ailment of long-sightedness, that where you are near a thing it scarcely exists at all, and the further you go away from it the more clearly you see it, and it becomes quite large.

It is very often the case in damage to property that the further you get away from it the more clearly you begin to see the damage, the more clearly you realise it, and the full extent of it, until after the lapse of a couple of years it is a very big matter, indeed, and anyone who attempts to make light of it is your sworn enemy. As between the extreme of the picture that the Deputy attempted to paint, and the other extreme probably the truth lies midway. The fact is that it is a very big task, indeed; that it is almost well nigh impossible to get accurate evidence, and that you have to send down some man to make a fair appreciation, or what he believes is a fair appreciation and to make an offer. This offer is not a "take it or leave it" offer. It is an offer to settle the matter out of hand, or to await the ordinary process of the Commission, and people who agree to settle the matter out of hand cannot, in addition, come along and ventilate their grievances. They are free agents in the matter. They are told our estimate of the damage which they suffered is ——pounds. "We have made rather a thorough examination; we believe that the damage you suffered is £——; if you wish to contest that and to go into the case at full length and produce witnesses and account books, showing that your stock-in-trade was so much, very good, but that will occasion some months' delay." Now, a person who agrees to settle in conditions like that should not, after agreement, come along to Deputy Connor Hogan and so rouse his feelings and emotions as to make him address the Dáil at length on the subject. Deputy Wolfe gives the case of a constituent of his, a very nervous lady, who only claims £660, which Deputy Wolfe says "was, of course, too much" for damage occasioned by the troops when they were in occupation of her premises. That is a difficult case. Deputy Wolfe says that £600 was, "of course, too much." I do not know why he says "of course."

Mr. WOLFE

May I say that it has been the universal practice, knowing that you would get very much less than what you ought to get, to ask far too much.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I would not mind admitting that it has been the universal practice on the part of Government officials to recognise the universal practice of applicants claiming too much, so that it just works out in this way, that as between the figure of £600— which "was, of course, too much"— that she claimed and the figure of £120 that was offered, we are not in a position to decide. We have only Deputy Wolfe's evidence before us that £600 "was, of course, too much."

Mr. WOLFE

But not as much as £120 was too little.

Mr. JOHNSON

"Of course."

AN LEAS CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the chair.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The fact is that there was no claim in law for the commandeering. There was a claim for the damage. If Deputy Wolfe's constituent thinks that the amount offered to her in compensation for actual damage done to the premises was too small it would be open to her to press her claim in court. That is not, of course, a question of acceptance or non-acceptance at all. It was open to the lady in question to refuse the offer, which was not her conception of the damage done, and she could go to the courts and press her claim.

Mr. WOLFE

In reference to that, I wish to say the woman was told that if she did not accept £120 she would get nothing.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The question did not arise on this Vote at all, and the Ceann Comhairle told us that some time ago.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The lady's solicitor could have told her otherwise. Now, as to report cases from the court— these are cases where there is no claim in law, but where a recommendation from a judge in any particular case that he had satisfied himself as to the circumstances, would be considered on the basis of making an ex-gratia grant. These cases will be paid when the Damage to Property (Amendment) Bill becomes law. They will be dealt with in general in the same way as regards cash and securities. But in the special cases of loot, only securities will be issued. I think that is the intention of the Ministry of Finance. I do not know what Deputy McGarry's point was in asking whether “only reports could be made under the Act and no decrees could be given.” So far as I know, that is utterly inaccurate, but it is perhaps the kind of point that the Deputy should put in writing to the Minister. I am not sure that I have covered all the points of importance that were raised. I am not quite sure whether Deputy Hennessy was here when I was speaking first or not, but it did seem to me that he was re-opening a matter which I had dealt with and regarding which I made a rather definite statement to the Dáil. I do not propose to go back on it.

Mr. DAVIN

Can the Minister say if any assistance can be given in cases of the claims which I mentioned, or if the individual concerned who is a citizen is to be left to the mercy of the British authorities?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I do not like pronouncing on a particular case after just a hurried and superficial statement of the circumstances. My own view would be that in the circumstances set out by Deputy Davin it would be a case for such a committee or tribunal as may in the future be established and not for the existing Wood Renton Commission.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

The Minister was good enough to say that Deputy Patrick Hogan and I were drawing the long bow. I will give him a concrete instance where one of the Wood Renton inspectors went out to examine the remains or ashes of a rick of hay that had been burned something like three years previously.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

He could not see the rick of hay then.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I do not say he could. His sight might penetrate to the fourth dimension. That is the very point I wanted to bring out.

Vote put and agreed to.