asked the President whether, in view of his statement on November 2nd, 1927, that the British Government did not ask for the addition of ten per cent. to the amounts awarded for post-truce damage under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, during the negotiations which preceded the London Agreement of December 3, 1925, he will state at whose instance or request Clause 4 was inserted in the Agreement; if he will state the total amount paid out in consequence of this clause; whether the additional payments of ten per cent. in any cases brought the total compensation to an amount exceeding the original claims, and, if so, what was the number and total amount of such excess payments.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - POST-TRUCE DAMAGE AWARDS.
The proposal that an all-round increase of ten per cent. should be made in the awards under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, was mine—that is, the President's. Many representations had been made to me that the provisions of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, were so framed that the awards which could be granted thereunder compared unfavourably with the awards which were made in respect of pre-Truce damage, and that in certain cases the prospects of rebuilding were being adversely affected because of the smallness of the awards. The Act repealed the Criminal Injuries Acts of 1919 and 1920 and contained certain express provisions which restricted the basis on which compensation could be awarded. The complaints of hardship were not confined to any particular section of opinion, and representations in this matter were also made to the British Government and were the subject of discussion between them and us. I examined many of the cases personally and satisfied myself that these hardships did exist.
The Government felt that an all-round increase of ten per cent. on the awards would go far towards remedying these hardships. The total amount paid to date on foot of this increase is £270,000. In a very small number of cases the addition of ten per cent. brought the total payment to a figure exceeding the amount of the original claim, and in these cases it is obvious that the original claim must have been made having regard to the restricted provisions of the 1923 Act. It would not be possible without an examination of all the cases, which number approximately 20,000, to state the number or the total amount involved. The amount was almost negligible and it is not considered that the time and expense involved in the preparation of the figures desired by the Deputy would be justified.
I have asked the President if he will state at whose instance or request Clause 4 was inserted in the Agreement made at London. The President has not answered my question.
Did I not answer it a week ago?
I cannot hear the President.
The President states that he answered the question a week ago.
I asked the President a week ago, and he said that the British Government did not ask for a ten per cent. increase on the compensation paid here to the people in the Twenty-six Counties. Does the President want us to believe that he himself went over to England—that the Irish Exchequer was so full that he went to England and insisted there on telling the British representatives and the Six-County representatives that he was going to come back here and give an all-round ten per cent. increase in connection with compensation?
No.
You do not want us to believe that?
No.
What do you want us to believe?
As regards the Wood-Renton Commission and the Shaw Commission and the awards they made, and the awards of compensation made under the Damage to Property Act, the difference between the two would be approximately 25 per cent. or 30 per cent., and this 10 per cent. was, in view of the altered financial circumstances, justified. I should have told the Deputy that a number of representations were made to me, numbers of cases in which buildings were not commenced by reason of the smallness of the award.
Then it was on the initiative purely and solely of the Irish representatives that Clause 4 was inserted in the London Agreement?
Not purely—practically entirely, but not exclusively.
Did Sir James Craig or the British representatives say that they would go back also and give compensation to the people, Irish Nationalists, who were burned out and given no compensation whatsoever in the Six Counties?
I did not hear them say it.
Did the President ask them to say it in view of the fact that he insisted, according to himself, on Clause 4 going into the Agreement?
I thought I had explained to the Deputy that compensation in respect of damage done either pre-Truce or post-Truce was on the basis of the Criminal Malicious Injuries code. In the case of the Irish Free State that code was repealed, as the Deputy will observe if he looks at the Damage to Property Act, 1923. The circumstances were altered, and the compensation which had to be paid had to be assessed on a different basis.
Well——
The Deputy cannot argue.
Had all these malicious injury codes that were passed, and that the President talks so much about, any relation whatsoever to justice? Did the President endeavour, in his representations in the interests of all the citizens who, up to 1922, fought for the freedom and unity of Ireland, to secure justice for the citizens who suffered very severely, and particularly those citizens in the Six Counties who suffered the total loss of their homes and property without any compensation whatsoever?
That is another question altogether.
Is the President aware, in connection with this question of compensation, that there are many citizens in the Six Counties who, on account of carrying out certain instructions in the pre-Truce days, had their homes burned out; that in some cases they were awarded compensation to the extent of only 50 per cent. of what they claimed and of what they could stand over—authentic cases—and that in other cases there was no compensation awarded whatsoever?
I regret there are many cases of hardship, not alone there but here, that we have been unable to remedy.
I desire to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the adjournment.
May I ask what matter is going to be raised?
We will get that settled at the end of Questions.