An amendment has been submitted by Deputy Mulcahy which seeks to remove the £50 limit of compensation in respect of storage of furniture. The amount was raised from £30 to £50 and the proposal now is to leave no limit. Obviously, that would involve an increased charge and for that reason the amendment may not be moved.
Neutrality (War Damage to Property) Bill, 1941—Report and Fifth Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 4, after line 3, to add at the end of Section 3 (1), a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) every person who may suffer loss by reason of an injury to which this Act applies to property charged (otherwise than with a rent) in his favour in any manner or to property on which he has a lien.
This amendment arises out of the consideration of the point made where a mortgagor might be deemed to be liable to suffer loss—to enable him to come in in case of damage to a building on which he has a mortgage.
Then the position is that the Minister is not going to give compensation of any kind in respect of loss of rent? In a case where, as a result of damage, the landlord loses rent, the Minister is not going to pay compensation in respect of that?
That is the position. The Deputy will probably remember, in connection with the amendments that were moved here yesterday, that I said that even if a case of that kind were admitted for compensation it should be brought under a special Act and it could hardly be brought within the ambit of this Bill. A number of other questions would also arise as to various types of consequential compensation if that idea were accepted. If it were to be accepted at all, it certainly would not be in connection with this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 6, Section 6 (2), to delete in line 1 the words "one month" and substitute the words "three months".
This is a point I agreed to yesterday. I thought it would be included in the revised version of the Bill, but evidently it was not noted at the time. Instead of one month it should be three months there. I think it was Deputy Norton who was interested in that matter.
I understood the Minister to say that he would agree to an amendment provided that he must decide the claim within 12 months.
That is in relation to another section, Section 5. I did say that. I made that offer yesterday, that we would try to get an answer of some kind duly made by the Minister. The section sets out that "The Minister shall consider every application for compensation under this Act duly made to him". Then the Deputy had an amendment. I thought it would be possible to have all these claims considered in the Department inside 12 months, but I am told now that that would be entirely impossible. There are at present listed with the Dublin Corporation over 2,000 claims, and they expect a great lot more. We would need to set up a new section in the Department in connection with this, and the staff would be occupied for more than 12 months with the claims that have to be considered and investigated; that is, the claims that have been submitted up to the present. I should like to assure the House that so far as I can, as Minister for Finance, I will see to it that no unnecessary time is lost in the investigation of these cases. Some of them will be difficult.
Will the Minister set up special machinery to expedite payments? It seems to me that the Minister is satisfied to deal with these cases in the Department's routine fashion. It might be well to remember that these claims arise out of an acute emergency. I am not convinced that the Minister is not in a position to set up very special machinery in order to deal expeditiously with these cases.
I will set up special machinery. There will be a special section in the Department for the purpose of dealing with this work. There will be a staff appointed specially to deal with this, but I must remind Deputies that there will be a considerable amount of work. It would be a very happy thing for me to be able to say that all these claims will be finished, so far as investigation is concerned, inside 12 months, but between now and the end of the Recess we do not know that there may not be another 5,000 claims. If I accepted the 12 months' period I would feel bound to include whatever other claims would arise to-day, to-morrow, or inside the next 12 months. They would all have to be dealt with within the 12 months.
If somebody presents a claim 11½ months hence, the Minister has at least a fortnight in which to deal with it.
There may be claims within the next week, or a considerable number of additional claims within the next fortnight.
Let us hope the Minister is wrong.
I sincerely hope I am.
I have no doubt the Minister has had many of these cases brought to his notice. I think he will agree that one of the most distressing features of many of these claims is that the extent of the bereavement is so great that the persons who have suffered the loss are really bewildered and they do not know what to do. I am no different from any other Deputy who has met some of these unfortunate people who have suffered loss. I met one woman who has suffered very heavily and what I felt most when talking to her was that her difficulty was that she did not know what to do and if she only had somebody to whom she could go, somebody who would bring her to where relief and comfort are available, a great deal of her trials and tribulations would be mitigated. It occurred to me that what we want in connection with this business, in order to avoid undue delay and give these people the feeling, that, pending actual financial compensation, they are not forgotten and that people are not indifferent to their sufferings, is somebody who would stand in relation to them like an almoner, who would know all the available means of relief, the Red Cross and other organisations, and also the provisions of this Bill.
He would be in a position to set the woman's mind at rest and to assure her there would be somebody to go into her story. He might have to tell her that, so far as he knew, she could get nothing under the Act, but that if she were in immediate need he would take her round to the Red Cross headquarters and see what could be done for her. When people are grappling with a large problem such as this there should be somebody to go into cases of exceptional distress. What would be routine and reasonable treatment for a person who had met with some incidental loss might appear harsh and unsympathetic in the case of a person who had met with an overwhelming bereavement. I suggest to the Minister that there should be someone to whom people in that condition could be brought, in the confidence that they would receive not only what the law intended them to get but a little human sympathy as well.
I have a good deal of sympathy with that suggestion. I think something on that line has already been done by the city manager. In that connection, it appears to me that I should have taken the opportunity on an earlier stage in the discussions on this Bill to convey my own thanks and the thanks of the Government to the city manager and to the Dublin Corporation for the promptness with which they attended to these cases all over Dublin, after the bombing occurred, at the request of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. As I was saying, the suggestion that Deputy Dillon has made had already been brought to my notice, that some person should be appointed to act on behalf of the corporation in a capacity such as he has mentioned. I understood that an inquiry office had been set up in the North Strand area to which people were recommended to go, where they could get relief forms filled and claim forms supplied. I shall be quite happy, if nothing of that kind has actually been done, to bear the matter in mind and see if I cannot use my influence to get something done even now, although, as I have already indicated, I think steps on the lines suggested were taken.
May I be permitted to say that in the particular case to which I did refer, I saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Coordination of Defensive Measures, and he at once recognised the extra bereavement that this lady had suffered? He busied himself about her case and did all that was possible to relieve her perplexity. But I do feel that it would be unreasonable to be going to a busy Parliamentary Secretary with each individual case. If some person were specially designated to do that service generally, it would be very helpful.
I will see that the matter is examined.
It would be a very great hardship on those people if their claims were still undecided two years hence. The Minister will surely recognise the hardship that would be involved.
I do.
Can we have an assurance from the Minister that, so far as the treatment of these cases is concerned, he will do his best to have them dealt with with the utmost expedition?
Certainly. I give that assurance and will do all in my power to see that that is done.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 6, lines 8 to 11, Section 6 (2), to delete paragraph (c).
This amendment is moved to meet points which were raised by Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Mulcahy on the Committee Stage yesterday.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 9, line 20, Section 11, to add at the end of paragraph (d), the words "less the amount of the annual premium paid".
Amendment agreed to.
Question —"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
I move that the Bill do now pass.
On that question, we had some discussion on the point mentioned by the Minister that he might limit the time in which applications would be kept in his office. I understood that an amendment was to be moved to meet it. If I had known that one was not being moved, I would have put down an amendment to Section 6 to provide that a person who had waited 12 months, and whose application had not been dealt with, would be enabled to go to the courts. If the Minister will review that particular matter in the light of the criticism he may meet with when the Bill goes to the Seanad he will, I think, be driven to see that there is a lot more in what Deputy Costello said yesterday than he seemed to think at the time. On reconsideration, I think he will find that there is no more expeditious or satisfactory machinery for dealing with these cases than the courts. The Minister could, I think, save a good deal of unnecessary Departmental examination of these cases by allowing them to go to the courts.
The Bill, in its present form, makes no provision for consequential damage of any kind except in respect of alternative accommodation, living and business accommodation, the storage and removal of furniture. Under these headings the Minister was prepared to pay compensation up to £30, but agreed yesterday to advance the figure to £50. On an earlier stage of the Bill I presented a certain number of cases for the consideration of the Minister and of the House. I quoted five in all. In the first case, the actual expenditure occasioned was £59, in the second, £69 10s., in the third, £40, and in the fourth case, up to date, £59. That case is not yet wound up because the furniture taken away is still in a store and will have to be moved back. I indicated that there were a number of cases from the Donore Terrace area alone in which people were dislodged from their houses in January last and have not yet been restored to them.
I give these as sample figures to the Minister. I did not want to make myself a source of irritation or of agitation by looking for more information in regard to these matters than naturally came my way. After the Minister had indicated his attitude on the Second Reading of the Bill, one could have gone to a very large number of persons and got particulars from them under certain headings with regard to their out-of-pocket expenses and so on, but I did not want to be an instigator of dissatisfaction since I felt that the Minister is quite convinced that there are a number that will have to be admitted. He has now admitted that principle. On further review, he will, I think, have to admit an additional number. It seems to me that the Minister is cutting half a head off his principle by inserting any limit. There is a natural limit to the amount of consequential loss occasioned to a person by having to get a temporary home, by having to remove his furniture and temporarily store it. There is a very natural limit to that, and I think it is very much less than justice, it is a kind of additional positive aggression against those people, to say that you will admit the principle that they had to incur expenditure under this particular heading but you will limit it to £50. In the cases which I mentioned to the Minister the details do not show, but there is a very substantial difference between the amount to which the Minister is prepared to go and the figure to which the costs amounted in those definite cases. I think the Minister will admit that it would be a very severe hardship on people who lost their homes, and who had to incur expenditure to the extent of £69 10s. in addition to all the disturbance and loss of amenities, if the Minister comes along and says: "We will pay you only £50 of that." The amount of money involved is very small, but the amount of aggravation and irritation, and the amount of wrong which can be inflicted on a family like that by piling additional debt upon them, is very great. Most of those are people who are living in difficult economic circumstances now as a result of the present emergency, as well as the great catastrophe which has befallen them. It is at least due to them that their out-of-pocket expenses should be met.
From a human point of view, I think that is the one blemish which sticks out, because it is a thing which affects the ordinary family. There are business concerns which will be involved in other ways. There are people with landed property who will be involved in other ways. But they are the kind of people who will have their organisation or their legal contacts to enable them to be vocal in a way which will ultimately get their losses attended to. This Bill has been rushed. I am glad that it has been rushed, so that the Minister will have some kind of legal instrument in his hand to enable him to deal with certain things, but, if the Minister does not amend this Bill in certain aspects in the Seanad, then I feel that, very early in the autumn, when he has found himself up against the actual details of the different cases, he will forced to amend it. I hope that in the Seanad he will at any rate let his imagination further run over the difficulties and the problems and the losses of those families, so that he will at least be able to tackle that problem unhampered in any way by any of those artificial restrictions which are definite sources of injustice in this Bill.
Notwithstanding the inclusion of the amendments which the Minister deigned to insert on the Committee and Report Stages, as Deputy Mulcahy pointed out in his concluding remarks this Bill leaves much to be desired. It is regrettable that the Minister should have made up his mind that if err he must it should be on the side of extreme caution as far as payments of compensation under the Bill are concerned, rather than on the side of generosity towards the unfortunate people who have been bombed out, and rendered homeless, penniless and workless. The defence which the Minister put forward with regard to what I think was referred to in the course of the debate as his skinflint attitude towards compensation was to boast of his wide and just stewardship in relation to public moneys. Let me remind the Minister that there have been numerous twentieth century equivalents of the South Sea Bubble. There have been numerous discreditable instances where sums of money amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds were poured into hare-brained ventures which gave no return, material or otherwise, to the State.
Those matters indicate that the Minister's conscience has not been so strict in regard to the expenditure of public moneys on such ventures as it has been as far as the payment of compensation to bombed-out victims is concerned. The one type of property owner who comes out scot free is the ground landlord. I must say it was a great shock and a great disappointment to me to learn from the Minister that it was not within his competence to introduce into this Bill some clause to protect town tenants from the further ravages of those gentlemen. Of course, I accept the Minister's word that it was not possible to deal with that matter under the present Bill, but I say it was his business to see that a Bill covering that point was introduced contemporaneously with this measure. I should like to compare for the Minister the position of the ground landlord with that of the ordinary owner of property. The type of property owner with whom I am concerned is not the rich owner, but the poor owner.
The Deputy admits that there is nothing in this Bill about landlord and tenant. He is not in order. On the Fifth Stage, debate is confined to the Bill, as it is, and not as the Deputy would like to have it.
The matter to which I wish to refer, very briefly——
It is not in order.
I want to refer to the type of property which has been rendered dangerous as a result of bombing, and I am not quite sure whether it actually comes within the terms of the Bill. The position with regard to particular property owners is that they have been served with notice by the dangerous building section of the corporation to pull down the property at their own expense. There is one particular case in 4, Charleville Mall, where the actual market value of the property is about £400.
The matter is not relevant. The Deputy must seek some other opportunity to raise it.
The Appropriation Bill is a wide field.
Well then, all I wish to say in conclusion is that the Minister produced no convincing argument to justify his failure to deal with consequential loss. I think this is a great pity, seeing that in every bombing incident which has occurred here the identity of the aircraft has been established, not only to the satisfaction of our own Government, but to the satisfaction of the foreign Government in question, and the prospects of securing adequate compensation ought to be very good. My submission is that the Minister should have been much more concerned with adequately compensating those who were the victims of the bombing here rather than concentrating his efforts on endeavouring to save money for the foreign Government in question.
Question put and agreed to.