This is the largest Vote that will be put before the Dáil. I move this Vote of £10,020,000. It is in connection with compensation for pre-truce damage. £5,000,000 compensation for pre-truce damage and £5,000,000 for compensation for damage after 11th July, 1921, and for miscellaneous expenses, £20,000. This is a Vote upon which one might certainly address the Dáil at very considerable length. It appears to me that scarcely any useful purpose would be served by doing so. The damage as far as B. is concerned is damage done by people who will probably claim to be imbued with love of their country, and they are showing that love, so far as this particular item is concerned, to be a very costly one to the country. I do not expect anything we would say here would have any effect upon their attitude, or upon what they are doing. I think that in any discussions that took place here we have not said anything which these people or their supporters might take reasonable exception to. The work we have done here to-day is evidence of the extraordinary change that has come over the country since the 6th of December last. At that time, and previous to it, while we were operating in what one gentleman declared grandiloquently as "a Dáil which, having declared its independence, should not abandon its independence"; at that time we were operating upon borrowed funds amounting to, perhaps, less than £2,000,000, and to-day we are dealing with sums of money amounting to upwards of £37,000,000. If that is not evidence of an extraordinary advance, I am at a loss to know what advance means, and must get some other word for it. Unfortunately, there are people who think that, by prosecuting this war on the people of this country, and on the vital and economic interests of the country, they are advancing a cause which would only succeed if there was united action on the part of every single citizen of this country in the direction in which they are, to their own mind, moving. It is not a time—and this Dáil has not been used as a political platform, but I think that this particular estimate, amounting, as it does, to such a huge sum of money —an estimate which is required to repair some of the damage and ravages of the war—ought certainly give some of these people, who are engaged in this particular activity of doing damage, to pause. Somebody will have to pay this money. If we do not pay it, our children will have to pay it. If they do not pay it their children will have to pay it. The country is ours now. As the Minister for Home Affairs, speaking of the late President, remarked:—"the country is ours for the making, and we have got to make it." We start with a big handicap—a huge sum of money to make up for damage that has been done. But all the money that we could possibly pay, either for the damage or for any other ravages that have occurred since December, or, in fact, since the Truce, could not restore the National honour to the position it was in on the 11th July, 1921. I think that every member of this Dáil would willingly leave public life if the price of it meant the advancement of his country, and it appears—and it has certainly been borne in on some of us—that if we were not here possibly the opposition would not be so strong. But if they pay the price these people want I think this Dáil is perfectly willing and anxious that it should be paid. This money which we have to vote now is money which would have been very useful if we had started from scratch instead of going many milestones behind the starting point. Unfortunately, anything that would be said here, or outside, or any influences that could be exerted would be of little avail. I am personally of opinion that these people who are engaged in this onslaught on the country's economic resources are scarcely mentally responsible for the damage they are doing, because I do not think that any man who loves his country could willingly start out interrupting the nation's business and reducing the nation, as far as they possibly can, to a condition of beggary. If that were the price we have got to pay for the position we are in certainly it is very severe on the country to have to pay that price for its own citizens to be allowed to live their lives. Although one is certainly inclined to lose temper at a time like this I think it is advisable, at least, to give those who are opposing us no real case for saying that we do not appreciate the extraordinary strain that they have brought upon themselves, and which unfortunately they are also bringing to bear on the country.
ESTIMATES. - PROPERTY LOSSES COMPENSATION.
I think that with the general remarks that the President has made everybody will be in very hearty concurrence. I am rising now, not in any measure to criticise this Vote, but to ask for some further information with regard to it, which I think ought to be in our possession. The heads under which this Vote appear come under A. B. and C. A. deals with compensation for pre-Truce damage. I would be glad to know exactly how that sum of £5,000,000 was assessed for damage prior to July, 1921. B. relates to compensation after that date, however, and it is perfectly clear that £5,000,000 is not going to be adequate compensation from July, 1921, up to the present moment. At least I assume it is clear, because I had gathered that the compensation in the recent hostilities would amount to a very much larger figure than the one represented here. I could only come to the conclusion that the amount set forth in "B" deals with some period from July, 1921, until some day not stated. I would be glad to know in the first case how A was assessed; and in the second case how B was assessed, and further, if an assessment was made from July, 1922.
I would like to call attention to a matter which arises out of this Vote. As we know, there was a considerable amount of looting by Black-and-Tans during the pre-Truce period—what I might call "unofficial looting." If my information is correct, the Shaw Commission that went into this thing ruled all such looting out and ruled that it was not within their terms of reference. The reason, I take it, was that this destruction, although obviously done by the British military authorities was not done in an official way, and I think where there are claims—as there are many such claims made—on behalf of people whose property was looted, and whose business was destroyed by Crown Forces, compensation should be given to them, the Ministry, of course, taking care to see that their claims are properly established and are bona fide. I think the mere fact in itself that such looting or destruction of property was not officially ordered by the British authorities should not be sufficient to prevent a man who has lost his property and his business from receiving fair and adequate compensation.
One of the great agencies upon which we were relying to secure the unity of Ireland was the attractive power on the Northern mind of the fact that we should be able to secure for him exemption from the heavy burden of taxation to which he would be inevitably submitted if he made himself or continued to be a citizen of Great Britain. It seems to me that if, after the expiration of the month allowed to Northern Ireland to exercise its option, that if the decision be for Partition, the responsibility for that in large measure should be understood by the people of Ireland to rest and rest heavily upon those men who have set out to devastate the country and to destroy the body of Ireland in order as they allege to save her soul. It is this fantastic idea, that by impoverishing the country we could restore, as if restoration were needed, this vision of a lost ideal. It is the worst thing we have met with since this Dáil began to sit, that instead of being able to institute large measures of reforms, which would have constructive efficacy, that we have to set aside such huge amounts merely to make a small effort towards the restoration of what would have been a National asset, had it not been for this insane interference with the property of the country. It was not to reinforce, on the part of a private member, what the President has just said, that this insane policy, which is being pursued in the name of patriotism by some of our countrymen, to whom we had so long looked up to, even with a certain amount of idolatry, that I rose, but it was to ask a question, which deals with a matter of which perhaps the Minister for Finance will say I am obsessed. I see that in the footnote it is declared that the Provisional Government has the responsibility in the first instance of paying Awards under this head. I gather then that reimbursement is to be made by the British Government. Is not that a reversal of the arrangement that the country was led to believe that it was entering into, that the British Government would bear, as from the be-beginning, its share of the damage inflicted in its interests upon the country, and that the Provisional Government will be held responsible only for compensation that could be fairly traced to the operations of the Army of the Republic. Now if this arrangement has been made, I should imagine it is done by virtue of some financial arrangement with the British Cabinet and—I hope it is not an indiscreet question to ask—if any measure of progress has been made in arranging the financial question with the British Government; because, to my mind at any rate, it is one of the greatest problems for those who negotiated the settlement. I have always felt that it was one of the weak spots in our armour, in the armour of those who advocate the Treaty, that the financial question still remained an open question awaiting determination. I hope that the answer will be—if there is an answer forthcoming—for I recognise that if the question is indiscreet there will be no answer—I hope the answer will be that a considerable measure of progress has been made in determining the relations on questions of finance between the two Governments, for it is of great consequence to us to feel that we are to have not merely reimbursements of this sort at an early date, but also reimbursements of the huge sums that are due to us for years and years past—due for over-taxation and various other injuries done to the Nation.
I want to re-echo the words of the President in moving this Vote as a general expression of sorrow at the plight of the country in consequence of the state of mind which so many of its citizens—I will still call them its citizens, though they may not always be entitled to that—have been led into. I feel that the consequential damages are infinitely greater than the direct, damages, and I am trying to moralise in this way: that not only is human life cheap, but that the expression of the human life that is embodied in material things is also held to be cheap, and the passion for destruction that this leads to is thought so little of. After all, we ought to understand that a railway line, or a bridge, or a building is so much embodied human energy, is an expression of human life; and the mere destruction of these things for passion's sake is a destruction, indirectly, of human life. That is the thought that one would hope some day to get into the minds of the people. In this matter for the compensation for pre-Truce damage particularly, although it applies to both, I want to urge again upon the Ministry the necessity for insisting that money paid in compensation shall be used to reconstruct every class of business that was destroyed, or something equivalent—not only the buildings, but also all the machinery that existed in these buildings. We have had a promise that conditions would be laid upon the recipients of compensation that the structure would need to be rebuilt, or something equivalent; but in the case of Balbriggan a condition was made that, I think, £5,000 out of something like £60,000 was to be used for rebuilding, or it would not be paid. Well, that was very little value, because on receipt of that compensation it would be an easy thing for the proprietors to say, "Well, we can forego £5,000. That does not matter. We have got the remainder for the machinery and the contents." While we cannot insist that the stock should be replenished, certainly the building, as an instrument for production, should be rebuilt out of any compensation that is paid, and I think, in making any condition as to the expenditure of this compensation, we should insist that not only the building be reconstructed, but that the machinery, if it happened to be a factory, should be replaced out of the compensation money. I think that is rather important, because it goes to the heart of the question of the utilisation of these compensation monies, that they will be really used for the purpose of putting back what was destroyed, and I would press upon the Minister the necessity for bearing that in mind when the payment for compensation for losses suffered after 1921 is under consideration.
I believe that I am right in assuming that the Vote of five millions provided for in Clause B. makes provision for compensation for damage and destruction to railway property. Is that so?
Speaking generally, A and B represent the sum that we considered will require to be paid by us up to the 1st of April. It does not mean any estimate of damage. It simply means what we considered will be the sums awarded in time to permit of their discharge by us before the 1st April next.
I personally can never understand the mentality of any individual or party of men associated with any patriotic party in this country who would consider that the burning of a signal cabin, or the destruction of a railway bridge was another landmark on that royal road to the visionary Republic. I believe that the idea originated, in the first instance, in the mind of a gentleman who has no claim to citizenship either in a Free State or in a Republic, so far as the people of this country are concerned. I had been told that railwaymen are accused of many actions, even by members of this Dáil, that the railwaymen of Ireland have taken, and are taking, an active part in the destruction of the property of the companies from which they derive their means of livelihood. Now, I think I can safely say, on behalf of 99 per cent. of Irish railwaymen who have given in the past proof of their patriotism when the real fight for the Republic was going on, that they had no hand, act, or part in that destruction. When the best minds of the Republican Army and the people of Ireland, who were making a fight against the British forces in this country, were called upon to devise the best means to gain the object that they had in view, I do not think that they considered at that time, even when they were faced by 100,000 soldiers and police of a foreign country, that it was necessary to destroy the means of communication in order to attain the object they had in view. If that was the case at the time, when we were fighting a common enemy, an alien power, I cannot understand why now any party in this country consider that, when they are fighting a few Irishmen, they are going to achieve the objects they have in view by the destruction of railways and means of communication. In a certain part of the constituency, where I happened to be recently, and where a certain kind of destruction has frequently taken place in regard to the railways, I was reliably informed that the destruction constantly happening in this case was done by a few men who own motor cars, and who were reaping a rich harvest, when the railway was not operating in that particular place, but I wish to make it quite clear to the Dáil that the railwaymen of Ireland—99 per cent. of them, at any rate—who left their jobs without being called on, to help the Irish Republican Army, and the Irish people as a whole, in the fight with a foreign army, that they have not hand, act or part in the destruction of the Irish railway communications. I wish that to be thoroughly understood by the members of the Dáil, and by the country as a whole.
I have explained, in answer to Deputy Davin, that this is only an estimate of the amount of money we will have to discharge by the 1st April. That point was also raised by another Deputy. With regard to loot, the English Government have refused to pay for loot. I believe the terms of refusal were, "We lost no war and we will pay no indemnity." It has been the subject of continual conference between us, and each time it was disposed of we brought it up again. The last time we were over I think Deputy O'Higgins painted an excellent picture for the consideration of the British Government. When he said you will pay for commandeering but you will not pay for confiscation, they said "Yes.""Well," he said, "I have a picture of a Black and Tan lorry escaping with a motor bicycle, and I see an Irishman chasing wildly after the motor asking the officer, ‘Are you confiscating that motor bicyle, or commandeering it?'" If it was commandeered he would get compensation, but not if it was confiscated. Now the question of loot has again arisen in an acute form, for we have at least undertaken to make some attempt to compensate the people whose property has been looted since July, 1921. In a great many cases I think the claim for loot is much greater than the claim for damage. We have undertaken to do that, and I think that that may have some effect on the English point of view, for it would certainly be an anomaly that a man who was looted on the 12th July would be entitled to compensation and that a man who was looted on the 11th July would not be entitled to compensation. Now there is a distinction in the cases that come before the Shaw Commission and the cases we have to deal with by legislation here. In the Shaw Commission we can only get a clause in that rebuilding or reconstruction will have to be borne in mind, to this extent that the economic and industrial amenities of the district will have to be considered when awards for compensation are being made. That is as far as we can get. In the cases from the 11th July we are entitled to put in conditions, and the Dáil must remember that there are certain cases in which claims will be made for compensation, which I think it would be scarcely fair that that condition would have to apply, and that some other method of compensation will have to be made. I expect the Dáil quite understands what I mean by that, that where certain people's lives could not be guaranteed by us it would be unreasonable in such cases that we should make a condition that no money would be paid unless the buildings were restored. However, when that matter comes up for legislation the Dáil will have an opportunity for discussing it. Now as regards terms, the terms were that as far as compensation is concerned the damage which was done by the British would be paid for by the British, and the damage which we did we would be responsible for. And the details were, that we were to pay in the first instance and that at the end they would reimburse us. However, they agreed that should it be necessary to get something on account to pay for certain cases that there would be no objection to do that, but at the time these Estimates were first made up that was not the case. From the point of view of accountancy it would be necessary to pay them in this order. I do not anticipate any difficulty in that way of paying out a million to-morrow and getting them to reimburse us. I do not think there would be any difficulty in having the matter settled. I think that these are all the points that have been raised.
Motion made and question put: "That the Dáil in Committee having considered the Estimates for Property Losses Compensation in 1922-23, and having passed a Vote on Account of £10,020,000 for the period to the 6th December, 1922, recommend the full Estimate of £10,020,000 for the Financial Year, 1922-23, be adopted in due course by the Oireachtas."
Agreed.