This Bill has become necessary because, as I think most people are aware, the Act passed a couple of years ago compelled the courts to take a strictly financial view of the loss sustained by a widow whose husband was murdered because he was a member of the Gárda. The purpose of this amending Bill is to make provision for compensation on a wider basis so that a judge, hearing an application for compensation, can take all the circumstances into consideration and will not be compelled to consider only the purely financial loss. Under the previous Act, any assets which the deceased person possessed were also taken into consideration in assessing the amount of compensation. A provision of that kind no doubt was contained in the Act but I do not think it was the intention that it should be interpreted in that way. The Bill also provides that the judge may take any other circumstances which he thinks reasonable into consideration. I personally was disappointed when I discovered what happened in some of these cases in which the judge felt compelled to take the assets of deceased Guards into consideration in assessing compensation. The pension which an applicant would receive is naturally taken into consideration, but under the former Act the judge was also compelled to take into consideration such assets as an insurance policy or a house which the applicant might have purchased. The result was that a very meagre amount of compensation was awarded in some cases. This Bill is introduced in order to rectify these matters.
Gárda Síochána (Compensation) (Amendment) Bill, 1945 —(Certified a Money Bill)— Second Stage.
I think this Bill will not cause difficulty to any member of the House. We are all agreed that the dependents of Guards who lose their lives in the performance of their duties should be properly compensated. I think the Minister is making a very genuine effort to remove flaws that were discovered subsequent to judgments given under the 1941 Act. Compensation is now being awarded not only for financial losses, but for every other loss, and a person who has already saved money or has any assets will not be penalised as he was, in fact, under the other Act for having these particular assets. The Act of 1941, I think, covers cases only up to a date in 1940, and the Minister in the other House very fairly met the case with regard to Guards who lost their lives before 1940—from 1922 to 1940— by saying he would consider the question of paying an ex gratia sum in cases of genuine dependency. I think that is a very fair offer. In that way the whole question is now being properly met. It is a lamentable thing that we should have to make provision for any such cases at all, but that is a matter into which there is no use entering now.
I should like to make one other point. A few months ago a school inspector was murdered. When I got this particular Bill, it struck me that school inspectors should come under analogous provisions. This school inspector was not killed by accident—he was murdered by a person because he was a school inspector. I think it is clear that his death arose out of the performance of his duties as a State servant, and it seems to me in that case that where a member of the State service loses his life because of the performance of his duties, the principles of this Act should apply. Fortunately, such cases are rare indeed, but we would all hope that they would be very few and far between.
The matter can be dealt with in the same way as the Minister intends to deal with the dependents of Guards who were murdered in the performance of their duties before the date of the 1941 Act, that is, previous to 1940. I know that the Minister, not being the Minister for Finance, is not in a position to make a declaration on this subject. But I think the principle of the measure is good and sound, and the provisions could apply to the very rare and exceptional cases outside the Guards on an ex gratia basis.
I cannot agree with Senator Hayes that the principle of the Bill is good. I think the principle is extremely bad. An Act was passed in 1941, to provide compensation for Guards' dependents in certain circumstances. Now, that Act has been invoked in the courts in certain cases which fell within its scope, and somebody has discovered that the compensation awarded and granted is inadequate. This is a proposal to require the court to review the decisions already given with a view to increasing the compensation, because this Bill provides specifically that the court may not reduce the amount of the compensation under review. I think that this House ought to set its face definitely against the Executive endeavouring to mend its hand whenever it finds that some piece of legislation is not giving the results it was expected to give.
A return was issued in the Dáil last week or the week before showing the amounts granted in the cases which were decided under the 1941 Act. I am not arguing that these amounts were excessive at all, or that they were adequate. I am arguing only that these are the amounts which the court considered reasonable within the framework of the 1941 Act, an Act passed four years ago, to deal specifically with this kind of case. We all feel horrified when we read of the killing of a Guard in the discharge of his duty, and we all feel that there should be proper compensation for his dependents, but some of us also feel that the manner in which it is sought to effect that purpose is entirely undesirable. In some of the cases, compensation varied a great deal. In one case it was an award of £500, in another case £870—that case is not finally decided yet. In another case it was £1,150, in another £1,300, in another £1,470, and in another £1,654. These may be totally inadequate amounts, but there is nothing to prevent the Minister, or the Government on the initiative of the Minister, from making good the deficiency in another manner.
If the Government consider that in a particular case the award which the court was entitled to make was inadequate in the circumstances, I submit that the Government might reasonably make an ex gratia grant of such an amount as in their opinion might be adequate in the circumstances. This Bill is produced without any suggestion of what is involved. What is it going to cost? What is the Minister's estimate? It may cost £100 or £10,000, but we are left completely in the dark. The Minister has given us no estimate of what is involved, even in existing cases, when this Bill becomes law. I am objecting to the principle of the Bill on the grounds that the Executive should not be encouraged to mend its hand in this manner by bringing in legislation with retrospective effect to achieve something which both Houses of the Oireachtas decided would not be achieved when we passed the original Act.
I did not intend to say anything on this measure, but as a result of the remarks of Senator Duffy, I feel called upon to give my meed of support to the Minister's proposal. One would like to think, as Senator Hayes has said, that the powers contained in it would never have to be invoked in this country. It is rather a depressing condition of things that such a measure should be necessary at all, but I for one am glad to see the Minister take the step of standing over his servants and being loyal to the last to them, as he expects them to be loyal to the State. When all is said and done, in this country as in any other country, the Minister and his Department form the pivots on which the order and peace of this State and its citizens revolve, and the contribution which we are all prepared to make in supporting the Minister in maintaining his organisation, strong, vigorous and dependable, is really the test of the strength of our citizenship. As far as I am concerned, I think the onus is upon all of us to be prepared to go at least as far as the Minister is prepared to lead in this matter. I, for one, will not be found wanting in whatever we are called upon to do.
I confess I am rather at a loss in trying to follow the line of argument of my friend and colleague, Senator Duffy. In my county within the last few years a very gallant police officer was murdered, not indeed by any native of my county. but it was a very tragic event there. The man was very widely mourned. He had been very highly respected and had many years' service. He was the friend of a great many people—the friend of all except the wrongdoer. He left a wife and children. I knew that officer and I knew his family, and if I were asked to put an estimate on the loss sustained I could not put it in money. I do not think anybody could possibly put in money the loss of a man like that to his wife and family. It is very difficult to try to evaluate in cash what compensation should be paid to the dependents in a case of that kind.
Senator Duffy joins issue with the Minister in his approach to this problem. May I point out to Senator Duffy what I think he is arguing for, and join issue with him in his method of approaching the matter? He said that flaws have been discovered in an Act which has already been passed by the Oireachtas.
There were no flaws discovered.
Well, I think the Senator suggested that the Minister discovered flaws.
No. With all respect, I suggest that what has happened is that the courts have not been able to award, under the Act of 1941, the sums which the Minister thinks ought to be awarded. That is not a flaw.
"The sums which the Minister intended to have awarded," if you put it like that. Is that a flaw or is it not?
Why did he not say it in the Act of 1941?
He did not know until 1942.
He did not know until the Act was interpreted by the courts. When the courts put their interpretation upon the awards which this House and the other House put in the Act, it was discovered that the Act did not give what the Minister wanted and intended to give and, apparently, what the Oireachtas was prepared to give. What is the Minister's proposal? The Minister's proposal is to come back to this House with an amended Act which he will pass over to the courts to interpret. If you like, that is retrospective legislation, but at least it has this advantage over other measures which we have discussed here already, that it is not taking something from the citizen which the citizen had already been given by the courts. In fact, it is going to give the court power to add something that has already been awarded.
Might I ask Senator Baxter to reflect on this: that the court has no power under this Bill to award anything except in the circumstances described in the Bill? Certain of those people may get nothing under the Bill.
The Senator did not argue that way when he was speaking. He did argue that, to him apparently, it was preferable, instead of leaving this to be interpreted by a judge in the court, to give power to the Minister himself to make an Order.
No, but to give a sum of money—an ex gratia payment.
An ex gratia payment on the part of any Minister is something that is within the power of the Minister graciously to give. Does the Senator suggest that that is the way the Oireachtas ought to do its job of work? Is it not much more open and above board for us to put into an Act what we want done, rather than leave it to the Minister to give this much to one man and a different sum to another man? It would then be open to anybody to say: “Because So-and so got the ear of such and such a person he received so much, but the other fellow got so much less, although he had four children, while the other had only two?”
Could not that be done under the Bill?
No.
If that is done under the Bill it will be done in open court. As far as I am concerned, I approve of and applaud the Minister's line in this. While Senator Duffy may differ with us in regard to our efforts to solve the problem, I am sure he is with the rest of us in believing that every officer who is serving the State ought to be conscious of the fact that the services he is giving to the State will be fully recognised by the State if he forfeits his life in carrying out his duties.
I entirely endorse that.
He should be assured that, from the point of view of finance at any rate, those he leaves after him will not suffer.
This Bill hardly calls for discussion at all. We are all very pleased with and grateful to the Minister for having introduced it. It is a fair and honest effort to adjust a wrong which existed under the previous Bill, and which was not intended by the Minister. I entirely endorse the addendum of my friend Senator Hayes, in mentioning other officers of the State. I have in my mind one officer, a school inspector, who lost his life by reason of the position which be occupied as an inspector of schools. I will not go into the details. Although it is not provided for in the Bill, I hope the Minister will be able to make some representations to the proper quarter, and that the dependents of this school inspector will be looked after either by way of ex gratia payment or under this Bill or some future Bill. I am sure Senator Hayes and myself have the same inspector in mind. He left a wife and young family, and it would not be right or just that the State should overlook his sacrifice, or the loss suffered by his wife and family. That was my principal object in speaking, and I hope the Minister will make representations on that matter to the Department concerned.
In connection with that matter, all I can do is draw the attention of the Minister for Finance to it. It seems to be the same principle as the pre-1941 cases. I must say that I do not understand Senator Duffy's arguments. There is no such thing on this earth, I think, as infallibility. Bills are brought in, under which the Oireachtas does its best to cover all cases that are likely to arise, but from time to time we find that cases arise which have not been covered, and if we were to allow that state of affairs to continue I think we would be very blameworthy indeed. If the courts find that something is not covered which the Oireachtas meant to cover, we take the necessary steps to meet that situation here. That is all I am doing now. I can see nothing wrong in that at all. If we were in the happy position of being certain that for the rest of time there would be no recurrence of this, that no Guard would ever again be murdered for discharging his duty, there might be something in the arguments advanced. I do not know whether we are in that position or not. I hope we are. Whether we are or not, I think it is better to have the law right, and to leave the courts to decide according to the law.