Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 1950

Vol. 121 No. 7

Estimates for Public Services. - Adjournment Debate—Attacks on Customs and Excise Officers.

Following the Minister's reply to-day to parliamentary questions and various supplementaries, I am indeed not surprised that the attitude of the Department of which he is Minister should be such as he expressed it. I do admit, of course, that irrespective of who is in power the impersonal attitude of the Department of Finance continues to be one of callous indifference to the difficulties—financial mainly—of the officers employed on the preventive staff on whose behalf I am speaking at present. It is an amazing thing that the biggest employers of labour in the State, namely, the Government, have hitherto proved themselves to be the least considerate when it comes to a question of compensating their employees following injuries sustained by them in their service to the State.

I refer to the callous attitude of the Department and when I do so I may say that I am not unmindful of the difficulties confronting the Department in this matter. But associated as I am intimately with the men of the preventive staff of whose precarious mode of life in the service of the State I am a daily observer, I simply cannot reconcile the Department's attitude with the risks daily incurred by these people in the carrying out of their duty.

It is an astonishing thing that in a number of cases the rates of compensation are left entirely to the Minister's discretion. Surely since the Border became the curse it is to-day the Government has had ample opportunity of legislating for those people who are carrying out the duties of land frontier's men here. In the past, prior to the division of this country, the coastguard men were empowered to use weapons in order to prevent smuggling and it is an astonishing thing that to-day—I am glad of it actually and so are the men—such provision does not exist. I assert, however, that when these people are risking their lives on behalf of the State—as everybody must admit—if they decline to be armed and if it is not considered judicious to arm them at least they should be provided with an armed escort. Particularly must one assert this in view of the fact that when members of the Garda Siochána consider that they are going to incur a certain amount of risk in the course of their duty they are in a position to demand a military escort. I do not want to compare the position here with that obtaining in Northern Ireland where the police State empowers customs men there to be accompanied by an armed escort of Royal Ulster Constabulary men in the course of their duties. However, one must surely come to the conclusion in view of what I have said that the time is being reached when, with the perfecting of smuggling methods and the devices of these ingenious people, the smugglers will use every effort to further their interests and eventually will stop at nothing to achieve their object.

As I have said before in this House, living as I do straddle-legged across the Border, I have witnessed the departure from my town of patrols of customs officers, harmless decent individuals, who start off in their motor cars to patrol the mountain passes and lonely roads along the Border. Hither-to—though I do not believe without exception—they regarded this as a quite harmless pursuit and thank Heaven until recently they escaped unmolested. What is to prevent them, however, without ever getting out of the car, from incurring dangerous risks due to the smugglers' ingenuity, say by cutting a trench in the road and ambushing them along various points in the mountain passes?

Because of all this it really appears to me that the time has come when the State must decide either to protect those officers or else to hold out to them the reward of adequate compensation should their duties on behalf of the State involve them in temporary of total disablement. The staff of the Customs and Excise in this country, as in other countries, do run certain risks, but surely no one would dispute that the land frontier's men are in the front trenches of our fight against the smuggling fraternity.

Frankly, it has often occurred to me, even before this recent tragic incident of the assault on those frontier's men, that they appeared to have a nebulous type of job. They seem to be nobody's baby. They were unarmed and they were not protected by any force. It always occurred to me that they were running a certain amount of risk and I am sorry to say that my fears in this respect were borne out.

When one gets down to consider the question of actual compensation, it is an astonishing thing that, irrespective of whether an officer is so incapacitated as to be unable to return to his duties, or whether he is able to return to his duties in a modified way, there is absolutely no provision made for pain and suffering in his case. Not only that, but, in the case of officers who come under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, the medical fees payable do not exceed the sum of £5. The Minister assured Deputy McGrath to-day that, so far as these injured officers are concerned, all reasonable expense will be met from State funds.

I should like to ask the Minister for how long will he pay the medical expenses and hospital expenses from State funds. When I recall the case of one of these injured officers at present in Monaghan County Hospital, suffering from what is called an extensive fracture of the skull, to say nothing of his other injuries, which rendered him—and he is a great friend of mine—quite unrecognisable to me, I wonder how long will this State benevolence regarding his hospital and medical expenses continue. In my opinion, this man will never be fit to resume his former occupation. In the case of the man Rafter in Dundalk, a customs officer who had an accident on the train, the Great Northern Railway won the case when an action was taken against them and the State won their case also.

Is the Deputy advocating legislation? He seems to be.

I am not advocating any legislation.

Either explicitly or implicitly, it seems as if the Deputy is advocating new legislation.

What I desire in this case is to see the generosity of the State extended to this extent that the provisions made under Section 1 of the Superannuation Code will be extended to these officers now in receipt of a salary of £500 and under, and that the Minister will deal generously with them and see that they are adequately compensated. I have his assurance to-day in that respect regarding officers with remuneration of over £500 a year, but I want it applied to officers under £500 a year to whom the Workmen's Compensation Act only applies, under which they are allowed only £5 for hospital and medical expenses. I have interviewed a number of officials within the past week in connection with this business and it has cost some of them up to £50 in hospital and medical expenses.

There is another section of these men to whom I wish to refer specifically and I would do so even had one of them not been one of these men who was savagely assaulted and is now one of the three patients detained in Monaghan County Hospital, a man who is a temporary and unestablished officer. I should like the Minister to be kind enough to tell me if I am correct in saying that, for the period during which this man is incapacitated, his pay will be two-thirds of his ordinary pay, less national health insurance, and that, after six weeks, his pay will cease. If that is the case, it is hardly necessary for me to tell the Minister what I hope he will do in the circumstances. It is astonishing that these men who have given such valuable service to the State should feel themselves in such a vague and unsatisfactory position regarding compensation in the event of injury which is always imminent. Every time they go out they are liable to be assaulted, and frankly I cannot understand why the State should provide for them any less generous terms than are provided in the case of the Garda under the Garda Síochána Compensation Act.

I want to add my voice to that of Deputy Maguire in appealing to the Minister to deal with these men not on the principles of the workmen's compensation code but on the principles laid down in connection with the Garda Síochána under which the Guards can claim in respect of injury in the execution of their duty. I am sure that it came as a shock to the country and to Deputies to learn that there was no adequate machinery provided by the State for compensating men such as these who are injured in the execution of their duty. I think the principles of the Workmen's Compensation Act should not be applied in these cases. The State in dealing with these cases should apply the principles adopted in relation to members of the Garda who are injured in the execution of their duty. I suggest that these men should be dealt with on the basis of the malicious injuries code which in respect of the Guards, has been taken over by legislation by the State.

I know that I cannot advocate legislation on this adjournment debate, but these recent cases have brought it home forcibly to the House and to the country that provision should be made for these men, and the mere fact that the legislation is not at present on the Statute Book should not prevent the Minister from dealing properly and generously with these men. If the Minister takes that attitude with regard to these cases, he will have the support of this side of the House, and, I am sure, the support of every Deputy on every side of the House. I appeal to the Minister to deal with these men on that basis and not on the basis of the workmen's compensation code.

Party expediency drives people to strange lengths. Deputy Maguire regards the existing code as indicative of callous indifference. That started in 1945 and Deputy Moran was responsible for it.

I hope the Minister is not going to continue this attitude.

For what was Deputy Moran responsible?

For the application to these claims of a particular type of compensation under the regulations made under the Superannuation Act referred to in the question. The first Order was made in 1945 and it was replaced by another in 1946 which did not increase the terms. What is now described as callous indifference probably had the Deputy's benediction in those years.

I would prefer the Minister to get into another furrow and not remain in that one. This is a serious matter, and I do not want to be vindictive.

I am trying to get the Deputy out of his furrow. I do not think it is "callous indifference".

I was not referring to the Minister's administration. There is no question——

The Deputy ought to keep quiet. He got 20 minutes to make his case, and a poor case he made, if I may say so.

I specified particularly that I was not referring to any administration.

The Deputy made a very poor case for the particular matter under discussion on the question.

That is for other people to say.

I assume Deputy Maguire wants to hear the Minister.

I would like to, if he would get on to the subject matter of the question.

The Deputy will not put me under any condition as to whether he will hear me or not. I will speak as I am entitled to speak. If he does not like it, he can clear. I had to tolerate him. He described this as "callous indifference". It is not so. That was an Order made in 1946, following an almost identical one in 1945, and it makes, I think, good provision for people who suffer certain injuries. The test is the impairment of physical ability. That is the test applied in the workmen's compensation cases.

This particular Order applies to the whole of the Civil Service. Why am I to make a distinction between customs officers and civil servants as a whole? The civil servants are divided into two groups, those earning £500 or under £500 and those earning £500 and upwards. There are better terms for those earning £500 and upwards and the workmen's compensation terms apply to those earning £500 and under. The code has been there. It applies to the whole of the Civil Service and I do not know that there has been any demand made by customs officers, as such, for any improvement in the terms of this Order and its application to them.

The Deputy, of course, is mistaken, as I tried in a delicate way to point out to him to-day, when he speaks of regulations made under the Superannuation Act and says they do not provide for the payment of more than £5 towards the cost of surgical and medical treatment of officers injured. The phrase has no reference to medical fees, no limitation of £5. What the Deputy was told or misinterpreted was that, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, when a person goes to the courts to claim his rights the hospital cannot enforce for him more than an amount of £5. But, that does not mean that more than £5 may not be paid. What I said in reply to a question to-day was that the Deputy could be assured that, so far as injured officers are concerned, all reasonable expenses will be met from State funds and I do not want that phrase to be taken as a limitation as regards time or a ceiling. The only limitation, I take it, is reasonable expenses.

A comparison has been made as between customs officers and the Garda Síochána. If smugglers are going to behave in the way that customs officers are not merely subjected to risk of injury but are meeting those risks frequently, if what happened on the Border the other day becomes something more than a very abnormal circumstance, then, of course, we will take a new line with regard to that. At the moment, this is an isolated incident.

Do you not think it is time to take a new line?

On one incident? The Deputy has referred to the Garda Síochána Compensation Act, 1941. How many Guards had to be maimed and injured in the discharge of their duties before the Deputy's Party thought of passing that Act? It was not a single case.

Dáil Éireann passed it.

I have three minutes.

Dáil Éireann passed it.

If the Deputy is irritated, let him keep himself cool.

I am not irritated.

In any case, it took a sufficient number of cases to establish that there was something in the nature of a conspiracy, a plan, a scheme, something that was an attack upon ordered society. Then the Party who were then the Government moved but it took something more than an isolated case to get that Act passed.

Will you not take a lesson from it?

I will take a lesson from it. It will not take me as long to be impressed with the resurrection of an old-time conspiracy of the type we put down on the Border and elsewhere to take steps against it. A strong hand will be used against people who use the strong hand against the Government in this country and, if people suffer in the meantime, Acts that are passed hereafter can be made retrospective. This is an isolated incident, so far.

Not as regards the most injured man. It is a second attack, a second assault.

Does the Deputy want to speak again?

I just want to correct the Minister.

This is an isolated incident, as far as I am concerned, in this question of the Border. It is the first time, I know, that there has been a serious affray of the type that occurred the other day. Once that becomes more common, if we see that there is any sign of smugglers getting into that attitude, there is no doubt, the forces of the State will be used to put it down, and part of putting it down will be the making of provision for the people who help to put it down. Smugglers who may look for opportunities in future will be aware of certain risks in connection with this trade, if they like to make it dangerous.

At present, I suggest, the provision is a good one. It is not callous indifference and, so far, I have no reason to separate Customs people from the rest of the Civil Service. I have no case to make a change in the Order with regard to civil servants as a whole, no case to make a change in regard to the £500 and under men and the £500 and upward men. We can observe this in relation to the circumstances as they develop and we will see that the law will develop in order to make it unsound for those people to create such incidents.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1st June, 1950.

Top
Share