I move:—
In sub-section (1), line 33, to delete the figures "26th" and to substitute therefor the figures "21st."
This is merely the correction of a clerical error.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - INDEMNITY BILL, 1924.—COMMITTEE STAGE RESUMED.
The Dáil went into Committee to resume consideration of the Indemnity Bill.
Question: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) An Executive Minister may refer to the committee established under this Act any claim made by a person claiming to have suffered any direct loss or damage necessarily arising from interference with his property after the 26th day of January, 1919, and before the 28th day of June, 1922, by—
(a) any person holding office under the First Dáil Eireann, or the Second Dáil Eireann, or
(b) any person employed in any military or civil service established or maintained by or under the authority of the First Dáil Eireann or the Second Dáil Eireann,
in the proper exercise or execution of any power, authority, or duty vested in or imposed on him by virtue of such office or employment.
(2) The said committee shall inquire into all claims referred to them pursuant to this section and shall report to the Executive Minister whether the person making the claim has suffered any such direct loss or damage as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section, and the compensation (if any) which, on the principles laid down in this section, might reasonably be paid to such person in respect of such loss or damage.
(3) In assessing the compensation pursuant to the foregoing sub-section the committee—
(a) shall not take into consideration any loss or damage—
(i) arising from the billeting or quartering of troops, or
(ii) arising from sums paid or subscribed, whether voluntarily or under pressure, to any national or local levy, requisition, or loan, or
(iii) arising from any fines imposed by any tribunal deriving authority either directly or indirectly from the First Dáil Eireann or the Second Dáil Eireann, or
(iv) due to or arising through the enforcement of any order or regulation of general or local application made by, or directly or indirectly under the authority of, the First Dáil Eireann or the Second Dáil Eireann, or
(v) due simply and solely to the existence of a state of war, or
(vi) founded on the loss of mere pleasure or amenity;
(b) the committee shall take into consideration any compensation or recoupment received in respect of the loss or damage under any insurance, or from any government, or under a decree or order of any court or other tribunal, or from any general fund whether public or private;
(c) the committee shall only recommend the payment of compensation in cases where special or continuing hardship has resulted from the loss or damage.
(4) Where the said committee reports that compensation might reasonably be paid to a person in respect of any such direct loss or damage as aforesaid, the Minister for Finance may, out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas, pay to such person as compensation for such loss or damage such sum as the Minister for Finance thinks proper but not exceeding the sum mentioned in the report of the committee.
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
To delete sub-section 3 (a) (i), lines 53 and 54.
I am at a loss to discern what the intentions of the Minister are in regard to this. I understood that the debts contracted by the Volunteers would as far as possible be paid. Of course, I admit and understand that a lot of extravagant claims have been forwarded, but I should like to get a detailed statement of the attitude of the Ministry in dealing with the legitimate claims accrued during the period of the Volunteers.
To exclude these lines from the sub-section is to remove from it claims arising from the billeting or quartering of troops. I take it that is the meaning of the amendment.
Yes.
I mentioned here, I think, on the Second Reading, that it would not facilitate public business, and it would not enable us to deal with legitimate claims if this particular amendment were passed. I mentioned that there was one case in which we had a claim from a man for the billeting of a Volunteer at three guineas a week, and it turned out that the billeting was in respect of his own son. A good many other extravagant and, I think, inequitable charges were made against us in that respect. This particular committee has a certain work to do. The measure of satisfaction with which that work will be done will be interfered with to a very large extent if this particular amendment is passed, because something like 18,000 cases of billeting and quartering of troops in respect of the National Army were before us in March, and General Mulcahy's promise as to their being disposed of was kept. They were disposed of by the 31st March, but those claims are coming in at an enormous rate still, even in respect of the National Army. How much larger it would be in the other case can be estimated from the numbers that are coming in in respect of the National Army. The particular orders I circulated to Deputy Johnson, I think, explain what the general circumstances were at the time, that each area was to support its own particular section of the military forces, and as far as this particular clause is concerned if the amendment were passed the committee can really do no other work.
The President has not answered my question. I wanted to find out whether it is intended to repudiate, for instance, legitimate debts contracted by the Volunteers. The President has not answered that point. I am afraid he could not very well consent to that, and I will have to insist, as far as possible, on the revision of this sub-section. I appreciate, however, the difficulties of the Minister in dealing with a lot of extravagant and absurd claims, but in certain cases where people from disinterested motives gave goods to the Volunteers, put them up, and rendered other services, is it not at this time of the day perfectly right and legitimate they should receive fair compensation? I would ask the Minister will bills certified by responsible officers in whom the President can repose some confidence be paid?
We have been dealing with those cases, and we have discharged certain claims. There are, however, some we cannot discharge. When the Deputy speaks of legitimate debts I would like to know what he means. So far as our interpretation of it goes, we have endeavoured to discharge these claims. The Deputy's interpretation may be wider than mine.
I would say in the case of Volunteers that if after the Truce and before the signing of the Treaty a person supplied provisions, goods, clothing, or anything you may say to those Volunteers, I would regard that as a legitimate debt.
Granted that the prices are fair, I would regard that as a legitimate debt.
Then it would not be excluded from the operation of this clause?
Yes, excluded from this clause but not excluded from payment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move: "In sub-section (3) (a) (ii.) line 55, to delete the word `whether,' and in line 56 to delete the words `or under pressure.' " The Bill provides that no claim shall be made in respect of money contribution or loan contributed voluntarily or under pressure, and I want to remove the words "under pressure," which is legal English for at the point of the gun, because I think even a subsequent validation of that doctrine would be disastrous to the State. I admit some justification for the insertion of these words in the Bill, for I have no doubt whatever that in the country there are mean minded men who at the time they gave money gave it with a show of the greatest patriotism, and boasted highly of their patriotism, but who would come in now and try to get it back by saying they gave it under pressure, though I admit as far as that argument is concerned that that is a matter for the Commission. If the Commission are an efficient body they ought to be able to find out whether the money was contributed under pressure or not. It is possible to find out something about the political opinions of an individual, or the opinions expressed by the individual, which is not always exactly the same thing, and the general circumstances under which this money was given. I do not want to suggest for a moment that a great deal of money was levied under pressure in the country. Two gentlemen came to me and informed me they had been sent to collect for the Volunteers. I told them at that time I did not recognise the court. They were very polite, and I was very polite. We talked for about half-an-hour, and parted on excellent terms. They said they hoped I would recognise that they were doing their duty, and I said I recognised that, and that they had done it in the most courteous manner possible, and I was never the worse for my refusal to contribute. I have no doubt that that was the case in the greater part of the country, but there were parts of the country, and there were individuals who were not so scrupulous. I think we should take into consideration the position of the man or woman living alone in an isolated district, when people come to their house at night knocking at the door demanding admission. No doubt they ought to refuse, but it is very hard in a lonely place when you do not know what the consequences may be, to refuse. If even ten per cent. of the cases in which contributions were made were of that kind I believe it would be for the good and credit of the State to redeem that debt, because this doctrine that in support of a case you may go down to people who are living alone, people who are not very brave, and take their money out of their pockets, is an abominable doctrine. It is a doctrine that the Minister for Justice knows is at the root of half the trouble in the country. I have no doubt that the men who first propounded it believed they were acting patriotically, and that they were thoroughly justified in doing so. I do not doubt that, but the result has been that the example has spread. There are always plenty of blackguards who will dignify with a high-sounding name the aim of filling their pockets. We know that is going on. I would urge on the Government to consider whether it is wise by including the words "under pressure" in this Bill to justify that doctrine, even retrospectively or in the smallest degree. I hope and believe that they will perceive that if we are ever to make progress, or ever have a sense of security and stability in the country, that doctrine must be killed, and because this section even indirectly suggests that it may, under some circumstances, be a right and valid thing to collect money under pressure of the gun, I think that ought to be altered.
I think there is a great deal in Deputy Cooper's objection to having these words in the section. I think that if all the words after "subscribed to any national or local levy" were removed the object both of the Minister and Deputy Cooper will be attained. The paragraph would then read "arising from sums paid or subscribed to any national or local levy." The question of a voluntary gift, or a gift under pressure, would not then arise. I think in practice, assuming that the principle of the Bill generally is accepted, claims for the return of sums of money would be very difficult to make. I do not know whether it was general or the practice at all that receipts were given for sums subscribed in these circumstances; it was certainly not universal, and in such a case how is there going to be proof made of a claim, inasmuch as this deals with sums of money paid or subscribed? I suggest to the Minister he might delete the words "whether voluntarily or under pressure," and by so doing he would remove these objectionable words "or under pressure," which do not seem to me to give any added strength to the section, and leaves us under the imputation that we are legalising acts which might well have been highway robbery. I submit that to the Minister for his consideration.
I would support Deputy Johnson's suggestion, and I think the words "any national or local levy, requisition or loan" sufficiently covers what the Minister has in mind. In regard to the idea of pressure, I do not know that there ever was a doctrine preached that persons should go round at night in deserted places and collect money from people who were not ready to give it voluntarily in order to assist the national struggle.
It might not be preached, but that would not prevent it being practised.
I do not know it was practised. There were cases where, in different parts of the country, particularly where the struggle was most intense, where men had to be supported when the principle adopted was that men could not be supported and the struggle could not be financed from a central fund. The call for financial assistance fell on a very small number of people in these parts of the country, and the local military authorities in the end came to the conclusion that it was not proper to be bleeding a small number of persons in order to finance their struggle, and they adopted, with the permission of headquarters, the idea of a levy. Where, it was announced that a levy would be made in the district as a whole for the collection of funds for the support of the local volunteers, I do not know that it was ever known that the imposition of that levy was pushed to very great extremes against any persons, or that terrorism of any kind was utilised in connection with it. What was stirred up was the pressure of public opinion— that the cost of maintaining the Volunteers should not be borne by a small number of people and that the community at large should bear their portion.
I would be willing to accept the suggestion that the clause would read: "(ii.) arising from sums paid or subscribed, to any national or local levy, requisition or loan." That would mean the exclusion of the words "under pressure."
Deputy Johnson's suggestion is half a loaf instead of the whole loaf that I asked for, but I am prepared to accept half a loaf.
My suggestion is for two loaves.
Amendment, as altered, put and agreed to.
I want to direct the Minister's attention to the word "necessarily," in line 32, and to get some explanation in regard to its application. "An Executive Minister may refer to the Committee established under this Act any claim made by persons claiming to have suffered any direct loss or damage necessarily arising from interference with his property." It seems to me that is going to make the claimant's task a very difficult one indeed. He will have to prove to the Committee that under no circumstances could the loss have been avoided, that it was a loss or damage inevitably arising from interference with his property, and I think that circumscribes the claimant too much. The case that the claimant has to make will have to be made to the satisfaction of the Committee, and to put in the word "necessarily" gives a hint of a direction to the Committee to assure itself that in no conceivable way could the claimant have prevented the loss, that it was something inevitable which could not in any circumstances be prevented. I suggest that if a loss occurred which could not have been prevented by any reasonable precaution, that would justify the claim, but to put the word "necessarily" in seems to me to remove half the value of the section as far as the claimant is concerned.
I think that without that word, the door would be open very wide for claims, which certainly was not intended by this Bill. I think it is absolutely essential that any claim made and referred to the Committee should necessarily arise from interference with property. If the word is left out it is more than possible that consequential losses might come in and be claimed for.
Say a number of persons went into a house and damaged the property, but it was not necessarily arising from interference, that is, with the occupation of the house—I think that the word "necessarily" is going to make the applicant's case a very difficult one, provided the court is going to take advantage on behalf of the Treasury of the opportunities for refusal of compensation as it stands. I am sure there must be some other phraseology available for the draftsman which would cover what the Minister desires and which would not be quite as confined as this word "necessarily" seems to me to be.
I will look into this before the Report Stage, but at present I do not see the force of the point made by Deputy Johnson. It does appear to me, if the word "necessarily" were omitted and if possession was taken of a house and the business stopped, a claim could be made for the loss sustained.
I would suggest there is a very big difference between consequential loss and loss which would inevitably occur and which could not, by any circumstances, be avoided.
Question: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 6, 7 and 8 put, and agreed to.
Title put, and agreed to.
Progress reported.