Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 7 Nov 1924

Vol. 9 No. 11

QUESTION ON ADJOURNMENT. - COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES.

It is with some reluctance I have been compelled to raise this matter in this fashion. I put down a question to the Minister for Finance the other day in which I asked him on what evidence a number of claims for personal injuries were turned down. I expected on the part of the Minister some sympathetic reply. That is to say, I expected a reply in which he would indicate that the Ministry were prepared to give some consideration to cases where substantial evidence could be brought forward that personal injuries had been sustained. On the contrary, I found an attitude displayed by the Minister which left me no option whatever but to bring forward the matter in this fashion. I am so old-fashioned as to imagine that a Government is responsible for the safety of its citizens, and that when a war of defence or offence is entered into by that Government, it is responsible for compensating those who were injured in that war. Those responsible for the honour of the State are responsible for compensating parties who were injured. We are told that there has been a continuity of Government since the first Dáil. There must then be a continuity of responsibility, and if the war of defence, engaged in by the first Dáil, brought certain penalties in its train to certain people, then the continuity of responsibility for providing for people who were injured rests upon the State.

Let us try to visualise the state of the country in 1920. Possibly Clare suffered as much as any other county and I could wax rhetorical, perhaps eloquent, if I were to describe to you some of the things that happened in that county. Some time towards the end of September, 1920, there was an ambush between the towns of Lahinch and Milltown-Malbay, brought about by the Republican Army, in which the Crown Forces suffered severely, some twenty, it is said, being killed or mortally injured. That brought about reprisals on the two towns, one of which is at either end of that road. Armed forces descended on Lahinch a few nights afterwards with petrol, bomb, and machine-gun, and the people were driven from their homes into the sandhills. I do not want to harrow the feelings of Deputies by describing how the people suffered on the sandhills. Their homes were set on fire. Women and children and old people were driven before the bomb and the bullet, and English bloodhounds and jackals were left to desecrate and waste the homes that were left behind.

I could draw a picture if I liked of these people standing between the sea and their burned homesteads, and I could describe what tragedies occurred, tragedies none the less terrible because they were silent revulsions of nature, because of disobedience to an inexorable code. I am endeavouring to deal with matters of a very delicate nature, and the Minister may try to understand by implication what I mean, as I do not wish to express it. When the people made application to the Government—a Government established by their sacrifices—they were turned down without any opportunity being given them to bring forward evidence.

I have the unfortunate experience of knowing that concrete examples irritate the Minister. However, I will produce another concrete example. I will give the Minister the case of one young lady who was driven from the sanctity of her home in her night attire to the sandhills. I will read what the doctor says about her now. She was living in Lahinch, a happy, healthy girl. She was driven forth to the sandhills. Here is what the doctor says referring to her condition now:

As a result of the exposure, shock and terror, her health has suffered severely.... She developed a cough and became very anæmic. She has not been able to do any work practically since on account of loss of strength, headache, and vomiting. She is a nervous wreck.

I have seen other nervous wrecks as a result of the struggle and exposure.

Let us see what an ex-captain of Fianna Eireann, and an ex-captain of the I.R.A. says:

We, the undersigned, willingly testify to the invaluable services rendered by Miss —— during the Anglo-Irish war. During that period she gave every assistance in her power to the I.R.A. in the way of providing ammunition, carrying dispatches, and providing food and shelter for the boys who were on the run at the time. It was owing to the information which she obtained previous to the ambush at Moanreel that the activities of the Crown forces were thwarted. Otherwise the I.R.A. would have been taken unawares and captured. Many a Volunteer living to-day owes his life to the assistance rendered by this girl.

What does the Ministry of Finance say to her? This evidence was before the committee. I do not know if it was before the Ministry of Finance, but I know that a document was sent out from the Ministry of Finance—a stock letter. I have seen scores of these letters. The letter says:

It is regretted that no compensation is payable in this case.

Is that a fair way to treat this girl? She is only a sample of many others.

Let us go to the other end of the road in which the ambush took place, to Milltown-Malbay, and we find much the same story. When there were a number of men in Mountjoy jail clinging to life by a thread, on hunger strike, the Irish Labour Party sent down instructions that a "greased lightning" strike, as it was then called, should be inaugurated in order to get those men out of jail, and save their lives for the country. That strike went on in Clare. The whole place was held up, and when the victory was won by labour for these men by the strike, these men went out to Canada Cross, a place outside the town, to celebrate the victory, and what do we find? The Black and Tans fired on them. Some of them were killed, and some badly wounded. We find that one of the men who was killed was a tailor. He was the sole support of his sister, and what do we find? We find that his claim was turned down by the Commission. We find that a man thatching a hay-rick was mortally wounded, dying afterwards owing to the rupture of a blood vessel. The claim of his relatives was turned down. Then there is the case of a baker who was wounded in the arm, and, who, as the result, could not carry on his occupation for 11 months afterwards. His claim, too, was turned down. I do not know if all these facts are before the Ministry. But I know this, that I do expect from the Ministry of Finance further investigation into all these cases, where concrete evidence can be adduced that they are cases of real suffering and hardship, and cases where compensation could reasonably be expected from the Government.

Possibly the whole scheme of Irish patriotism is changed and what was roseate in 1920 is black, grey and drab to-day. The people who suffered in this connection, people whose health has been destroyed, and who are unable to carry on their occupation in the future, should at least get some help from the Government. When we see the very people, who carried on the war against this country, are, under the terms of the Treaty, supposed to be paid, and I quite realise that they must be paid, these people who suffered for the cause should be compensated. I want to ask the Minister for Finance if there is any clause in this nation's treaty of honour towards these people who suffered when Irish freedom was being hammered out—is there any clause, with honour and justice, to remain inoperative in the cases I have endeavoured to bring before you?

I desire to support Deputy P. Hogan in the matter he has raised. I was about to ask you if there is a quorum of the Dáil present. If there is, it is due to the decent sprinkling of labour and farmer Deputies. When such a grave subject is raised as the matter of giving justice to our suffering countrymen, it looks decidedly bad that the Government benches are comparatively empty. Deputy P. Hogan has gone at full length into this question. He has told you how cases have been decided over the heads of applicants, without their having been given notice of the intention to have their cases determined, and without giving them facilities to appear either in person or by legal proxy. In addition the Deputy has said, and I believe it is perfectly true, that the amounts awarded have been in many cases inadequate. I know the Finance Minister will say in regard to that point: "At the time the Provisional Government was set up an agreement was reached with Great Britain, under which agreement each country decided to meet the claims of its own nationals." I think that is right.

But then the findings of the court were suspended and their decrees were not permitted to become operative. The English Government, I believe, have done no such thing. The claims awarded in the county courts in Ireland to the dependents of the servants of the British Government, such, for instance, as the widows of policemen, are being paid in full by the British. But in Ireland all these claims are being re-heard by the Commission, whose powers are rather indefinite and whose terms of reference are decidedly vague. I do not think it is just to this country, and I do not believe it is right, and it is setting a very poor value upon our own nationals that we do not give them—I will not say the same treatment as the British gave theirs, because we cannot afford to do so—but at least we should make some effort to meet their claims justly. I have had several cases brought to my notice where the paucity and meagreness of the awards given— and in some cases no award has been given at all—do not reflect any great credit on the Commission that determined these cases. I have, for instance, a case in which on the 29th June, 1921, a young man was shot by Crown Forces. It was a callous murder. He was a young man 25 years of age, in the prime of his manhood, and his relatives received an ex-gratia grant of £100. The funeral and legal expenses practically came to the sum awarded them. I have another case where a child of six or seven years old was shot. I admit, of course, that it is not easy to justify the contention that, from the wage-earning point of view, they had lost anything. But they did not even get the funeral expenses.

These are some of the cases that are antagonising people. I would suggest to the Minister, with sufficient regard for the Exchequer, that it is a bad spirit and false economy to, Shylock-like, ask for the last pound of flesh. I ask the Minister to be more generous and to give more consideration to the cases that come before the Commission, and to deal more generously with the applicants and afford them reasonable facilities for presenting their cases. At the present time, owing to the ambiguity of the terms of reference and the secrecy with which the Commission works, solicitors down the country are in the dark as to what the procedure is, or should be, or how best to get their clients' cases put before the Court. Every Deputy in the counties where there was fighting is inundated with letters from constituents protesting against the dilatory conduct, partly of the Commission, and the absence of awards in reasonable cases; and in other cases, where the awards have been issued, against their meagre character.

I would like to say a few words on this matter of awards. I suppose the best way of bringing it home to the Minister for Finance and to the Dáil would be to follow what Deputy Hogan has done and to give some concrete cases. I will give the Minister the case of a young lady, a dressmaker, who got a bullet wound in the jaw. She was the sole support of her old mother. This lady spent five months in hospital, and had to undergo two operations. She is disfigured for the remainder of her life, as the result of this bullet wound and the operations, and she gets a notification from the Ministry of Finance that no compensation will be paid to her.

I have also the case of a man whose property and furniture were destroyed. He was himself beaten and his wife was also beaten by the British Forces in 1921. He is still waiting for compensation for that personal injury and for the destruction of his property. I could quote innumerable cases of members of the I.R.A. who were murdered by Crown Forces. The maximum award in the cases seems to be £100, ex-gratia payment. I could quote where one young man was murdered in his own house. It was a well-known case. There was no doubt that was done by British Forces in Thurles in 1920. About three months ago his mother, a very old woman, was informed that she was to receive £100.

I have another case in mind which happened in Nenagh, where two young men were murdered and butchered beyond recognition in 1920. They were so badly treated by the Crown Forces that even their parents were not allowed to see them before they were buried. As a result of that, the father of one of the boys is to-day paralysed and has been paralysed for a number of years. He is confined to his bed. This man has now got notification from the Ministry of Finance that he is to be awarded £100 compensation for the murder of his son. One could go on giving case after case such as I have described. When the people contrast the compensation that they are getting with what was given to the dependents of the British Forces, they, certainly, are forced to the conclusion that they have a grievance, and a very great grievance, against the Government. They think that their sons who went out to fight for the country, and who as the result of the fight lost their lives, should have their lives valued more highly. As a result of their deaths their fathers and mothers are without the means of support to-day. These people deserve more consideration than they are getting from the Ministry of Finance.

I do not intend to give a lot of illustrations. I think these illustrations could be multiplied and kept up until Christmas Day without getting rid of them. There is, however, one particular case that I have in mind. That is a man from the South of Ireland who was interned in Ballykinlar. While there, he was injured, and he claims that he has been greatly impaired in health as the result of the injuries sustained. He applied to the Personal Injuries Commission to have his case considered with a view to making up for the loss he had sustained. Without having examined him or having a doctor's examination of the man at all, they refused to consider the matter, on the plea that as the injury occurred outside the Saorstát they had no jurisdiction. Now, this particular thing happened before the Saorstát was established, and I think, at least, they should have given some other reason than that for turning down the case. I would like if the Minister, when he is replying, would explain his reason for such a letter being sent to the applicant, and why the fact that the injury happened in Ballykinlar should debar him from having his case considered by the Personal Injuries Commission.

I beg to assure the Dáil that the statements made by Deputies are a fair sample of the general complaints. I will not delay the Dáil, but I wish the Minister would consider a case of particular hardship in my county. I am sorry that some of the Limerick Deputies are not here to corroborate this particular case. I am sure Deputy R. O'Connell knows the case. The Deputies will remember that on the night that the Mayor and ex-Mayor of Limerick were assassinated by the Black and Tans, a boy from Westmeath who was working as manager of a meat shop in Limerick was also assassinated. He was the eldest of a family of eight children, and was the main support of the family. The father was dead, and he used occasionally send home a £10 note to his mother, and used to send meat every week from the shop. His family had to go down from Westmeath to bury him. It cost them over £40. His relatives tell me they put in their claim in the usual way and it was turned down. One day I had a visit from one of the family here, and Deputy O'Leadáin and myself saw the Minister for Finance, and he decided to have it re-opened. I got a reply that the result of the reopening was to turn down the claim again. I have heard since of other cases in which reasonable and fair compensation was given, but in this particular case, I think something should be done, if only by way of ex-gratia grant. That is an exceptionally hard case. I know the family. They are living on 15 acres of poor, miserable land. The saddest part of the story is that the mother lost her senses over this boy's death, and another boy was in the Mullingar Asylum for twelve months. If that is not a case of hardship I do not know what is. I would like if the Minister would take a note of that case, and if something cannot be given by way of compensation, that he would give something as an ex-gratia payment.

I think something should be done for those victims who suffered in the fight for freedom. It is proper and right that some reasonable compensation should be given to the people who helped to establish the Saorstát Government. It is not so long ago since £12,000 was set aside for the pensioning of a few antediluvian judges. The cases mentioned are more deserving of recognition and of compensation from the general population of the Saorstát than those judges.

The Terms of Reference to the Commission, so far as it affects this matter, are as follows:—

"The Committee will recommend to the Minister for Finance what sums are, in reason and fairness, to be paid in the cases above mentioned, regard being had, inter alia, to the actual earning capacity of the injured person prior to the injury; and to the impairment of the earning capacity attributable to the injury; and to the actual extent of dependency upon the deceased person prior to the death or injury of the deceased person, and any effective provision made by the deceased person for his dependents by way of insurance or otherwise.”

The Committee has heard a very large number of cases. Some 6,400 claims were received. About 4,000 of these have been considered. Awards have been made in 1174 cases, and they have actually been paid by the Minister for Finance in 950 cases. There are a couple of hundred others that are to be paid almost immediately.

Will the Minister say what is the total amount already paid?

The total amount already paid is £277,283, or an average of £236 per award. Now, the Committee has a very big volume of business to do, and it is desirable that they should get through that work with as reasonable a degree of expedition as possible.

Because of that, and also in order to save unnecessary expense to applicants, the Committee has decided not to hear people in person where there does not seem to be, from the particulars given on the form of application, some prospect that an award might be given. I do not think I could disagree with that or ask the Committee to alter their procedure in that regard. As far as I am concerned, I have sent quite a number of cases back to the Committee for consideration. I sent them back cases on private representations made to me by Deputies, by solicitors representing applicants, and by other people. I also sent back cases because of questions raised in the Dáil. I sent a few cases back because, on looking over the awards in the Department of Finance, it was thought that certain awards looked rather high. In any case where a reason seemed to exist, or where it was pointed out to us that a case ought to be sent back to the Committee, it was so sent back and was reconsidered by the Committee. In a few cases the Committee made some changes. In others they upheld the decisions which they had previously arrived at. I have not looked personally into all the cases that were sent back. I looked into several of them, and I must say that I am satisfied, from an examination of the papers in all the cases which I looked into, that the Committee did what was right. I cannot pretend to deal with concrete cases brought up here without notice. I must simply take no notice of them. I do not know the facts. No statement of some of the facts alleged here was made on the form of application. If facts exist now which were not put on the original form of application, let them be sent forward, and if there is some prospect of an award being given the case will be reconsidered by the Committee.

It often happens that people misrepresent cases to Deputies. I will mention a case which a Deputy from the Labour benches wrote to the Ministry of Finance about. It was the case of a man whose daughter received injuries on the 9th July, 1921. She died in July, 1922. The Deputy complained that recently a letter was received from the Ministry of Finance addressed to the girl herself, stating that no compensation could be given. To the Deputy that seemed very bad, but I have the form of application here. It purports to be signed by the girl herself, although it is dated the 28th June, 1923, that is to say, a year after her death. It purports to be signed by her and states a lot of things, but of course it gives no indication that the girl was dead, and that in fact she was a year dead when the form was sent in. That case seemed very bad to the Deputy and he said so, having only the facts that he had. I might say that one does not always get all the facts from applicants. There are quite a number of people who really suffered nothing and who make application for grants. There is an enormous number of frivolous applications sent in. One can understand that cupidity is always aroused when money is to be had, and that people will always exaggerate their sufferings. People who happened to be beaten or a little ill-used by the Black-and-Tans began the next day to exaggerate the ill-usage they had suffered, and they have gone on exaggerating that ever since. In a great many cases the beating was a very unpleasant thing, but it left no serious results at all. There was a large number of cases based on circumstances like that. Where there is no real evidence of injury or impairment of earning capacity it is quite right that all such cases should be turned down. I approve of such cases being turned down. There is another class of case in which there is a good deal of complaint, that is where a person dies and where there is no dependency and where a small award of £50 or thereabouts is made. A case was brought to me the other day by a Deputy outside the Dáil and a question was asked in connection with it by another Deputy. It was that of two young men, farmers' sons, who were killed. An award of £50 was made in each case. On looking over the papers in these particular cases it was absolutely clear that there was no dependency at all. The farmers, in both cases, had substantial farms. They had other sons working the farms. If anything, you might say that the remaining members of the family were financially benefited by the deaths of the sons who were killed, that is, if there was anything in that.

I have taken up the line, and it was taken up by the President when this matter was first discussed, that if there is no pecuniary loss we are not going to pay compensation. We are not going to dry the tears of the relatives with bank notes, and I think that is a very sound thing. One might very easily talk about a human life and say, is it worth only £50? We are not attempting to pay anyone for human life, but we are attempting substantially to relieve the hardship which a death causes. We pay only where there is damage that can be measured in money. I think if Deputies will look into the matter they will find very many cases come under that heading. Some time ago a young child was killed; that is a case again where we are asked to dry the tears with banknotes. Cases were mentioned by some Deputies, and I confess I have not looked into them all myself, but Deputy Morrissey mentioned a case where a girl was disfigured because of bullet wounds. But even though her earning capacity as a dressmaker, or whatever she was, was impaired—

She was in hospital for five months.

I do not know what the circumstances were, but if she was only laid up for five months and her earning capacity impaired for that time that would be a small matter. But although her earning capacity was not permanently impaired there might be reason in a case of a young woman to give compensation for disfigurement that resulted from injuries, and that is a matter that I will promise the Deputy to look into.

I will look into the case that Deputy Nagle mentioned. There, no doubt, there is difficulty in regard to people residing in the Six Counties, who were never out of the Six Counties, and who were injured and now claim compensation to be paid by us. It is very much like some other payments we had to make and it is very doubtful whether it would be proper to make it. So that if we were to make payments of that kind I doubt whether it would be proper for the Ministry of Finance to make those payments without putting the amount into a special vote and bringing it in that special way under the notice of the Dáil.

The case I have in my mind is of a man born and reared in the town of Dungarvan and who lived there. He was arrested in Waterford and sent to Ballykinlar.

That is only an individual case, and that presents special features. That probably was a real case, but there were a big number of cases that have not the special feature that particular case has. I can only repeat to Deputies that if any case is shown to me I am willing to have any case sent back to the committee for reconsideration. If there is further pressure—I am afraid I could not do it in a very large number of cases—but I am prepared in a reasonable number of cases to examine the whole papers and evidence so far as I can get them, and take my stand upon that in the Dáil. I have not refused to accept the recommendation of the committee in any case. I do not think it would be at all a possible position for the Minister for Finance to exceed the amount, although I do not know whether there is any technical point that would make it impossible to exceed the amount recommended. It would be improper to exceed the amounts recommended, or to put pressure on the committee to recommend an amount greater than they thought proper. But the committee is really very sympathetic. It is a committee which, in addition to a judge who may take a strict legal view, has two laymen on it—one of them a doctor—and in the cases presented to me, and I have examined at least twelve or fifteen of them, or thereabouts, I found the committee has acted quite fairly and without undue stringency. I will discuss any case with any Deputy who brings it forward, but I must say that the investigations that I have carried out so far have given me every confidence in the committee. They have to take a rather hard line, and remember that the time during which large sums were paid in compensation in the case of death was only a very short period. Ordinarily, if a person gets injured in a row there is no compensation due. We are trying to pay no more than will meet a fair pecuniary loss.

May I ask for a little more information in regard to the terms of reference, and perhaps also about the interpretation of the terms of reference. It is quite obvious that there must be some guiding principle actuating the committee in suggesting awards. Though the Minister says that the earning capacity in the case of injured persons, or the extent of dependency in the case of one who lost his life were the things that have to be taken into account, the committee must be guided by some principle in relation to these two factors. What is that guiding principle? Is it based upon some scale, or is it purely optional and arbitrarily at their discretion? Is it so many years' dependency? What kind of principle is at work determining the amount of the award? One reason why I ask this is that there is abroad a belief based upon a statement made, I think, in the Dáil about compensation between the Saorstát Government and the British Government of a sum, I think, of £900,000.

Property.

I thought that was a separate case. There was an impression abroad that this £900,000 was the fund out of which the total compensation was to be paid and fitted into. The Minister's repudiation of that will, perhaps, help to dispel that false opinion. But in any case, it would be desirable that the House should be made aware of whether there is any ratio established between the amount of the award in the case of injury, and the earning capacity, or in the case of death and dependency the number of years dependency, or what other ratio is taken into account. What other standard of compensation or allowance or grant is taken in fixing the amount of compensation or of the grant. There seems to be a general impression that there has been very great variation according to the class of case brought forward. I cannot suggest any examples. I do not want to, but the impression is widely held that there has been discrimination in favour of certain sections of the public and against others. I have no knowledge, whatever, whether there is any justification for that, but if we could be informed that there is a basis on which compensation shall be paid, apart from the mere chance whether one or two or three members of the Committee may be present, whether they have had digestible breakfasts or not—a chance of that kind might affect the award unless there is a guiding principle, and it would be well if we were made aware of whether such principle exists.

Nothing was laid down from the Government with regard to scale except really the terms of reference, which stated that these factors should be taken into consideration, and that the Committee should give what was fair and reasonable. That is as detailed as in many cases you find in law for a judge. You will find laws which state that judges are to give what is reasonable compensation and which means that they are to take all the factors into account. In any cases that have come before me I know the committee have taken into account, for instance, in cases of a deceased person the age of the children and the actuarial expectation of life of the deceased person, having regard to his age. They took the ordinary life insurance tables and found out what was his income, had regard to his expectation of life, made a calculation for his support, took into account what amount the family would get from his life insurance, and so on. So far as the cases I have seen are concerned, they have taken all the factors it seemed to me, or anybody in my Department, could reasonably be taken into account, but there is no scale laid down. You have to have regard to the circumstances of, say, the family, or the injured person, before the injury or death took place, but you do not lay down a fixed scale of, say, 35/- a week in the case of death. There is no scale of that kind laid down; it is left to the Committee to examine all the circumstances and to make their award having regard to them.

That concludes the matter. The President has an announcement to make before the adjournment.

Top
Share