asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that on 22nd December, 1924, a letter was addressed to the Secretary, Claims Committee, Indemnity Act, Room 7, Government Buildings, Dublin, enclosing details of a claim under the above Act; that this letter was acknowledged on Form M.F.4, Reference 406/95/1417, dated 24th December, 1924; that on 21st March, 1925, claimant's solicitor interviewed the Secretary of this Committee and was informed that this claim would come on for hearing on 26th March, 1925, and that the documents and particulars of claim lodged were in order and that the attendance of counsel or solicitor was unnecessary; and that the result would be notified to him in due course; that the solicitor wrote repeatedly to the Secretary of the Committee at 19 Earlsfort Terrace after 26th March, asking to be informed of the result, but that he has never received a reply; that the solicitor called at the office of the Committee about 27th May, 1925, when he was informed that the claim would be heard on 4th June, 1925; that three letters in June and one in July were written to the Secretary of the Committee by the solicitor without response; that the solicitor again called at the office of the Committee on 3rd September, 1925, when he was informed that the case would be listed for hearing on 20th of that month; that he wrote on 18th September and on 3rd November, asking to be informed of the result, but that he has had no reply; and if the Minister will say whether this Committee is really functioning, and, if so, if this is the normal method of dealing with claims.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - CLAIMS COMMITTEE (INDEMNITY ACT.)
I have caused inquiries to be made in regard to the claim mentioned by the Deputy, which would appear to be that of William McAuliffe, of Abbeyfeale, Co. Limerick, and am informed that the Committee set up under the Indemnity Act, 1924, have not yet found it possible to reach a decision in the matter. It is by no means certain that the case falls within the scope of the Committee's powers under the Act, and the claimant's solicitor was so informed when the claim was originally made.
The Committee are disposing of all claims lodged with them with the greatest rapidity possible, and they have already made a very large number of recommendations. The present case is exceptional in its nature, and I think that it might fairly have been assumed that the delay which has occurred in disposing of it was due to that fact.
Mr. CROWLEY
Surely the solicitor for the claimant should have got an acknowledgment, at least to some of the letters that he has written during the last couple of years.