I move: "That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,600 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment for the year ending on the 31st March, 1924, for the payment of salaries and other expenses of Temporary Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries." The estimate sets the matter out in pretty full detail. Small amounts are required for the Committee which dealt with the resignations and dismissals from the Royal Irish Constabulary. A small amount is also required for the Canals and Waterways Commission. In both cases the sums are required because the work continued longer than was anticipated. "J" is for the Compensation for Personal Injuries Committee. There is a fairly considerable sum for the Dáil Eireann Courts (Winding Up) Commission, the details of which are set out in the Estimates. This Commission, as the Dáil knows, is doing a very considerable volume of work, and very necessary work, throughout the country. All classes of cases are coming before it, and it was necessary that competent men should be appointed, and, in view of the work with which they had to deal, paid judicial salaries. I think that the amounts which appear are not in excess of what is reasonable under the circumstances. The total gross estimate is £7,643, and savings are anticipated on various sub-heads of the original estimate. They include the following:—Post Office Commission, £276; Agricultural Commission, £745; Commission on Prices, £572; Commission on Re-construction and Development, £879; Civil Service Committee, £45; North-Eastern Boundary Bureau, £1,800; Judiciary Committee, £368, and on sub-head "K" of the original estimate, commissions and inquiries not specifically provided for, £1,340, making a total of £6,043, which leaves a net supplementary amount required of £1,600.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS.
I deferred my remarks about the Compensation Committee because I think that sub-head "J" is the right one to make them on.
Before we take sub-head "J," I would be glad if instead of discussing these items up and down, we discuss them in the order in which they appear.
Very well.
I do not like to trouble the Minister unduly with regard to the first item, namely, the Committee which inquired into the dismissals and resignations in the R.I.C., but I would like if he could say now whether it is possible to advise all those people, whose cases have been admitted as a result of the evidence, of the amounts they are entitled to from a certain date. A number of claims arising out of the work of this inquiry arrived after the date laid down as the final one for receiving claims. I understand, on reliable information, that these claims which arrived late, were from men who resigned from the R.I.C., and who subsequently emigrated to America and other places, and who were not aware of the Committee having been set up. I am informed that many claims arrived from such people. I would like the Minister to take that fact into consideration when giving a definite decision, and I would like some from of inquiry to be made into these cases in view of the very peculiar circumstances. I would also like him to say when it is probable that the amounts that will be voted under this supplementary estimate will be paid to these individuals, a great many of whom are badly in need of these sums which are so long overdue.
It is possible that the question I desire to raise was not within the terms of reference of the Committee, but if the Minister would give us information, I think it would satisfy a good many inquiries. It is with regard to the position of men who resigned from the R.I.C. at the time of the conscription threat, men who were definitely appealed to, to refuse to take part in any movement to enforce conscription, and as a consequence resigned. There were a number of such, and I think they have been precluded from the inquiry by this Commission. I do not know whether any other arrangements have been made to meet such cases, but I would like the Minister to give the Dáil some information on this point.
I should like to emphasise what Deputy Davin said about the ex-R.I.C. knowing where they stand. At the present moment they do not know where they are, whether they are to get compensation or not, and some of them are in very poor circumstances. I wonder if a return could be made and distributed to the Dáil showing those who are to get compensation, and what station they were in when they left the R.I.C.
I would like to support Deputy Hogan's point that the Dáil should have a return of the names of the ex-R.I.C. men who have been awarded compensation. All over the country we have men who do not know in what position they stand. They do not know whether their claim has been favourably considered or not. Deputies all over the House are meeting those men. It would be fitting that the Dáil should have this return as early as possible and as complete as possible, and the Minister should tell us as early as he can when the compensation granted shall be awarded to those to whom it is granted.
With regard to the last question we hope to pay some money in certain cases before the end of this financial year. We believe we will be able to make payment in all cases very soon, after certain additional information has come to hand with regard to men whose names were passed by the Committee. That information has to be taken into account. It may be information with regard to length of service and other matters which will have an effect on whether a person is eligible for a pension. The Committee itself recognised in many cases it had to pass or reject claims on slender enough evidence. Consequently, that list cannot be taken as the list of men who are entitled to pensions. The additional evidence that has come to hand in regard to any particular case will be scrutinised and collated with the evidence already in the possession of the Government, and a decision will be come to as to whether any particular men should or should not receive pensions, and the amount of the pensions they are entitled to. As soon as the list of those definitely passed by the Ministry for Pensions is available, I see no reason why it should not be presented to the Dáil. I do not know that it is usual that lists of pensioners should be so presented, but I see nothing against it. In regard to men who have applied late for pensions their names are being filed, and while no decision has been taken as to making an alteration of the date, that matter will be considered. There is no particular desire to stand too rigidly on that, if good cause can be shown why exception should be made. I do not know that any policeman who resigned since 1916 on account of national motives was excluded, so that I do not think I understand Deputy Johnson's reference.
Information has been conveyed to me that an applicant, at least one, I think more, who sought to have his case heard, was told that the Committee were not empowered to enquire into resignations before 1919.
I think that is inaccurate. I will look into the matter. The Chairman of the Commission is in the Dáil, and perhaps he might say a word on that matter.
I was Chairman of that Commission, and all the cases of those men who resigned from 1916 onwards who proved and gave satisfactory evidence that they resigned from partriotic motives were fully enquired into and an honest decision come to.
I should like the Minister to explain further what he means by some information has come to hand with regard to claimants. Does he mean that this information will be instrumental in convincing this Commission to take away what they have given already, or will it go towards increasing the award? Furthermore, I am glad that the Chairman of this Commission is present, and he has explained himself with regard to giving the utmost satisfaction. I know several cases myself in the country where men who have resigned have not been treated satisfactorily. Furthermore, the men that kept on with the British Government the whole time until the Truce are treated a lot better than the men who resigned. I would like to know will the Minister answer my question, with regard to the men who have been granted compensation or superannuation, and who have resigned for political purposes, whether this information will mean the reducing of the award to those men.
Information might in certain cases show that the facts were not as the claimant represented them to be. In certain cases men might not have resigned for patriotic motives, but for other motives altogether, and in certain cases the length of service might have been misrepresented by them.
In cases where the people in the locality can prove that these men did resign for patriotic motives, would those cases be reconsidered even if they have been rejected by the Commission?
I do not propose to reconsider any cases that have been rejected by the Commission.
Could the Minister give us any information as to how soon there would be a definite number of people to whom compensation would be granted, and when will he be able to submit the list to the House?
I do not think there would be any point in submitting a provisional list to the Dáil? I think it should be presented when it is complete. Apart from odd cases that might be admitted, cases which were late, I do not think it will be very long until we have the compensation awarded in all the other cases.
That disposes of No.1.
The report of the Canals and Waterways Commission was discussed here in the Dáil on a previous occasion, and I do not propose to traverse any of the ground touched upon then.
Since then it has been stated that the Government have revised their view with regard to this Commission's findings, and that some portions of these findings are likely to be put into effect. I think, seeing that the Canals and Waterways Commission is not likely to arise again for consideration by the Dáil, except on a distinct motion, once this Supplementary Estimate has been passed, that this would be a fitting and appropriate occasion on which we could gather what exactly are the present intentions of the Government with regard to the Report, and whether any change has occurred since the Government's decision in this matter was announced on a previous occasion. That opportunity is afforded now, and the Minister, I suggest, might take advantage of it.
It was pointed out in the Commission's Report that there were certain canal properties in respect of which legislation prevailed, that legislation being at the moment not in force. I am now referring more particularly to the Royal Canal. I want to emphasise that the Royal Canal is not railway property. It is a distinct enterprise, and under the 1846 Act certain statutory obligations are required. It is necessary for the company exercising control over that waterway to keep it in a proper state of repair, and it is responsible to the State that that state of repair should be maintained. I want to know from the Minister if any instructions have been sent to the Board of Works to see that the provisions of the 1846 Act are being complied with.
As a member of that Commission, I would be very much surprised to learn, especially from Deputy Figgis, that he is aware of the attitude of the Government in regard to the Report and the recommendations of the Commission. I would be sorry that an occasion such as this, which is not appropriate, should be taken advantage of by the Minister to discuss detailed recommendations involving the expenditure of money. I do not think that this is a proper occasion for a discussion on the Commission's recommendations. I doubt if Deputy Figgis is aware of the real intentions of the Government. Those intentions have never been given to the Dáil.
I am sure nobody is aware of them.
I listened carefully to the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce, and I read carefully the language he used when the matter was discussed on a previous occasion. If I can follow that language correctly, it would indicate that no decisions had been arrived at by the Government or the Minister. I think the report and the recommendations are worthy of more consideration than could be given to them on an occasion like this. I suggest that when the Government have arrived at a decision they should give a more suitable opportunity to the Dáil to discuss the Commission's recommendations.
I would like also to point out that the Canal Company Deputy Figgis has referred to is owned and, controlled by the Railway Company. And it is railway property as such. I do not think it should be allowed to remain under its present ownership.
The question of enforcing the law with regard to canals or railways does not arise. That is pretty obvious.
I think that Deputy Figgis has got his point in.
Under sub-head (J), I think it would be more appropriate to raise the matter to which Deputy A. Byrne referred at an earlier stage. I should like to ask the Minister with reference to this Committee if he can state how many cases they have dealt with, and how much compensation has been recommended, because obviously the amount of compensation and the awards would have a considerable bearing on the question of the amounts of the salaries to be paid. I should like to have some figure given to the Dáil even roughly on this matter.
I can only give the figures very roughly—I will say it would be about £100,000 that has been awarded. In between 300 and 400 cases awards have been made, and 600 or 700 cases have been dealt with. I am giving the figures now roughly. I can get the details. As a matter of fact, we have only received an interim report as yet. The other cases are under way. Probably about 1,500 to 2,000 cases would be dealt with altogether.
Then it seems in some cases that the Committee adopted a very different scale to that prevailing in Dublin City, and to which Deputy A. Byrne referred. If only 400 cases have been dealt with, and £100,000 has been given in compensation, it would appear that the average amount given in compensation would be about £250. That is very different from the cases to which Deputy Byrne referred to during Question Time. I think the cost of this Committee is very excessive, as compared with the other Committee. I take as a parallel the Committee appointed to consider the cases of the Resigned and Dismissed R.I.C. men. In that case the total cost is £219. I should like to congratulate my colleague, the baby of the Dáil, who was Chairman of that Committee, for having done the work at so small a cost. They have passed £49,000 for pensions, and the work has been done for £219. The other Committee is asking for £2,723. I think the Dáil is entitled to some explanation as to the discrepancy in the figures, and also as to the discrepancy in the amounts awarded. It seems clear there must have been some very large awards if £100,000 has been awarded in only 300 or 400 cases.
This is a Committee of an entirely different character to that which dealt with the Resigned and Dismissed R.I.C. men. This Committee was dealing with the sort of work that normally would be dealt with by the County Court Judges. We had actually a County Court Judge as Chairman of the Dáil Commission Committee. That Committee had all sorts of facts to take into account, and it had to deal in some cases with very considerable amounts, cases where people, for instance, were killed, and there were dependents putting in claims. There was a case, for instance, of the doctor who was killed in the West of Ireland, that is one case that I know of where there were four children, one of them born after his death. The whole of that question had to be dealt with by a body that would look at the matter judicially, and would take all the factors into account. Dealing with the question of Dismissed and Resigned R.I.C. men was a simpler matter. All they had to do in the case of policemen was to hear the applicant's own story and to hear any statements from Volunteer Officers and others as to whether it was the belief he had resigned or was dismissed on account of his line of national conduct.
There was simply one fact to be determined in each case by the Committee in the case of the Dismissed and Resigned R.I.C. men. There was many more factors to be dealt with by the Committee that was dealing with personal injuries. We could not undertake that anything like a re-hearing in the personal injuries cases would be done by any official in the Ministry of Finance. In general, the awards of the Committee must be taken. It would be feasible enough to refer back to them for consideration any case in which there seemed grounds for doubt on the face of it as to whether the award was one which deserved reconsideration. But in general we had to take this Committee as being something in the nature of a Court which was making recommendations. In the case of property damages we have the County Court Judges in certain cases making no awards but reports to the Minister for Finance. For instance, in the cases in O'Connell Street, the Recorder makes no awards but reports. This Committee in the case of personal injuries is making reports in the same way, and it has work of the same quality to do. I do not feel that we could set up an unpaid Committee to do work of this particular type. The work would have cost as much, I believe, if it had been allowed to be done by the County Court Judges. We would probably have to provide in certain cases assistants, because these cases would have to be fought at great length, and we would have to provide assistant County Court Judges in some areas where we have not at present provided them.
Then we would have no uniformity as to the amounts awarded. One of the things to which great exception was taken in regard to personal injury awards under the Malicious Injuries Acts was the fact that a certain type of claimant would receive £600 from one Judge and £6,000 from the Judge in the adjoining county. It was felt that a central tribunal would deal with all the cases according to a common standard.
The Minister seems to think that it is a very difficult thing to ascertain the nature and the extent of a personal injury, and a very easy thing to discover motives. I think it is more difficult to discover motives than to discover the extent and nature of personal injuries. In any case, I venture to think that the Minister was wrong in his preference for this Committee over a County Court. The County Court would have had the advantage that the people would be at the hearing of their own cases. I presume this Committee was set up to remove a sense of grievance on the part of people who had sustained an injury through no fault of their own. I think it is evident that that sense of grievance has not been removed by the methods adopted by this Committee. People, as they think, have not been able to feel that their cases are satisfactorily dealt with. There is still a strong sense of grievance existing in the minds of claimants for compensation. I hope if any future action of the kind is necessary this will not be taken as a precedent.
I would like to remind Deputy Cooper, as a reader of the "Morning Post," that judicial authorities do not always hear cases with satisfaction, and do not always remove the sense of grievance from the compensatees.
The object of setting up the Commission was not to remove any sense of grievance—we could not hope to do that—but to give what was in reason and in fairness due.
The Estimate sets out that one member of the Committee receives £100 per annum with bonus and another receives £700 per annum inclusive. I would like to know if these are officials who are in receipt of salaries or are they outsiders?
The only person who was an official of the Government was the Secretary, and he is an official of the Land Commission. He receives a special allowance of £100 per annum and the other two members are not employees of the Government. These are simply salaries that are being paid them for the work they do.
I thought one member was a County Court Judge.
He is the third member.
He is not paid anything additional, I take it?
No.
Might I ask the Minister when it will be possible for us to get the Report of the Agricultural Commission?
I am afraid the Commission on Agriculture is not in this.
I thought it was.
I might have been inattentive, but I do not remember the Minister stating exactly what are the constituents of the additional sum required, or what should cause this addition, in view of the fact that salaries were affixed and a bonus was affixed. In respect of what particular expenditures is this addition required? The sum originally was fairly large, and seemed to cover all the items that would be required.
Of course, in addition to the salaries, payment of the staff and travelling expenses have to be considered. There will be an allowance in respect of subsistence and travelling, and the necessary office staff.