Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1929

Vol. 31 No. 1

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 14—Property Losses Compensation.

Mr. Blythe

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £182,700 chun slanuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun íocaíochtanna i dtaobh mille no díobháil do mhaoin a dineadh i rith na tréimhse 21adh Eanair, 1919, go 12adh Bealtaine, 1923, go huile, fé sna hAchtanna um Dhíobháil do Mhaoin (Cúi-taemh), 1923 go 1926, agus ar shlite eile; agus mar gheall ar dhamáiste do mhaoin, no cailliúint maoine, agus íocaíochtanna tré shlánú no tré aisíoc fén Acht Slánaíochta, 1924, agus chun deontaisí d'íoc a socruíodh a íoc de bhárr mola an Property Losses (Ireland) Committee, 1916, mar chúiteamh i bhfoirgintí a milleadh i mBaile Atha Cliath i rith Seachtain na Cásca, 1916.

That a sum not exceeding £182,700 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, 1930, 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) Acts, 1923 to 1926, and otherwise; and in respect of damage to, or loss of property and payments by way of indemnification or recoupment under the Indemnity Act, 1924, and for payment of grants awarded on the recommendation of the Property Losses (Ireland) Committee, 1916, as compensation for buildings destroyed in Dublin during Easter Week, 1916.

Mr. MacEntee

Arising out of this Vote, I would like to know from the Minister what exactly sub-head A represents. Does it arise out of the liability which this State assumed under the third article to the schedule to the Treaty (Confirmation of Amending Agreement) Act, 1925? It seems to cover the same period.

Mr. Blythe

Originally the pre-truce damage was divided between the British and the Saorstát, and, of course, this represents the Saorstát's side of it.

Mr. MacEntee

Where was the British side met?

Mr. Blythe

That was finally met by a lump sum. The payment of £900,000 was to meet their share of that.

Mr. de Valera

When was that payment made? Was the sum of £900,000 paid to the British Government by way of recoupment?

Mr. Blythe

No. They have been paid a variety of sums, but it finally ended up with a lump sum payment of £900,000. Each award made by the Wood-Renton Commission was apportioned or allotted to one Government or the other. Finally, there came a point where there were disputes on the various terms of reference, and that lump sum of £900,000 was paid to the British.

Mr. de Valera

Would the Minister tell us where we could get the total sums paid in respect of recoupment to the British of their liabilities to meet compensation for damage to property?

Mr. Blythe

It is in the various accounts.

Mr. MacEntee

I would direct the attention of the Minister to the third article in the schedule to the Treaty (Confirmation of Amending Agreement) Act, 1925. It states "the Irish Free State hereby assumes all liability undertaken by the British Government in respect of malicious damage done since the Twenty-first day of January, nineteen hundred and nineteen, to property in the area now under the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State, and the Government of the Irish Free State shall repay to the British Government at such time or times and in such manner as may be agreed upon moneys already paid by the British Government in respect of such damage or liable to be so paid under obligations already incurred."

There are two obligations assumed under that Article. First of all there is a liability for the liabilities undertaken by the British Government in respect of malicious damage done since the 21st of January, 1919, and there is the obligation to recoup the British Government any sums which they had already paid in respect of such damage. Looking at sub-head A of the Estimate, I see here that the compensation is in respect of damage to property during the period 21st of January, 1919, to the 11th of July, 1921, inclusive. Surely some of the compensation there is paid in respect of liability which was originally divided between the Free State and the British Government and has now been assumed by the Free State in toto. I would like to know from the Minister if I am right in that?

Mr. Blythe

It is assumed in toto because we are paying back what the British paid by the £250,000 annuity. As a matter of fact they had already made arrangements which liquidated their liabilities in respect of that. Our assumption of the liability which they hitherto bore simply consists in paying them back.

Mr. MacEntee

There is no part of this sum in respect of undischarged liabilities which the British would have assumed if it had not been for the schedule to the Act which I have just cited?

Mr. Blythe

None.

Mr. de Valera

Is the 10 per cent. increase in compensation for post-truce damage included?

Mr. Blythe

Sub-head B would include that.

Mr. MacEntee

Then sub-head B does include that 10 per cent.?

Mr. Blythe

Yes.

Mr. MacEntee

That is information that we were anxious to elicit. We were anxious to elicit whether any moneys granted under this Vote were paid because of the Treaty (Confirmation of Amending Agreement) Act, 1925. I think in view of that that we cannot allow the Vote to pass without challenge. We do not think, as I have already explained to the House, that the President in first putting the Treaty (Confirmation of Amending Agreement) Act before the House was quite candid and fair. He said that we had made a damn good bargain, and that all our liability under Article 5 had been wiped out. If that is so, the Ultimate Financial Settlement should not have been signed. It was signed, and the Government have come to this House and asked us to grant money for that financial settlement. In view of that, we think that information which should have been laid before the House was kept from it, and that the Treaty (Confirmation of Amending Agreement) Act was passed by the House in those circumstances. Accordingly we do not think we would be justified, as I said, in allowing without challenge the payment of any sum which arises out of that particular item, and we will have to oppose this Vote.

Mr. G. Boland

In connection with sub-head B, I want to raise the case of seizure of cattle which took place in 1923. The cattle belonged to a constituent of mine. I think what happened took place between the 12th July, 1921, and the 12th May, 1923. This man had cattle grazing on the estate of Colonel Chichester for some years before the Ministry came in 1923 and seized his cattle. He afterwards took an action against the Minister for Defence, but the case went against him simply because the Indemnity Act was pleaded. The jury found that the man had a right to have cattle grazing there, and also that the amount he was claiming was the correct amount—namely, £484. They also found that the Indemnity Act did apply in this case, but they recommended this man, Mr. Reynolds, of Renamore, in the County Roscommon, to the consideration of the Government. The counsel for the Government at the time was Mr. Lynch, K.C., and he said the wish of the jury would be conveyed to the proper quarter. This man lost cattle to the value of £484, and he got £144 for them, and he had to pay £150 costs. The answer he got from the Department of Defence to the representations made by the State counsel was that there were no funds to meet his case. I think that was a shame in a case like that, where an illegal thing had been done that is only made legal by the Indemnity Act.

I am bringing this up now because this man told me that in addition to having lost his cattle that year he had been decreed for the rent. Now he has to emigrate. I think it is a disgrace to plead the Indemnity Act in a case like that, where a man was entitled to have his cattle there, and when he had been paying rent for a few years before that. I had a communication from the Department of Defence saying they could do nothing in the matter. I do not know whether anything can be done, but I think it is a great hardship that a man like that has to leave the country owing to a decree having been obtained against him after his cattle had been wrongly seized. The Indemnity Act was never meant to cover a case of that sort.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise under sub-head B.

Mr. Blythe

It is an individual case, and I cannot deal with it without notice. If the Deputy sends me sufficient particulars to identify the case, I will write to him a full answer, or if he likes to put down a Parliamentary question, I will give him an answer.

Mr. Boland

I cannot expect an answer now. I was told by the Department of Defence that there was no money to meet this case. I will take the Minister's advice. I hope he will not tell me there are no funds to meet this case. This man took no part in the fighting, and if he did there would be no use in his looking for compensation. It is not a laughing matter that a man should be forced to leave the country through an illegal action on the part of others.

Mr. Corry

I am not satisfied with the manner in which these compensation claims have been met. A Commission was sent over here to inquire into these cases, and it went to West Cork area. A gentleman was sent down there, and he demanded in the first instance of the people whose property he came to examine that the body of his nephew —who he said was killed in the area —should be forthcoming, and if not they would get no compensation. As a matter of fact, they got no compensation whatsoever. I do not know who has the appointment of these gentlemen who are sent down as inspectors; but I know that in several cases they were the actual individuals who came raiding there before the Truce. I do not think that the matter has been properly met at all, or that justice has been done to those people whose property was destroyed during those periods. As to sub-head B, I think it is cheeky on the part of the Executive Council, after bringing over British 18-pounders here and shelling down a couple of million pounds worth of property in Dublin, not to mind what they destroyed outside of Dublin, for the privilege of paying this Ultimate Financial Settlement to Britain, to come to the Dáil afterwards for money for the property they shelled and destroyed. It is all very well to look for a lot of things, but I hope they will not get them.

Then as regards "expenses in connection with the investigation, defence, and discharge of claims in respect of damage to or loss of property between 21st January, 1919, and 12th May, 1923, inclusive," I presume that is for the payment of valuers and engineers. The sum amounts to £920. I wonder was it out of that fund expenses were paid to gentlemen like the gentleman I mentioned a few moments ago; a gentleman who was apparently sent down not so much to see the damage that was done as to find out other matters in connection with the activities of the I.R.A. during the pre-Truce period, and who went down there apparently paid by the Free State Government for that purpose?

An Ceann Comhairle

When was this?

Mr. Corry

In 1922.

An Ceann Comhairle

That man's salary is not on this Vote.

Mr. Corry

Is it not? I was hoping he was not paid yet. I must say that they are prompter in paying him than in paying the Dáil loan. I exceedingly regret that his salary is not in it. As regards sub-head A, I consider that the manner in which these people have been treated, in a large number of cases, is grossly unfair and unjust. Considering that the Government were so generous with the Irish people's money in other respects, I think they could very well go into these cases again, particularly the ones I have mentioned. The Minister for Finance has already received notice of them. I think it is disgraceful that a gentleman should be sent down——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is out of order.

Mr. Corry

I think the Executive Council in coming here and looking for money as regards this has the dickens of a neck.

Vote put and declared carried.