I want to know at what stage we are in with regard to this particular vote. I want to draw attention to a certain phase of the Supplementary Estimate, Property Losses Compensation, 1916, Rebuilding Grants. It has been represented to me as an anomalous state of things that in this compensation in regard to 1916 there was a complete refusal to make any payment of compensation to the proprietors of Liberty Hall. As a matter of fact their claim for compensation for the damage done to Liberty Hall was refused consideration, because it was outside the terms of reference. I gather that the explanation in respect to the damage to Liberty Hall was that the terms of reference confined any claim to the property of persons who were not implicated in the rising. Now the proprietors of Liberty Hall were the Transport Workers' Union, and they were just as much implicated in the rising, and just as little implicated in the rising, as many another firm or person who received compensation under the scheme. I am told for what it is worth that the only application for compensation refused on these grounds was the Transport Workers' Union. It is rather strange that of all the people who obtained compensation under this scheme the only persons who were refused compensation on the ground that they, or some of them were, were implicated in the rising seemed to be this case, where prejudice had entered into the consideration of the claim. Whatever may have been the composition of the Committee that considered this matter in the beginning, there is a reasonable case for the present authorities to consider that claim. The fact, I suppose, that influenced the tribunal was that Liberty Hall rather stood dramatically before the public in respect of the occurrences round about the rising. But I do not think that that should be sufficient to prevent their claim being considered. I would ask the Minister to state what is the position in regard to claims under this Vote, and whether a claim which was refused on the ground that the people concerned were implicated in the rising and outside the terms of reference cannot now be reconsidered.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE NO. 14 (PROPERTY LOSSES COMPENSATION) (RESUMED).
I am afraid that is a matter to which my attention has not been directed heretofore, and I can only promise the Deputy that I will look into it. So far as the provisions of the Supplementary Estimate is concerned, it means simply that there are certain liabilities which the British Government acknowledged and which will fall due to be paid some time. We have undertaken that we will make the payment. The outstanding amounts are about £45,000. So far as £30,000 are concerned we will make the payments, and the British Government will recoup us directly. So far as £15,000 more is concerned, the British Government set off against our undertakings to do that, certain matters due by us, to them, some time, in connection with compensation, and the matter is simply now one of adjustment as to the payment, but no new liabilities have been undertaken. The whole matter, of course, was dealt with long before the Saorstát came into being and did not come under my notice in any way. I was not even aware of the fact as stated by Deputy Johnson, but I will have it examined and I will either write to the Deputy or, if he prefers to raise it on some other occasion, I will be prepared to deal with it.
On this matter, I ask the Minister if he would try and arrange to have these claims for the destruction of property settled as expeditiously as possible. There are delays which, to my mind, need not occur. I will give a case in point. In the year 1920 some property belonging to the Nenagh branch of the Transport Workers' Union was destroyed by British forces. A claim was lodged for £24. About a fortnight ago the local secretary was informed that there had been an award of £12 for the destruction of their property, and a receipt form was sent to him to sign, and he was told when he signed that receipt form and sent it on the money would be sent to him. But instead of the money he got a letter dated 27th May acknowledging receipt of his letter relative to the compensation claim and requesting him to be so good as to return the form with the statement in the margin showing (a) the date and nature of the loss or damage, the amount of compensation claimed, and the name of the person who lodged the claim for compensation on behalf of the branch of the Union. I cannot understand why a letter like that should be sent out at this stage. All this information was sent to the Department two or three years ago. They had already decided on the amount of the compensation they would allow; they had even sent out the receipt to be signed by the secretary, stating that when it was sent back the money would be forwarded, but instead of getting a paying order the secretary gets this letter asking him to send particulars of the date of the losses and so on. This is not an isolated case. It is typical of a number — I admit it is a small number — that have come under my notice. It is very vexatious to be waiting for close upon five years for compensation for furniture and books destroyed and to have this thing happening. I hope the Minister will look into the matter and see that it will not occur again.
I would just like to mention that my attention has been drawn to several cases of delay in the payment of grants that have actually been awarded. I have actually received one by post now. Possibly it will serve as a typical example. I need not mention details of the case. In connection with it, there is one letter dated 12th August, 1924, and it was sent to the solicitor notifying the award of the grant, and enclosing certain forms that had to be signed. The solicitor wrote on the 2nd October, 1924, and again on the 5th November, 1924. One or two claims that I have in mind have been settled. With regard to this particular claim, a letter was written on the 25th November, 1924. That was acknowledged. He pointed out that a receipt was actually signed for the amount, and actually forwarded in October, 1924. That was acknowledged by card. He wrote again on the 29th November, 1924, and got no reply. He wrote again on the 6th January, 1925, expressing great surprise at not having some acknowledgment. He got no reply to that, and has had no reply up to the present. That is according to the statement I have got. That is one case. The delay in that case is greater than in any other case I have come across. I must say there is a great deal of delay, though I can quite understand there must be some delay, as there are so many cases that have to be dealt with. There are, however, some instances that have come under my notice where one cannot really see any excuse for such unreasonable delay in paying awards already granted.
Deputies can readily understand that I could not, without notice, explain the details of any particular case. I have no idea of what underlies the procedure Deputy Morrissey has indicated; I am not able to hazard any guess in regard to it. I would like to say that in general there is very little delay in the Department of Finance — very little unnecessary delay. It may occasionally happen that, through some particular point being raised, a claim gets set aside, as it were, and there may be some delay that, perhaps, could not be fully justified. Generally, however, awards are dealt with fairly expeditiously when they come from the Courts or the Compensation (Ireland) Commission. In the case that Deputy Morrissey has referred to, the claim was lodged three or four years ago, but apparently it has only been dealt with by the Compensation (Ireland) Commission. That may have been because it came within the new terms of reference, and not the old terms of reference. Consequently it could not have been dealt with until a few months ago. Even there is very great delay in having cases heard either before the Compensation (Ireland) Commission or the courts.
I am not raising any objection to the delay in having the cases heard. My objections arise because the awards were made, the receipt was actually sent out, and then we get this letter asking for particulars which were supplied three years ago.
As I have indicated, there has been great delay in having cases heard either before the Commission or the courts. The courts were absolutely congested with these compensation claims and very great delays often occurred before cases could be heard. Even when cases were heard, and even when the judge gave his decision, the proper steps were not taken, in some instances, by the solicitor for the applicant in order to have the decree prepared and the judge's signature secured. There were even many months of delay between the hearing and the determination of a case, and the date of the receipt of an award by the Deparment of Finance. Once the award is received by the Department of Finance, certain enquiries have to be made and an interval of time has to be allowed to elapse to ascertain whether any people have acquired a legal claim against the award. That interval of time is allowed in order to enable them to write to the Department and to prevent the amount of the award being paid to some applicant who has already received some money on account of the award from some other person, who may, perhaps, have advanced money against the award. All that takes time. Then in every case enquiries have to be made in regard to income tax and other matters, and there is a delay of a few weeks between the receiving of the award and the time that payment is actually made. In some cases there may be features of a peculiar character that would take them out of the ordinary routine for the purpose of securing a decision. In cases of that character there might be some delay. In general, however, there is very little delay and the sum that would represent awards actually in hands and not discharged would be quite a small sum indeed at the present time.
We are dealing with a Vote of £3,675,300. There was a considerable amount of discussion on the last occasion of this Vote. Important Votes are coming forward involving large sums. It is quite evident that the House now is not anxious to discuss this Vote. We find that out of 14 members of the Labour Party 3 are present, out of the 15 members of the Farmers' Party 3 are present, out of the 19 members of the Independent Party — the people who are supposed to look after the financial interests of the community —one is present to look after this Vote of £3,675,300, and of the Party who are supposed to support the Ministry, 5 members are present out of 60. This is all evidence that the House does not want to consider this Vote. I, therefore, move to report progress.
Would Deputy Johnson accept the dictum that he and we are a host in ourselves?
Perhaps the quality of the House as at present constituted may make up for the lack of numbers.
There is always the temptation that unless the Deputies who are supporting the Vote are forced to be here they will not be here, and I propose to invite them to be present.
Challenge a division and you will find them here.
I am quite serious. I think it is quite wrong that we should discuss these very large sums of money as though they were of no concern to anybody. I think, at any rate, the Minister and his supporters should ensure that there should be a House, even though we are in Committee.
I think Deputy Johnson's motion is of a character such as has not been proposed here yet. We specially provided under Standing Orders that the quorum of 20 should not be necessary when we are in Committee. To me that seems to contemplate that the normal condition of Committee would be with less than 20 members present.
That did not contemplate a Committee on Finance, particularly a Committee on financial motions. We know that there are many Deputies in and around the House who will not come in.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- John Conlan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- William Hewat.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Máirtín O Conláin.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.