asked the Minister for Justice if he has drawn up a scheme of compensation for victims of recent explosions in the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
55.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Injuries Compensation Scheme.
54.
asked the Minister for Justice if, in view of the fact that no statutory provision is made for payment of compensation to prison officers who in the course of their duties suffer malicious personal injuries and that members of the Garda Síochána who suffer such injuries may be paid compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Acts, 1941 and 1945, he will now make comparable provision for payment of compensation to prison officers.
With your permission a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 54 and 55 together.
A scheme of compensation for injuries received in incidents such as last years bomb blasts is in an advanced stage of preparation. I hope to be in a position to bring this scheme before Dáil Éireann in the near future.
A claim has been received from the Prison Officers' Association for the extension to their members of provision for compensation for injuries received in the course of duty. I have the claim under consideration at present in connection with the preparation of comprehensive proposals for the amendment of the Malicious Injuries Acts. In addition, I am examining the question of including such injuries in the scheme of compensation for personal injuries referred to above.
While every member of the House welcomes the Minister's indication that legislation is on its way to provide compensation for victims of explosions, would it be possible for the Minister to give some early and more detailed indication as to what these people may expect in general terms so that they may have a little relief at this stage? Some of them have suffered for a considerable time with no great help and no indication that they were going to get any compensation in any measure related to their injuries.
I think the unfortunate victims of these incidents have been aware that it was always the intention to compensate them. The details of what the compensation will consist of are under consideration. Perhaps I can say they have been, to all intents and purposes, settled. I can assure the House that they will not be niggardly, but it would not be appropriate for me, in advance of a formal Government decision in the matter, to give any further information to the House. I hope to have a proposal before the House within the next ten days or fortnight.
I must confess I am at a little of a loss to know why the Minister took Questions Nos. 54 and 55 together, because they seem to deal with entirely separate issues. In regard to compensation for victims of the bomb explosions, would the Minister indicate what he intends in regard to people who have claims under the existing malicious injuries code in relation to his proposals to compensate them under some new scheme?
Is the Deputy referring to personal injuries or to property injuries?
Property injuries.
Persons who have claims under the existing code for property injuries will, of course, be compensated under the existing code. There is no need to change the law in that regard, in so far as the public are concerned, whatever about the liability——
In my constituency I have a case of a man whose motor car was very badly damaged and his whole livelihood interfered with as a result. He has so far been proceeding on the basis of making a claim under the malicious injuries code. I understood and he understood that this was only a temporary expedient pending some new scheme of compensation which would be introduced by the Minister for such cases. Is that not so?
No. There has been a misapprehension in this regard. There will be a certain amount of tidying up of the malicious injuries code in relation to damage to property, but the new scheme will relate to personal injuries only.
Am I to take it then, in regard to the bomb explosions which took place at Liberty Hall, that the considerable number of people who suffered property damage as a result of those explosions can expect no relief from this new scheme but must proceed under the old, antiquated malicious injuries code?
They are in precisely the same position as any other person whose property suffers malicious damage. They will have to take the law as they find it at the time and take the proceedings under the malicious injuries code in so far as it relates to property. As I say, the new scheme relates to personal injuries. It is also the intention to bring legislation before the House to tidy up and remove some of the more antiquated and outdated provisions of the code in relation to property loss.
May I ask the Minister if there is any substantial difference between what is now proposed to compensate people who have been injured personally by bomb explosions and other malicious acts, and the proposals that I announced in the House at the beginning of December, 1972?
In so far as what the Deputy announced was a decision in principle to compensate persons suffering personal injuries from such explosions, there is no difference, but as regards the details of the scheme——
One of the matters that was announced by me at that time was that the scheme would be retrospective to the 1st October, 1972. Does the Minister propose to retain that retrospection to cover people who were injured and, indeed, some people who were killed in October and November, 1972?
It has already been made clear that the decision in principle to which the Deputy refers has been endorsed and will be implemented. That includes retrospection to, I think, 1st October; I am not quite sure of the date offhand.
I am glad to hear that. Could I ask a supplementary in regard to Question No. 55 which the Minister took with Question No. 54 and which, as Deputy Haughey has pointed out, is a totally separate matter? Am I to understand from the fact that the two are taken together that any proposal to compensate prison officers would be simply what is proposed now for the general law compensating people who received malicious personal injuries?
The scheme which it is now intended to introduce for compensation for personal injuries will be so framed as to admit claims by prison officers.
Would it not seem fairer, in view of the special provision that has been made for many years for the Garda, to have some special provisions for prison officers also, particularly as in these days they seem to have to operate in conditions of considerable danger?
The implication of the Deputy's question is that the existing system for Garda is in some way inferior to what it is now proposed to introduce. I should like to inform him that this is not the case.
No. It is the other way round.
The scheme which is going to be introduced will be generous and the prison officers will not be in any way prejudiced by reason of the fact that their claims will arise under that scheme rather than under a specific scheme designed for them.
In view of the fact that there is no scheme covering prison officers, is it the practice of the Minister to make ex gratia payments to the officers, some of whom have been quite badly injured in the course of their employment?
No. Ex gratia payments have not been paid by me since I took office. I am not aware that it was the practice; if it was, it has not been brought to my attention.
The Minister has indicated that he proposes, his words were, "to tidy up" the malicious injuries code. Would he, in the examination of that code, which he presumably will conduct in relation to this tidying up process, have regard to the fact that a new situation is developing in regard to damage to private property, of which the case I mentioned is typical, where a person whose livelihood depends on a motor car can have that motor car completely destroyed or very seriously damaged. The malicious injuries code as it exists is completely inadequate and unsuitable for catering for cases of that sort. Would the Minister bear in mind that in the case of the bombing of the North Strand during the war and in the case of the malicious destruction of Nelson's Pillar, the State intervened positively to introduce compensation. Surely this new type of case should qualify for a new type of machinery to compensate people who are at a very grievous loss in this way?
I think the nub of the Deputy's complaint is that in the existing code there is no provision for consequential damages.
Apart from that, it is much too slow and cumbersome.
That is a matter of procedure which can easily be tightened but compensatory damage is a matter of finance which is another day's work. I have a good deal of sympathy with the victims of these outrages and in so far as I can do anything to remedy their grievances and provide full and free compensation I shall do so. I am well aware of the deficiencies in the present code.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.