asked the Minister for Defence whether he is aware that John Fenlon, formerly of St. Clair Villa, Carlow, and now residing at 37 Upper Clanbrassil Street, Dublin, was arrested on the 23rd November, 1922, at Newtown, County Carlow, by a party of troops of the National Army; that, it is alleged, he was seriously wounded while in military custody; that he is still suffering from the effects of that ill-treatment; and whether the Minister will take steps to provide adequate compensation for this man.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - WOUNDING OF PRISONER IN MILITARY CUSTODY.
I am aware that the man referred to was arrested in November, 1922. I believe that whilst in military custody he received some flesh wounds which were not serious and from which he recovered rapidly. I understand that these wounds were not likely to give him any later trouble. I also understand that while waging war against the State he had been seriously injured by the explosion of a bomb which, I presume, was intended to be used against the servants of this State. As I informed this House in the Adjournment Debate on the 22nd March last, I am not prepared to recommend any payments of ex gratia grants from the Government in such cases.
If evidence is forthcoming to the Minister that this man, John Fenlon, is suffering from the effects of bullet wounds inflicted while he was in the custody of his troops, will he consider giving him adequate compensation?
No.
Am I to understand the Minister to say that he will not? Does the Minister consider it good policy to have this man going around the country unable to work as a result of receiving ill-treatment and of being shot while in custody?
As far as I know this man is minus a hand or an arm which he lost through the accidental explosion of a bomb which he had for use against our troops.
That is so.
Under Section 9 of the Act which provides compensation for damage to property the Deputy will find the principle that the people who waged war against this State should not be financed by the people of the State. The Deputy will remember, too, that on a previous occasion I referred to the Amnesty Resolution which prevents me taking any action with regard to these matters.
I would like to point out to the Minister that John Fenlon does not claim that Free State troops were in any way responsible for the loss of his arm, but it is alleged that, after he had been arrested and while in custody, he was ill-treated very severely: that he was brought out in the barrack square and shot by a sergeant-major, in the presence of about one hundred other prisoners and Free State troops. I want to know from the Minister if proof is forthcoming that John Fenlon is still suffering from the effects of these wounds, to the extent that he is unable to work, will he consider making provision for compensation?
I have already stated that I will not consider that. I should like to point out that this man was a prisoner with us for a year or more after these events. During that time he constantly asked to be released because of the injury to his arm or because of the loss of his hand or arm. There was a proposal made to him that he could be operated upon as a prisoner. He refused to accept that. During all that time, which covered a considerable period, there was never any question of there being any residuary effects of any injuries he received from our troops. They all referred to the injuries he received while waging war against our troops. From the facts that I have before me, there is everything to lead me not to believe that any disadvantages he suffers from come from anything he suffered from our troops. I have, however, reason to believe that whatever disadvantages he suffers from come from his own actions.
Does the Minister deny that he was taken out on the barrack square and shot by the troops, and that he was ill-treated?
I refer the Deputy to the answer I gave him.
Does the Minister deny that John Fenlon was shot?
I do not deny that he was shot.
Then the Minister does not deny that after being taken a prisoner he was taken out on the barrack square and shot and ill-treated? It was only a week before his arrest that he lost his hand. On one occasion he was taken out on the barrack square and shot and ill-treated without any provocation whatever, and on another occasion his teeth were knocked out. Does the Minister, as the mouth-piece of the policy of the Government in this instance, consider it good policy to have such men as that wounded on similar occasions going around the country unable to work, and without the means of sustaining life? Does he think that good national policy? Does he not think that if there are any legal handicaps to prevent him from giving proper assistance to such men that these handicaps should be abolished at once?
Were there an Utopia in which people pay pensions to people who wage war on them, and who suffered injury because of that, I would not like to live in that Utopia.
I cannot allow a debate on this matter now.
In view of the unsatisfactory replies of the Minister, I wish to give notice that I would like to raise the matter on the adjournment.
Would the Minister deny that people who waged war against the country prior to 1921 are now in receipt of compensation?
That is a separate question.