On the Order Paper to-day I had the following question:—
"To ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state what compensation, if any, he proposes paying to Mrs. O'Neill, Hurler's Cross, Clonmoney, County Clare, for the loss of her business and furniture and depreciation of her house in consequence of his Department notifying her that the house was being taken over for departmental purposes and ordering her to secure alternative accommodation."
The Parliamentary Secretary, replying to that question, stated that no acquisition Order was made in respect of the premises occupied by Mrs. O'Neill, and accordingly no compensation falls to be paid. I should like briefly to outline the facts of the case, and I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to take a more humane view of the case than he has so far shown. The facts are that Mrs. O'Neill, a widow of a former member of the Garda Síochána, with her child, carried on a small business at a place called Hurler's Cross, Clonmoney, Co. Clare. In 1945 she was approached by an officer authorised by the Parliamentary Secretary's Department and informed that her house and plot were acquired for State purposes. A month later the same officer called on Mrs. O'Neill and told her that she would have to make arrangements to vacate her premises and to secure alternative accommodation within a period of three months. She accordingly closed her shop, discontinued her business, and sold her furniture. In consequence she did not carry on the usual repairs, including the thatching of her house, with the result that the condition of the dwelling-house has very much deteriorated since. She was never informed subsequently that her house and premises were not being acquired. She was not informed of any change of policy on the part of the Department. Most of her neighbours who were similarly circumstanced have been paid compensation, but this unfortunate woman alone has been excluded. In reply to a recent letter written to the Department, the Minister stated that they did not require the house, and that, if she was so informed, it was a mistake.
This woman has a very strong moral claim for fair compensation by the State if she has not a legal claim. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary not to take his stand on a legal technicality but to face up to the facts of the case and see to it that this poor widow will not be made the victim of State action. She certainly is entitled to some compensation because of the State action. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to see that justice is done to this poor woman. The amount involved is a small mite so far as the State is concerned but to her it means all. Ways and means could be found to meet her claim if the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government took a humane view of the case. They could provide the wherewithal very easily. It would not be a terrible burden to impose on the State and it would mean all the difference to this poor woman and would perhaps save her from penury in the end of her days. She has been forced out of business by State action and she finds herself now in the unfortunate position that she is refused compensation because of a legal technicality. She was informed, as I say, that her house and premises were required for State purposes and she was not informed, until her business was lost, that they would not be acquired. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to take a humane view of this case. She surely has a moral claim for compensation. That being so, I think the Parliamentary Secretary should have at least a little bit of humanity and view this case as an ordinary fair-minded man would.
