In connection with sub-head E, complaints are made in different parts of the country—I have heard them in more than one district and in more than one county—that payments are still due to valuers and others who were engaged by the Government to make valuations of destroyed property when compensation claims were made. Individuals have informed me that they sent in their accounts over two years ago and have heard nothing about the matter. The Minister should see that these accounts are paid as soon as possible. In connection with the Indemnity Act, the last day for making claims was the 29th September, 1925. I think that many claims, because of the dates on which they were received in the Department of Finance, were ruled out, so that no compensation can be awarded.
A few of these claims have been brought directly under my notice. One individual states that he was an officer in a certain battalion from 1920 to 1922. In the early part of the year 1922 he was instructed by the O.C. of the Brigade to have all claims for damage to property in his battalion area sent in, as they were to be forwarded to G.H.Q. The first one he sent in is one to which I wish to refer. He was aware that the claim was genuine, and he can give evidence on oath with regard to it if necessary. I have made inquiries, and my information is that the claim was not received in the office before the closing date. In another claim brought under my notice the story is the same. Two motor cars were held up for forty weeks by the Black-and-Tans. The owner put in his claim to the local Volunteers, who undertook to look after it for him. They did not do so, with the result that he has been jockeyed into his present position, wherein it appears that the authorities are not willing to compensate. A few other similar claims have also been brought to my notice.
I would point out to the Minister, even at this late day, that there are undoubtedly people excluded from getting compensation through no fault of theirs, because they were certain that Volunteer officers and others through whom the claims were made would discharge their responsibilities, and put in their claims in proper order and in time. Believing that that had been done, they took no further steps. The result is that a good many people are excluded from the benefits of the Act. I think that the Minister should reconsider the attitude of the Compensation Commission with regard to these cases. When you come up against a case, as I have, with unmistakable evidence of a just claim for compensation, and when you know that justice has not been done because of neglect on the part of some Volunteer officer or other, and often owing to the incapacity of some of the people making claims, in not having them in proper order, there is a very strong case undoubtedly for reopening the consideration of a number of cases. I do not think these cases are very numerous, or that the amounts are very large, but £40 or £50 means as much to some people as £4,000 or £5,000 would mean to others, and to exclude people from compensation owing to some mistake, oversight or negligence of some person who undertook to discharge the obligation can scarcely be said to be fair dealing.
The Minister can make the case that advertisements were issued and that the last day for receiving claims was published and was definitely known, but injustice still exists, and I believe that the intentions of the Act will not be fully carried out until these people get the compensation to which they are entitled under the Act but which is being refused to them because of some flaw in the applications. I gave the Minister notice of specific cases. I intimated to him yesterday that I intended to raise the case of John Shiels, Drumgore, Loughduff, Co. Cavan, who made a claim for parts of rifles supplied to nine companies of the Volunteers in, I think, 1920. He procured and paid for the parts himself and did the work of putting the rifles in order. Officers of various companies are prepared to supply any evidence on oath, affidavits or anything else, that is required to prove that this work was done. The claim was lodged with the Minister for Defence and it was passed on to the Minister for Finance. The final communication of January 13th, 1926, informed John Shiels that his claim could not be dealt with under the Indemnity Act, 1924.
I raise this matter because I think it is a disability that a good many people who made claims labour under. I want to know on what grounds the Minister justifies a decision like this. The facts are not denied, and I have gone to considerable trouble to satisfy myself that they are as stated. The claim in this case amounted to £90, and the work done extended over a period of. I think, two years. I know the man; he is a farmer in a very small way and, at a very critical period in the country's history, he did useful work. It was very difficult to find men anywhere prepared to do that work. Those who were able to do it were not particularly anxious. A lot of compensation cases have been passed and great sums have been paid, yet a man like that is left high and dry; he is informed that his claim cannot be dealt with under the Act. I think the Minister must admit that, in view of the large amount that has been paid to different types of individuals who suffered loss, it is hard lines on this man to be told that his case does not come within the Act, and that, legally, his claim cannot be considered. There is no doubt that men placed in that category are treated very harshly and unjustly.
There is another case I would like to refer to, that of Michael Dowd, Corhoogan, Cavan. He made a claim for cabbage seed that was either taken away or destroyed on the 17th July, 1921. He got a report from the Circuit Court for £40. The final decision of the Minister was that no compensation would be paid. In this case it was conclusively proved that armed men raided the man's house, smashed certain items of his furniture, and did other damage. He was a very small farmer, but was very thrifty and very industrious, and he had developed this branch of his farming to such an extent that it meant a considerable revenue to him. He had his cabbage seeds prepared for the next season and these seeds were taken away or destroyed. I recognise the point made that if they were taken outside there would be no power under the Act to compensate the individual. If they were destroyed in the house I believe the man could be compensated. The position is that once the seeds were touched they were destroyed because the farmer could not give any guarantee of germination with the seeds after they had been interfered with. It is a very peculiar position that compensation can be awarded for something destroyed in the house but that it is not possible to give compensation for an article taken outside the house.
In these cases it seems to me that the policy of the Department is not fair. The Minister should reconsider these cases. I ask, in regard to cases that have been ruled outside the operations of the Indemnity Act because for certain reasons they were not lodged in time, that some reconsideration should be given to them. Where there is evidence forthcoming that the individuals concerned were satisfied that somebody on their behalf was lodging the claims, those cases should be re-opened, and, if an award can be justified, that award should be made.
