Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Apr 1923

Vol. 1 No. 20

DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (COMPENSATION) BILL, 1923. - COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I beg to propose:—

"That a message be sent to An Dáil when the Damage to Property (Compensation) Bill, 1923, is returned as amended, to the effect that it is the opinion of the Seanad that it would add to public confidence if the provisions proposed by the Government for compensation for personal injury and for payments to dependants of persons killed, were embodied in a separate Bill and submitted to the Oireachtas."

I do not think it is necessary to argue the point of the resolution as the matter was effectively and at some length debated in the Seanad, but I would just like briefly to point out that I have endeavoured in this resolution to state as clearly as I could what was the difference of opinion that I think exists between the Seanad and the Dáil, if I am correct in judging the expressions in the recent debates. A good deal of misunderstanding, in the public Press and elsewhere has arisen, I think, out of speeches which might be taken to suggest that the Government were not giving or prepared to give compensation to injured persons, or were not prepared to make payments to the dependants of persons killed as a direct result of the fighting in Ireland. That, as we know now, is not the case. As Mr. Blythe put it quite clearly on the last occasion, it is not even a matter of money, for they expect to pay quite as much money under their scheme as would occur if this were made legal. The view I take personally is that in order to prevent this misunderstanding, and also as a general principle, that it would be much better if they see their way to give legal effect to their proposals, with the substance of which I agree, and with the tribunal of which I have absolute confidence so far as its personnel is concerned. I think they should introduce a Bill making provision legally, and what I propose is, I think, the view of the Seanad. If I am correct, I suggest this is the wisest way we can act in the matter. We thus make clear what our view is without attempting to use undue pressure, which I do not think would be the duty of the Seanad, constituted as it is. We do not press an amendment to the Bill before us, but on a matter closely related we suggest that another Bill should be laid before us by the Government, and not by a private member.

Colonel Sir HUTCHESON POE

I have pleasure in seconding the motion. I think it is desirable that on this point there should be no misunderstanding whatever, not only in Ireland but on the other side of the water, where there is a great disposition on the part of a large section of the people to consider that the whole intention and object of the Bill are to penalise certain sections of the people here. When reading the papers last week I thought it was made clear that the volume of opinion in the Seanad was that so far from the Government desiring or having any intention of penalising any section, they are animated by the most earnest desire to do what is right by everybody. I think to clear up any misunderstanding, the suggestion of Senator Douglas should be accepted, and if possible the Government should bring in a separate Bill; it would be very advantageous.

Mr. W.B. YEATS

In commenting on what the last Senator said, I wish to say that a letter appeared in the London Times about three weeks ago from some person acting for refugees, saying the Government was excluding compensation for personal injuries in order that loyalists injured in the late war might be left penniless. I think that is an example of the kind of misunderstanding the Government has to face over this Bill. I do not think anyone of us doubts for one moment that the tribunal the Government will set up will be perfectly just in this matter. It is a question of dealing with a country which is exceedingly suspicious, and refugees who are exceedingly suspicious, and the circumstances are such as likely to leave these suspicions in existence for a considerable time.

Mr. JAMESON

There was so much unanimity in the Seanad in this matter that, as far as the Seanad is concerned, there is very little doubt that the motion, put forward as it is by Senator Douglas, will pass, but I cannot forget that in the discussion the Government told us that the injured parties would be dealt with in their opinion better and quicker and more favourably in every way under their proposal than they would if they brought in an Act which gave them a legal claim. They produced very sound reasons, as far as one could judge them. why they did not want the law altered, and the claim for personal compensation made a legal claim. It would be, as far as I remember of what was stated, an alteration in the law as it now stands. I do not know whether I am right in that, but it struck my mind that there were two reasons that they gave us— one is that their proposal, according to their judgment, was the best for the claimants, and that they could not admit the claim of making it a legal obligation in future that personal injuries should have a legal claim for compensation by the State. I quite admit what Senator Sir Hutcheson Poe says as to what the public on the other side of the water think about the intentions of the Government over here in regard to this Compensation Bill, but we have read statements so exaggerated and so untrue put forward with such weight, and everything of the kind, which everyone over here engaged in handling the subject knows to be such absurdities that I doubt if it is wise for the Government or ourselves to take much notice of these attacks, but to take care in every way, of course, that the Act when it does pass fulfils the justice of the case. Now, if we pass this resolution, and the Government find that, as they did at the beginning, they must prefer their method of settling the thing to ours, I am not quite sure whether the Seanad will not be increasing the difficulties of the Government by showing a difference of opinion between the Government and the Seanad, which we know really does not exist. I agree with the wording of the motion; but I cannot see the Government withdrawing from the position they are in, and I think we may be creating difficulties which we do not intend to create by adopting this resolution. I doubt if we could pass it without a good deal more consideration than we are able to give it this afternoon.

Colonel MOORE

I am sorry that this question has been brought up again, because it was debated at great length and decided the last day. On that occasion I gave only a silent vote and did not speak and the result was that I was accused by a friend of doing a dreadful thing — of having voted with the Government, a thing which I never previously did and which I only did when the Government was wrong. There are two arguments being put forward here. One is that human life is sanctified, and the other is that people must go cap in hand to the Government. I asked some of those in favour of this motion whether soldiers were to be included in this Bill and they said "No," and the reason was that they were paid for it. Then in that case the life of a soldier is not sanctified. When people come to consider these things they will find that these are only phrases used to bring tears to our eyes and that they really have nothing sound about them. About some lives there is a great deal of sanctity, and in the last few years people have lost their lives which were worth more than anything which could be put upon them, but there are other lives which I think are not so very sanctified. I have gone through a good many years of life and I have met people whose lives were neither saintly nor sanctified. There were a good many Black-and-Tans killed in this country and I do not know whether their lives were sanctified. On the whole, I think the Government on this matter were quite right to treat it separately from property, as it can be dealt with only in a different way.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I am going to vote for this motion, although I agree that it is a very milk and water way of dealing with important matters. It is touching to witness the simple faith of Senators in the word and promise of the Government when the interests which they represent are not affected, but I saw none of that faith given in regard to compensation for material damage. In fact we had a certain display of what one might term voraciousness in regard to other classes. We had a very eloquent attempt at clothing the modern Shylock in the garb of Bunyan's hero. We are told in a matter of this kind to take the word of the Government and leave it to the good faith of the Minister, whoever he may be, to do justice to the people, some of whose lives Senator Moore says are not sanctified and not worth much The arguments put up regarding the difficulty of valuing human life might with equal force be put up in regard to the Employers' Liability Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, but they have not been put forward. These Acts work well although they place a low value on human life. I think it is up to the Seanad to send a message of this kind to the Dáil, but I hope they will not vote for it because they know that the Government will turn it down, but that they will vote for it as a genuine expression of honest conviction, even though it may not take definite form. As I pointed out before, the country will be asked to shoulder a very big financial responsibility in regard to compensation to one particular class. A large section of the Seanad is interested in the question of compensation for material damage, and a larger section may be interested later on, though I hope not, but it is a serious problem to find some people making law in regard to things in which they are interested and shutting out people who in the opinion of some of us are equally entitled to consideration for the loss of breadwinners or of the means of earning their livelihood for themselves or their families.

Mr. J. McLOUGHLIN

I think this resolution is an invitation to undo what was done on Friday, when the Seanad expressed itself as satisfied with the arrangements made by the Government to consider the question of ex gratia grants. Senator Douglas to-day has again expressed himself as satisfied that no wrong will be done and that cases of hardship and suffering will be treated, with consideration, but Senator O'Farrell takes the other view and will not trust the Government at all. We hear a lot of criticism about placing human life on a lower plane than property and about penalising civic courage, but I would ask those who advocate rewarding civic courage to consider how far this brings them. For instance, if a man loses his life in rescuing people from drowning or from a burning house —two of the highest forms of civic courage — would they advocate here that the dependants of that man should receive compensation from the State? I think that the Government have gone as far as they reasonably could be expected to go and that it was obvious to anyone who considers the matter impartially that they simply ruled out claims for consequential damage and personal injuries in order to limit the indebtedness of the country. This may excite the derision of certain Senators who treat L.S.D with lofty scorn and to whom millions mean nothing — simply a daisy in a bull's mouth — and to hear them talk one would think that the Government had a huge heap of money as one has coal in one's back garden, and that those who wanted it had simply to back in their carts. I would remind them that no matter what device is adopted John Citizen has finally to pay. These claims must be met by taxation which will press very hard on poor people, and afterwards when workingmen complain that they have to pay more for their tobacco, sugar or tea than their neighbours across the border I am sure that the gentlemen who are now pressing these claims will be loudest in shouting for relief.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I think it a pity that this should come before us after the discussion and vote the last day, and that some cogent reason was not given us as to why this motion of Senator Douglas' was brought forward. In explanation, Senator Douglas said it would add to public confidence. Senator Yeats says a letter appeared in the London "Times." Those are small reasons indeed. As far as the "Times" is concerned, those of us who have lived in Ireland care little about it. If we take as an instance of what appeared in the "Times," the hubbub made last week, we can place all those things at their proper value. The difficulty about this I see is that the dependents of everybody whose life has been lost can come forward, and say that they are dependents of those deceased, whether they are or not. That would prevent people who are really dependent from getting their claims, owing to the delay and discussion that would arise. I am sorry that Senator Farren is not here, because there are few people who know better than he does of the difficulty in connection with the dependents of those who, a few years ago, were in prison or so on. We know that in all cases everybody who was killed had a dependent, according to the claims made, whether they really had or not. I do think that until we arrive at a decision about genuine dependents, we should accept what the Government proposes. Therefore, I am sorry I cannot vote for the motion.

Mr. E. MacLYSAGHT

I support this motion. The real point is that the Government might change, and the next Government may repudiate the arrangements, whereas they could not repudiate an Act. As to Senator McLoughlin's point about spending more money, he suggests that this resolution involves spending more money than the Government could afford, but we have already been told that to make compensation for personal injuries legal would not involve any more money. As far as the hubbub of the "Times" is concerned, I did not know there was one.

On a show of hands, the motion was defeated, 15 voting for, and 17 against.