Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1924

Vol. 6 No. 31

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. MINISTRY OF FINANCE.

Mr. BLYTHE

I propose: "That a supplementary sum not exceeding £3,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Finance."

The additional requirement for this Sub-head A of £4,950 arises in respect of the very large staff that is engaged in the investigation and payment of compensation claims, property losses, and personal injuries.

At the beginning of this financial year the payment of the Compensation Commission awards in respect of pre-truce damage was very much in arrears. Now the payments, with certain exceptions, have been brought up to date. It has been necessary to employ a very large supplementary staff, and it was also necessary that a personnel should be employed in connection with the post-truce property claims. The investigation of personal injury claims has necessitated an additional staff. We have employed at present by way of a temporary staff, 40 in connection with pre-truce compensation; post-truce, 26; personal injuries, 14. In connection with that work, in the Ministry itself generally dealing with this type of work, there is a special temporary staff of 23; that is, a total temporary staff of 103 people has had to be brought into being for the purpose of dealing with this very large amount of work in connection with compensation, both pre-truce and post-truce, and both for property injuries and personal injuries. The amount of savings on the special sub-head of £2,000 is largely travelling expenses, and in some offices like the Paymaster's office, a reduction on salaries below what was anticipated.

Mr. JOHNSON

For the purpose of re-demanding acquiescence and obedience to the resolution of the Dáil, I want to raise the question of the failure of the Ministry of Finance to supply to the Dáil the return regarding these payments to the staffs of the Oireachtas, which was voted. I think, some day in January last, and notwithstanding very many requests that the Dáil should be obeyed in that matter, the Ministry of Finance, which I believe is the Department responsible, has not submitted to the Dáil the return demanded and required.

It will be remembered that the Minister suggested that the responsibility lay with the staff of the Oireachtas. I cannot say anything about that, but the Ministry of Finance pays for it, and I understand the Ministry of Finance is the Department that takes on itself the responsibility of making returns on all matters affecting finance. Consequently, I take it that it is the failure of this staff, for which additional sums are required, by way of salaries, that is responsible for this disobedience to the resolution of the Dáil. That resolution was that a return should be laid on the Table of the payments hitherto made to the various members of the staff, and the payments that would be made in accordance with the Report of the Committee which had been set up. I maintain that it is quite necessary that the Dáil should know what its position is regarding the payments of these various officers, high and low. When we are asked to vote certain sums for payments we ought to have at least some information as to what the increased cost is to be, if any, and to whom those increases will accrue. That was the purpose of the motion, for a return of that kind which the Dáil agreed to, but two months at least have passed and the return, which probably would not take more than an hour to compile, has not yet been furnished.

Mr. BLYTHE

I have nothing to say about that matter except to apologise to the Dáil for it. I think it is a matter of indifference by whom the information should be furnished. It should have been furnished, and as far as I am concerned, I will undertake that it will be furnished this afternoon. I regret the fact that it has not been furnished.

Mr. DAVIN

I want to ask the Minister a question in regard to a matter which was raised here some three or four months ago, and on which there does not appear to have been any decision yet come to. I refer to the question of the bad policy of the Ministry in depriving a certain number of people of payment of compensation for pre-truce damage, because of their alleged sympathies or active co-operation with the Irregular forces during the period of the recent civil strife. The Minister on the occasion on which the matter was raised here some months ago, promised to go into the matter in a sympathetic way, but as far as I can learn, from a few cases I am aware of, nothing has been done that would enable these people to get compensation, to which, I believe, they are rightly entitled, for damage done in pre-truce days.

Mr. BLYTHE

I cannot say whether in every case the money has been paid, and I suppose it has, but I do know that in a very large number of these cases where the money had been held up, it has now been paid. There might be individuals in certain districts whom it would be regarded as undesirable even yet to pay, because if the persons who would be getting the money are people who, it is felt, would be likely to be encouraged in a certain line of conduct by getting it, it might be regarded as desirable still to hold it up. But the policy now is, where there is no disturbance and—no matter what their line of action has been in the past —if the parties' present conduct is reasonable conduct, to have the payment made. I have had cases before me in which I know that the compensation withheld has now been paid.

Mr. DAVIN

Could the Minister give an assurance that in any case where compensation has not been paid, and where the decision of the Ministry has been based on some secret report, that he will give the people concerned an opportunity of defending themselves against these secret reports, or of making their position quite clear?

Mr. BLYTHE

I will undertake that in all, what you might call, normal cases where payment has been withheld, where there was irregular activity, but where that definite anti-State and antisocial behaviour has ceased, that the payments will be made.

Mr. A. BYRNE

May I draw the attention of the Minister to the treatment generally of the victims of shooting and ambushes under "personal claims?" I do not know whether it is under this heading or not. I can do it, but I certainly wish to repeat the statement which I made at Question Time concerning the grave injustice that has been done to victims of shootings, people who lived in the vicinity of the Four Courts, during the time of the attack on the Four Courts. I mentioned three cases at Question Time to-day. The total award given by the Personal Injuries Committee in the three cases was only £50, without any provision being made for legal or medical expenses. In one case an award of £10 has been made, and the medical and legal expenses in that case total £8. I hold that when the Dáil agreed to the appointment of the Committee to consider victims' claims, they thought that fair play would be given, and that the Committee was not being appointed, in the sole interest of the Government, to whittle down compensation to the lowest possible penny or to throw out altogether the claims of injured people. There is great indignation amongst the friends and relatives of those people, and I agree that that indignation is justified. If I wished I could read out details of twenty cases in which persons were paid sums from £5 to £20, some of whom had been six months in hospital. Others had to give up their employment, and their families were left practically penniless for several months. Some of them had to seek Poor Law assistance. I have a case here of a woman who was caught in an ambush and lost her eye as a consequence. The Committee awarded that woman the magnificent sum of £20. Is £20 adequate compensation for the loss of an eye? Compare that with the treatment by the British Government of those persons who were arrested in England and who were detained in Mountjoy Prison for a few weeks. The English Committee awarded these persons sums ranging from £300 to £1,000 for a few weeks' detention. I wonder where is the justice of the Irish Committee when they make such miserable awards as £50 divided between three families.

I have particulars of another case in which an old man living in the vicinity of the Four Courts was struck on the head in his own yard by a piece of timber blown from the Four Courts. There is no doubt that the old man's eyes were affected at the time, but, as a result of being struck and knocked down, he was found to be totally blind, and is now being led about by a boy. The Committee say that there is nothing to justify a claim in his case, because they were made aware that prior to being struck his eyes were seriously affected. Another case which I am aware of is that of a young girl of 17, whose future prospects are entirely blighted as a result of injury from a bullet, which went in through one jaw and came out through the other. She is disfigured for life. The Committee awarded that girl the magnificent sum of £20. What is that girl to do for the future? Who will give her employment? I have no hesitation in saying that if this happened during the British regime general indignation would have been expressed and it would have been maintained that a pension should have been paid to that girl for life.

I would ask the Minister that a representative of the citizens should be placed on this Committee, so as not to have it confined to representatives of the Government, who are doing their best to deprive these victims of justice. I also wish to complain that in the majority of the cases which have been brought to my notice the Committee did not even afford the claimants an opportunity of appearing before them. Had these people gone before any Court they would have been awarded reasonable sums— at least as much as they would have been allowed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I ask the Minister to see that fair play is given to these unfortunate victims.

Mr. BAXTER

I want to support Deputy Byrne in this matter. I do not think that the Committee has dealt justly with the victims. I have a case in mind where a certain house was taken over by the military without any notice, and was burned on the same night. The people did not even get an opportunity of taking away their belongings. As a result, the woman of the house became very unwell and had to be taken to hospital and was there for many months. Her claim when it went before the Committee was turned down. She was not even given compensation for the hospital expenses and doctor's fees. The lady's health is now practically shattered. I do not know if the Minister can stand over decisions of that kind. This is not an isolated case. There are many similar cases. I do not desire that the taxpayers should be called upon to pay compensation in excess of what should in justice be allowed, but even the Minister for Finance must consider what is justice in every case. There are many cases in which I think it will be the Minister's duty to reconsider the decisions of this Committee, and it is up to the Minister to see that justice is done to these victims.

Mr. BLYTHE

It has to be remembered that this Committee was appointed for the purpose of giving compensation and not damages, as are given in the Courts. We know that frequently in the Courts people get damages, and that they are very glad, as a result, that the accident happened to them. There was no intention that damages should be given. The object was to give compensation and the Committee were directed, amongst other things, to take into account the actual earning capacity of the injured person prior to the injury, and the impairment of earning capacity attributable to the injury. Although the attention of the Committee was directed to that, they were not confined to it. The direction given was to recommend sums that, in fairness and reason, should be paid, and that, amongst other things, they should have regard to actual earning capacity. As to the case mentioned, where a person who received £10 had to pay £8 for expenses, that seems to me a case in which the whole matter was amply covered. There should not be any idea of giving a person a sum for simply having been wounded. If the girl recovered, she probably lost little or nothing in wages during the time she was ill. If the hospital charges were paid, the matter was sufficiently met. As to the case of a woman who lost an eye, to which Deputy Byrne referred, where only £20 was given, that seems to be a case that requires to be looked into. I have already promised Deputy Byrne to have a report on that case. It might be, if one knew all the circumstances, even in such a case, that the sum given was as much as could reasonably be expected. In regard to the fact that cases were decided without the claimants having an opportunity of actually going before the Committee, I do not object to that, and I do not think it can really be objected to, under the circumstances. A great number of people put in claims who, even on their own statements, were not entitled to receive anything. All sorts of people rushed in thinking that the State had a broad back and that they might as well try and get something out of it. Where it seemed to the Committee that on the claimant's own statement there was no right to compensation, I think it was fair enough that the matter should be dealt with on the papers before them. The Committee received its Terms of Reference, and no solicitor nor any person representing the Ministry of Finance was present to beat down the claims. The Committee was appointed, and acted with a certain amount of informality. It was expected to undertake any cross-examination that might be necessary to get at the truth. I believe sincerely that in all cases every consideration was given to the applicants. I do not say that mistakes may not have occurred. I do not say that there might not be cases where revision would be required, and as far as I am concerned, if there is a sufficiently strong case, I would take up the matter of reconsideration with the Committee.

I want to affirm at the same time that my general attitude is one of confidence in the fairness of the Committee. They have not been urged, nor expected, to be unduly economical at the expense of claimants. The Committee quite well understood that as there is no representative of the Finance Ministry appearing before them to fight cases, they are expected to look after all sides of the matter. I am quite confident they have really aimed at dealing fairly and giving compensation to people who are really entitled, but not giving damages in the sense in which damages were given in Courts. I am prepared to take up any case that is put up, but I must affirm my confidence in the fairness of the Committee as a whole.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to call attention to the form in which this Supplementary Estimate has been presented. We have in Paragraph 1 the Supplementary Estimate of the amount required, and in Paragraph 2 we have the sub-heads—(a) salaries, wages and allowances; (b) telegrams and telephones. In Paragraph 3 we have "details of the foregoing." All that we are given is: "salaries, wages and allowances; telegraphs and telephones." I do not think that even the Minister's imagination would allow him to say that (a) in Paragraph 3 gives any details. The original Estimate was £40,000, and the revised Estimate is £44,950. It was stated in the original Estimate that it was not yet possible to fix any definite establishment for the Ministry, and, consequently, we did not get any details then. That is nearly a year ago. I think it is, perhaps, desirable that we should hear from the Minister whether it has been found necessary to increase the salaries, wages and allowances since the original Estimate was presented or what explanation might be given for the manner in which the details in Paragraph 3 are presented. I would think, in view of the failure of the original Estimate to give the details required, because it was not then possible to fix a definite establishment, that it should have been found possible since that time to do so, and that we should have details of that establishment when the supplementary sum was being asked for. I think that we should have had more information, and that a mere request for a sum of £4,950 as an additional sum required for this purpose should have been amplified by further information.

Mr. GOOD

The Minister has informed us that this additional sum is largely for additional temporary labour in connection with the Claims Department and for work of a similar nature. Could he give us any idea as to how long it will be necessary to maintain this additional temporary labour?

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not think that these Departments should last another year. There will, of course, be compensation work going on for a considerable length of time beyond that. For instance, sums awarded in compensation for the restoration of buildings will not be paid in full for some considerable time. These amounts will be paid as the work progresses and as the architects' certificates come in, and the staff will probably be engaged for a considerable length of time in dealing with that work. I think that before the coming financial year is out the present big staff dealing with compensation work will not be necessary.

Mr. GOOD

No reduction has so far been effected?

Mr. BLYTHE

No; I think it has been growing, if anything, because the work has been increasing up to the present. The staff has been considerably increased as compared with the beginning of the financial year, because we had not got properly launched on the work of dealing with compensation claims, and the work was very seriously in arrears at the time.

Mr. GOOD

Will not most of these claims be through by this period?

Mr. BLYTHE

No; they are being heard in the Courts and they are going on still. With regard to furnishing the details, the details will be furnished in the Estimates for the coming financial year, which I hope to be able to circulate at the beginning of next week. They should have been circulated before this, and I would hope that in subsequent years they will be circulated well in advance of the end of March. Last year it was not possible to circulate them until after the middle of April. This year we hope to circulate them at the beginning of the month, so that we will have them earlier.

Question put and agreed to.