I wish to give notice that on the motion for the adjournment I intend to raise the question as to what steps the President took, or intends to take, to provide adequate compensation to Northern Nationalists whose houses were burned out from the year 1920 to 1922, and who received no compensation whatever because British military officers put in the plea in court that such property was destroyed owing to military necessity. I wish to raise the question here, because the President and the Cumann na nGaedheal Party generally claim that this Assembly is the legal descendant of the First and Second Dáil, under whose authority the I.R.A. carried out operations which caused their houses to be destroyed.
AINMLIOST CATHAOIRLEACH D'AINMNIU. - QUESTION ON THE ADJOURNMENT.
I think this question was raised before, but I had not an opportunity of discussing with the Deputy what exactly it is he desires to raise. I am not quite clear from the notice he has given what it is he wants to raise. If it is the question of the destruction of houses within the Six-County area by British forces, as military operations before the date of the Truce, I think he would be in order in raising that, but I am not clear about the other question as to a subsequent date.
I had in mind, when I asked the President this question, a certain half-dozen cases of people whose houses were burned by the British military and Northern Specials. Some of them were burned out in 1920 and others in 1922. The operations which preceded the burning of these houses by British military were carried out under the authority of the First and Second Dáil. Seeing that the President and his Party claim that this House is the legal descendant of the First and Second Dáil, I think it is quite proper to raise these matters here.
I am in a difficulty as I am not aware of all the facts. Operations by British armed military forces before the Truce and the compensation to individuals may be proper matters to raise, but the Deputy's introduction of other forces, not under control of the British Government, with whom the Treaty was made, is another question. It seems to me that the question could be raised as to what steps could be taken to have adequate compensation awarded to Northern Nationalists for the destruction of their homes through the operation of British forces prior to the Truce.
Is it not a fact that under the Treaty and the Constitution Northern Ireland was technically part of the Free State until one month of the coming into operation of the Constitution—that although not theoretically, Northern Ireland was technically part of the Free State?
That is a nice point which I am afraid I could not answer. I will consider the matter before the adjournment. What I want to get clear is that we shall only discuss matters which are properly matters for us to discuss.
Clause 4, on which I addressed a question to the President to-day, will also come up.
On a point of order, I wish to say that if the President had given me a straight answer to a straight question which I asked him on the 2nd November the House would be much clearer about this. When I asked him a straight question he muttered to himself for a while in the hope, I think, of confusing me and putting me off questions for the further elucidation of the matter. To-day, when I asked him again, he had a cold, and the Minister for Finance answered. Afterwards he recovered his voice a bit of talk about something I did not raise. I want to get an answer to the question I put down on the paper. It has not been answered to my satisfaction. The particulars asked for have not been given. I want to raise the question on the adjournment in another effort to extract an answer.
The Deputy is making a statement to suit himself. If he had told me exactly what he wanted and gave me sufficient time to prepare an answer it would be quite a different thing. I am asked on the spur of the moment to recollect events which occurred over the last three or four or five years. Only to-day on this question did I recollect receiving a deputation from people whose property was burned in O'Connell street, and also the difference between the Act of 1923 and the Criminal Malicious Injury code. The Act of 1923 deals with the restoration of property, but it does not allow for compensation in respect of jewellery and several other matters. If the Deputy asked me a question with respect to the difference between the Acts I would have given him the information at once.
The question as raised in the Deputy's notice given to me is not the same exactly as the matters raised in the question on the Order Paper.
You have to take in conjunction with the question which appeared on the Order Paper on November 2nd.
I know that question, but the adjournment procedure is intended for a Deputy who has already given notice to allow a particular matter to be raised, and the tendency is to restrict that matter rather than to enlarge it. If the Deputy raised a question, for instance, about Wexford, it would prevent Deputies raising analagous questions in other areas. Deputy de Valera stated that he desired to raise the whole matter of Clause 4 of the London agreement. That is a general question out of which the other question of Northern Nationalists might arise.
The President has said he has not got due notice of this. I am prepared to give him as much notice as he might honestly require to get an answer. If he wants a few days more in order to think further and bring facts to his mind I am prepared to give it to him, but I would like before giving him that time to get some assurance from him that I will get an answer to my question.
I do not mind the Deputy raising it at present. I am prepared to meet it, but "Northern Nationalists" is a rather large term, and they have been abandoned by more than me, assuming that is what the Deputy wants to get at.
Leave it over till the adjournment, and we will then see what the Deputy wants to discuss.
I think the President is aware of what we want to discuss.