Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 31 Jul 1941

Vol. 25 No. 22

Gárda Síochána (Compensation) Bill, 1941— ( Certified Money Bill )— Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

This Bill is to improve the law as regards compensation to Gárdaí who may be killed or wounded in the discharge of their duty. The present law is that of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836, where Section 106 lays down that previous malice must be shown before compensation can be given in a case of a Gárda either killed or wounded. There is also another change in this. Under that Act the compensation was levied on the local authority. This Bill proposes that the central Exchequer will pay the compensation. It will take effect as from 1st January, 1940. Since then I think about six cases occurred. Three Gárdaí were murdered and three were very seriously injured; and in five cases when brought to court it was held no one was entitled to compensation as there was no personal malice shown on the part of the people who murdered these men or inflicted the injuries. In the other case, the Circuit Court did grant an award but there was an appeal. It is proposed that, when this Bill is enacted, these six cases can come before the courts again.

On the Committee Stage in the other House, Section 6 was taken out of the Bill and a new section inserted. In the original section the consent of the Minister for Justice, with that of the Minister for Finance, was necessary before any case, not being a case in which death had occurred, would go to the courts. Objection was taken to that in the other House and it was said that the Minister was assuming judicial functions by making awards. That was not so, in my opinion, but it was felt very strongly, and so I brought in an amendment. Though there was no division there was opposition to it. In the section as it stands now, in the case of minor injuries— that is the case of a Guard getting a small injury like a cut, a bruise or a black eye—no award can be granted at all unless there was special risk. As the Bill stood, there was a possibility that he might get compensation, and it appeared to me that some Deputies still wanted that to remain, so that those Guards could apply to the High Court and get a trivial award, if any, and have very high costs. I was not prepared to agree to that. There is provision whereby the Minister can award up to £100 in the case of a minor injury, where there was exceptional risk taken by the Guard. The compensation is really more for the risk taken than as a measure of the injury which was inflicted. There were some consequen tial changes in the Bill as a result of that new section going in.

I do not think there is any more I need say at this stage. There was an explanatory memorandum circulated, and I think it explained the position pretty clearly. I am sorry that this Bill was delayed so long. There were great difficulties in getting it drafted. Some people have been waiting for compensation for a long time, so we would like to get the Bill passed during this session if possible.

Mr. M. Hayes

As the Minister has said, this is a measure which is long overdue. It is a much more rational scheme that members of the police force, which is a State force and paid out of State funds, should be compensated out of State funds rather than out of local funds as provided by the Grand Juries Act, 1836. The British Act, which provided for compensation out of local funds, intended that, I think, as a levy upon the place which came into conflict with the police, and the scheme in the present Bill is much more in consonance with our present position. It was really something in the nature of a scandal that the widow of a police officer who was killed in the course of his duty had to take proceedings in the Circuit Court, and that the judges were compelled by the terms of the old Act to find against her, even in cases where quite clearly some compensation from some source was due to the widow. The Bill is a very substantial improvement because of the fact that in most cases, I think, it will entirely eliminate legal proceedings, and that it does not compel the local body to appear or to oppose the claim at all.

I should like to ask the Minister a question in connection with the Local Security Force. I think the matter was raised in the other House, but it has been raised with me on several occasions. Members of the Local Security Force, of course, are acting as policemen, and I think there is provision—it is not in this Bill—for compensation where a member of the Local Security Force is either killed or injured. Perhaps the Minister in concluding would say a word in that regard. I think the Bill should be passed, and as soon as possible.

Mr. Crosbie

I should like to ask the Minister if there is any provision, either in this Bill or in any of the regulations relating to the Gárda Síochana, for the compensation of Guards for the loss of personal property in the course of their duty, or in the course of what might be described as humanitarian duties. I will give the Minister an example. I presume that when a detective officer is on duty in plain clothes, those clothes are his own property. There was one very tragic occurrence in Cork, where a detective officer, with great gallantry and at great personal risk, went into the river on a winter's night in an attempt to rescue the occupants of a motor car. I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us whether he has any powers, either under this Bill or under any regulations relating to the Guards, to compensate members of the force for personal loss sustained by them in cases such as that which I have mentioned.

Mr. Campbell

I think this measure is a good one, and will be welcomed as an effort to deal with a very urgent matter. There are a few points to which I want to draw the Minister's attention, in the hope that he himself will be able to table amendments to deal with them. The first point is in regard to Section 6 of the Bill. That section provides that in all except trivial cases where an application for compensation is made to the Minister he will refer the application to the High Court for determination. My difficulty in that regard is the finding of a definition as to what are injuries of a minor nature. I think the Minister himself is constituted the judge as to whether or not the injuries are of a minor nature. He has already given us some instances of what he regards as injuries of a minor character. He mentioned a cut, a bruise or a black eye. It is usually the other fellow who gets the black eye where the police are concerned. But one can imagine minor injuries which would ultimately have serious consequences.

The Minister has told us that when the Bill was going through the Dáil he promised to introduce an amendment referring all cases to the High Court, but when the amendment was tabled it was found that he had retained for decision by himself all claims in regard to injuries of a minor character, constituting himself the authority as to whether they were or were not of a minor character. That is, in my opinion, a reservation which might well be left out. It is not wise that civil servants should be set up as the judicial authority to determine whether or not a police officer who has been injured in the execution of his duty will be compensated for the injuries inflicted upon him.

The second point to which I wish to refer is in regard to Section 3 of the Bill. It will be observed that this section contains a list of the persons to whom compensation may be awarded in a case where a policeman has been killed in the execution of his duty. I think this whole section could very well be improved by eliminating the list from (a) to (f) and substituting therefor the words "personal representatives". In the Criminal Injuries Act, 1919, the term used is "personal representatives", which is intended to include all persons who were directly dependent on the deceased. That Act, I understand, is still in force in Northern Ireland. Under this section grave injustice might be done, say, to the niece of a Guard or the niece of his wife, who was living with them but not legally adopted, should the Guard be killed in the execution of his duty. A niece is not mentioned in that list. I strongly urge the Minister, in the interest of justice, to make the alteration I have suggested by taking out that list of persons and substituting therefor the words "personal representatives".

The third point to which I want to refer concerns pre-1940 cases of injuries to Guards. The Bill before us makes provision for the payment of compensation to the dependent relatives of Guards killed in the discharge of their duty subsequent to 1st January, 1940. Members of the House will probably recollect that, prior to January, 1940, five or six members of the force were killed, and this Bill does not make any provision for compensation for their dependents. I understand that the Minister promised to deal with those claims himself, but some of them are now ten or 12 years old and so far nothing has been done about them. Some small payments, I am told, have been made in respect of those cases, but I would appeal to the Minister to take steps to deal in a more generous manner with those of our State servants who risk their lives and their liberty in the defence of the State. In that connection, the Minister might consider the advisability of setting up a small committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas for the purpose of examining pre-1940 cases, giving them full powers to deal fairly and justly with the five or six cases of fatal accidents in the Gárda which occurred during that period and which do not come within the scope of this Bill. If he can see his way to do this I think he will have done all that can reasonably be expected of him in discharging the responsibility of the State to those police officers who were killed in the execution of their duties. I would respectfully urge on the Minister that he might give serious attention to these points before the Bill finally passes into law. There is, I understand, a strong feeling that they ought to be dealt with in this Bill and so complete the good work the Minister has set himself in determining the compensation that ought to be paid to those officers who lose their lives in the defence of the State and its institutions.

Mr. Boland

In regard to the first point, which was raised by Senator Hayes, as to the compensation in the case of members of the Local Security Force, the Local Defence Force and the Air Raid Precautions services, and so on, it is covered——

Mr. M. Hayes

——By an order!

Mr. Boland

By an order, yes. I think it is on the basis of the Workmen's Compensation Act. But, of course, if any special risk was incurred there might be a special case made which we would have to take up but, generally speaking, that basis has been arranged. As the Senator realises, there are very great numbers. That question was raised at the Defence Conference and that basis was agreed on.

Mr. M. Hayes

I was at a Local Security Force staff meeting at which the chairman was a stockbroker, the section-leader was a professor and I think all the people present had an income much over the income provided for in the Workmen's Compensation Acts. We decided unanimously that that compensation would not be any good to us if we took any risk.

Mr. Foran

Surely the Senator is not complaining about equal pay for equal work?

Mr. Boland

It is not covered in this Bill. There is mention of a temporary force but that would be a force, like the Taca Síochána, which was not yet incorporated in the Gárda. In regard to Senator Crosbie's point about loss of personal property, that is dealt with. Ex gratia grants can be given and are given in cases like that. There is no provision for them in this Bill.

The point raised by Senator Campbell was also raised in the Dáil. I do not think it is right to suggest that the Minister is setting himself up as a judge in this matter because the injuries that are of a minor character are injuries that the police doctor or the Civil Service doctor will advise us are such. They are very easily ascertained. There is no trouble about them. Whereas, if we had not that reservation we would find ourselves in this position that a Guard who received the most trivial injury would have the right under this Bill to go into court and claim compensation. A judge might award him 10/- and the costs might be £100. We do not know what it would be. We must have some sense of proportion in all this matter. I could not agree to alter that at all. I was inquiring what the possibility would be and I was informed that, over the whole country, there might be 20 cases a day of trivial injuries which a man might feel he was entitled to bring to court. That would be a ridiculous position. After all, there is some little risk of that kind inseparable from a policeman's duty. It cannot be avoided. A concession is given that where the minor injury is incurred where special risk has to be undergone, the Minister reserves the right to award up to £100. I do not think there is any point in that. We had it out in the Dáil. I think I satisfied some of the people in the other House who were opposing it —I do not think I satisfied all—that the scheme was all right. A point was raised about the Schedule. There is no necessity to mention a niece or nephew. If a niece or nephew is dependent on the Guard he or she would come under the category of adopted child. There is no legal adoption here. Any child who was a niece or a nephew, who was dependent on the Guard, would be held to be an adopted child. So I understand.

Mr. M. Hayes

It is a firm, legal opinion?

Mr. Boland

It is, yes, and there is no legal adoption.

Mr. M. Hayes

I know that.

Mr. Boland

So that a child like that, I am advised, would be held to be an adopted child. All the other classes are covered in the Schedule. In regard to the pre-1940 cases, there was only one case where an officer was murdered who was married, and it was clearly shown there was malice in that case and he came under the other Act. I think something like £6,000 was awarded. In the other cases the officers were unmarried. I know there was a good deal of dissatisfaction with the amounts that were given to their relatives, but the reason was that their dependency was only partial. Before this Bill was drafted I had a talk with the representatives of the Gárda and they said they hoped they would be able to settle up the few remaining cases without having them included in the Bill. I am rather surprised that has not yet been done. I had a talk with the Minister for Finance on the matter. There are only one or two cases outstanding. There is not very much involved and the Minister for Finance agreed that he would not object to a further small grant in some cases which would meet the case. Those are really all the outstanding cases we are aware of. I think "1940" would cover those cases.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

Sections 1 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill be returned to the Dáil"—put and agreed to.