Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Nov 1936

Vol. 64 No. 6

Dublin Fire Tribunal.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move item No. 5 on the Order Paper:—

That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say:—

(a) the cause of the fire which occurred during the night of Monday, the 5th day of October, 1936, at No. 164 Pearse Street and of the extension thereof to No. 163 Pearse Street, in the City of Dublin, and

(b) whether the said fire was either caused or rendered more destructive by negligence on the part of any person or persons, including negligence or unsafe methods in the carrying on of any business or in the user of any property, and, if so, the nature of such negligence or unsafe methods, and

(c) whether an adequate supply of water at a sufficient pressure was available for the extinguishing of the said fire, and whether the said fire was rendered more destructive by reason of the lack of provision of adequate measures for insuring the public safety on the part of any person or body of persons in relation to the management and control of other services, and

(d) the steps taken to extinguish the said fire and the efficiency of those steps, and if there was any lack of efficiency in relation to the extinguishing of the said fire, the nature and cause of such lack of efficiency, and

(e) the circumstances in which loss of life was occasioned by the said fire and the causes (including contributory causes) of such loss of life.

An application has been received by me from the Corporation of Dublin asking me to hold a public inquiry in connection with the outbreak of fire last October at No. 164 Pearse Street, Dublin, a fire which resulted in the loss of three lives. An inquiry under the Public Health Acts would be limited in scope. As the matter is one of urgent public importance, a full investigation by a special tribunal is desirable.

Mr. Doyle

I am sure the public generally will appreciate the action of the Minister in holding this inquiry, but there is one item in the motion moved by the Minister to which I would wish to draw attention. It is in line 11 of page 612, in paragraph (c), which reads "reason of the lack of provision." That strikes me as prejudicing the issue. Should it not read "reason of any lack of provision"?

Mr. Norton

I would like to inquire from the Minister whether in connection with the terms of this motion it would be possible for the next-of-kin of those who lost their lives in the fire, particularly in relation to paragraph (b) of the motion, to be represented, and, if so, whether the expenses provided in connection with this tribunal will be such as to enable the next-of-kin to be represented at the expense of the State? These dependents have, as a result of the death of their breadwinners, been placed in very unfortunate circumstances. Even such assistance as is being procured by way of public subscriptions for them is not of such a character as would enable them to meet the legal expenses incidental to their appearing before that tribunal. Does the Minister propose to assign counsel for the assistance of the relatives who desire to give evidence in connection with this unfortunate happening?

General Mulcahy

I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the corporation will be adequately represented at that inquiry by counsel for which the ratepayers of Dublin will pay. In addition, firms interested in the matter will likewise be adequately represented so as to see that their interests will be properly looked after. The people who have particularly suffered in the matter of this fire are the people who have lost their bread-winners—the three members of the Dublin Fire Brigade. The Minister indicated in advance that the Estimate he has brought in under Item No. 4 on the Order Paper is to meet certain expenses in connection with this tribunal. In view of the importance of the matter and apart altogether from the terms of the motion before the House I think it is essential that the most adequate provision would be made for supplying legal assistance to the dependents of the deceased so that they might have the proceedings of the tribunal watched very carefully from their point of view. The Minister is aware that the circumstances of the dependents are such that the public have been moved to make certain financial provision for them, entirely in a voluntary way, in the absence of any State or municipal provision. The public have been making the type of provision that it is possible to make voluntarily, and that provision is not of the type that can be eaten into by legal expenses of the dependents at this inquiry. I would ask that an assurance be given that funds from the municipality or the State would be made available to enable these dependents to be properly represented at the inquiry.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

As to the point raised by Deputy Doyle, I have no objection to the change of the word "the" to "any," if the House so desires. I do not think that the wording as it stands does prejudge the issue in view of what has happened. As to the points raised by Deputies Norton and Mulcahy, I am informed that as far as our investigations have gone, at any rate, there does not seem to be any legal power in the Minister to provide funds for the purpose the Deputies suggest. The Minister, I am informed, has no power to pay the expenses of legal assistance for the dependents of those who have lost their lives. I do not know about the powers of the corporation in this matter but I have looked into the powers of the Department and I am informed by our advisers that the Minister has no legal power to do what the Deputies suggest.

General Mulcahy

I want to ask the Minister is it not a fact that if the Estimate which the Minister for Finance has put before the House does not include a certain amount of appropriation for this purpose he can get the money by simply passing an Estimate through this House. If the House gives permission for the passing of such an Estimate what is to prevent the Minister from introducing it?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am rather inclined to think that we should have to amend the law in addition to getting the necessary financial provision passed through this House.

Professor O'Sullivan

Will not the Finance Bill when it becomes law amend the law to that extent?

Mr. Norton

The question is raised by the Minister in

(b) whether the said fire was either caused or rendered more destructive by negligence on the part of any person or persons, including negligence or unsafe methods in the carrying on of any business or in the user of any property, and, if so, the nature of such negligence or unsafe methods, and

That seems to imply that the firm in question will be asked to show that its methods were not unsafe, and presumably it will be sufficiently equipped with capital to come before the tribunal with the best legal assistance available, to show that so far as it was concerned there was no negligence. Why should not the unfortunate next-of-kin of the men who lost their lives, and who are unable to meet the cost of providing legal expenses out of their resources, be met by the State, by the allocation of money for that purpose? On the one hand you will have a wealthy firm coming before the tribunal with all the legal assistance that it is possible to get, and, on the other hand, you will have a group of penniless next-of-kin coming before it, deprived of the same kind of assistance that this firm will undoubtedly employ. I suggest to the Minister that it is possible to get through this House whatever piece of legislation is necessary to enable the next-of-kin in this unfortunate tragedy to come before the tribunal, at least on an equal standing as regards legal assistance, as the other persons who will appear before it. If necessary, the adoption of this motion should be suspended until such time as the Minister can give these people the legal assistance that other elements appearing before the tribunal will undoubtedly have.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to remind the Minister that it would be possible to bring in a vote for an ex gratia payment of any sum of money necessary to meet the costs of an inquiry of this kind. I presume the costs would be about £100 or £150; they will not be an extravagant sum. The last paragraph in the motion: “the circumstances in which loss of life was occasioned by the said fire and the causes (including contributory causes) of such loss of life” raises a very important issue. We know that the various municipalities have useful and efficient public services for fighting fires. It is obvious that the fire in question caused a shock to everyone concerned with them, and for two reasons; first, the dangers, and secondly, the shock to the public conscience that no provision is available for the families of the deceased members of the brigade. I think the Minister would be well advised to bring in an ex gratia payment in this case on a Vote, and also between now and the reassembly of the Dáil that he should consider what proposals his Department can make for compensating the families of the deceased. It is not a credit to us that we should have public subscriptions for those who perform public services, who safeguard life and property, and who are prepared to take all risks, and always have done so. Surely our statutory enactments should provide compensation in such cases.

Mr. Davin

Before we could discuss this motion we should have before us details of the Estimate. I should like to know if the Minister is positive in stating that the wording of the motion precludes him from giving sympathetic consideration to the suggestion of Deputy Norton. If so, discussions should be postponed until the Estimate is before the House, when we could have a freer discussion of it on the merits.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I did not say anything about the wording of the motion.

Mr. Davin

Does not the wording cover all legitimate expenses so far as the State is concerned, and getting prior sanction for any expenditure?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I come here at the request of the Dublin Corporation. I could have held the ordinary inquiry by an inspector of the Department of Local Government but, when we began to examine the possibility of getting all the evidence that might be necessary, we thought it would be much better to get the authority of the House to set up a special type of statutory tribunal authorised under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. Under the ordinary type of inquiry held by the Department of Local Government we would not have the power to force people if they were unwilling to come and give evidence. That is why I came to the House to act. We are anxious that everyone who can throw any light whatever on this unfortunate matter, and upon the loss of life consequent on the fire, should appear before the tribunal to give evidence. It does not appear to us that it is the responsibility of the State to provide legal assistance for any of those for whom it is necessary, voluntarily or otherwise, to appear before the tribunal. When this motion was first put before me I asked, if such a question was raised, whether we had authority, and I was told that, as the law stands, we have no legal authority to pay the expenses of anyone. I understand the usual procedure in this House is that if an Estimate of this description is brought in, it has to be legalised, if it means a change in the law, by means of an amendment. I may be wrong. That is what I imagine should take place in this case. There is no legal power at present, and the mere fact of passing an Estimate would not, probably, legalise payment, if the law was against giving the money, as afterwards the accounting officer would have to appear and account for it to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I may be wrong. If it is the desire of the House that the State should bear the expense, while I do not suppose it would be a great sum, I would have to examine it again. I think it should be the responsibility of the local authority that asked for the inquiry and not of the State.

General Mulcahy

I rather agree with the Minister that there ought to be legal power by which a local authority that suggests that an inquiry should be held would be able to cover the cost of representation on behalf of the dependents in a case like this. If the Minister says the law does not allow that, I think the House, as a whole, would agree that in this particular instance the State ought to provide the money as an indication of its mind that the dependents of those men should not bear the burden of such expense. That should be done preparatory to the Minister making subsequently whatever change in the law may be necessary to put it into the power of local authorities in future to deal with cases of this kind.

Professor O'Sullivan

I suggest that if the Minister looks back on the financial proceedings of this House for a number of years he will find many occasions on which Estimates were introduced for which there was no statutory authority beforehand. The Estimate is introduced and then forms portion of a Finance Bill and is passed into law. That gives the Minister the necessary statutory authority. An Estimate can become legal by the mere process of the House. If there is any doubt about the House being able to do it, there will be still more doubt about the corporation being able to do it. There you will have to have a separate Bill altogether, while here you need only make provision in your Estimate. I think the Minister is really sympathetic. We admit that the Government have met the corporation. We merely suggest that the Minister should, logically and sympathetically, carry out the step he has already taken. The relatives of those who have lost their lives are not in the position of private individuals, because it is quite possible that, at this inquiry, these unfortunate people may themselves be in the position, so to speak, of being on their trial to some extent. That is implied in the terms of reference. Therefore, I think that, for the sake of those who lost their lives, adequate counsel ought to be provided, and I am sure the Minister will meet the case.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I will put that to the Dublin Corporation. I think it is their responsibility. I am sure that all parts of the House will agree that these people should have the fullest possible legal assistance in putting forward their case. I will put this matter to the corporation, who asked for the inquiry and whose responsibility it is primarily. If they do not agree, I will bring the matter at some future date before the House.

Mr. Byrne

Might I ask, if the corporation do provide the money necessary to employ counsel to represent the dependents, will the Minister's Department or the auditor give some guarantee that there will be no surcharge? Will the Minister's Department not surcharge the sub-committee that will take charge of it? Might I also ask whether, under the terms of reference, evidence can be given or accepted that will enable either the corporation or the Government to take powers later on to prevent the storage of inflammable materials and explosives in the basement of tenement houses or, as in this case, in the basement of a shop over which there were a caretaker and his family living?

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest to the Deputy that the matter being sub judice should not be discussed.

Mr. Byrne

If the terms of reference will permit of evidence of that kind being taken I think it will be very useful.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not want to go into the merits of the second point. If we started discussing that, we might get into matters that will be the subject of the inquiry. With regard to the other matter about the auditor, I think the Deputy knows that nobody has any control over an auditor in his official acts when he is examining accounts. He has statutory authority behind him and he is the interpreter of the statutes so far as his work of auditing is concerned. If he makes a surcharge, it is within his province to do it. Of course, the Minister then has to decide whether that surcharge should stand or be remitted. I do not think there is any likelihood that any Minister would stand over a surcharge of the kind, if it were made.

Question put and agreed to.