asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that Liberty Hall, Dublin, was the General Headquarters of the Irish Republican Army up to noon on Easter Monday, April 24th, 1916; whether these premises were demolished by British artillery fire and their entire contents removed or destroyed by British military forces; whether the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, which owned the premises, made application for compensation and was informed that its claim was rejected because it was held that the Union had participated in the Insurrection; whether all other similar claims for compensation have been paid, with the exception of a few (of small amount) rejected for the same reason; whether the Union two years ago renewed its claim; whether the Minister then refused to entertain the claim, notwithstanding his promise to do so when the matter was mentioned in the discussion of the Estimates in July, 1927; and whether the Minister is aware that the only persons now denied compensation are those who the British Government considered were implicated in the Insurrection.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Claim for Demolition of Liberty Hall, Dublin.
The facts in regard to the destruction of Liberty Hall in April, 1916, and the claim for compensation lodged by the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union with the British Property Losses Committee of 1916 are as stated by the Deputy. As to the Union renewing its claim two years ago, the facts are that in the course of the debate of 6th July, 1927, on the Estimate for Property Losses Compensation, Deputy William O'Brien raised the question of compensation for the damage to Liberty Hall, which he said was the only building damaged in 1916 for which compensation had not been paid, and I replied that I was not sure about the case, but that I would agree with him that if his supposition were correct, namely, that it was the only building damaged in 1916 for which compensation had not been paid, compensation ought to be paid. I did not, as the Deputy suggests, promise to pay compensation, but undertook to have the matter investigated. This was done, and, as a result, it was discovered that a number of other cases had been rejected at the time.
In coming to a decision not to entertain the application of the Union, I was influenced by a number of important considerations, namely (1) any action that might be taken by the Government would have to be general in character and would open the door to a great variety of claims in respect not only of property but also of personal injuries, thereby imposing a heavy burden on the Exchequer; (2) the investigation of the claims and assessing of compensation would be an impossible task in view of the difficulty of securing reliable evidence after such a lapse of time; (3) the Provisional Government in 1922 by public notice proclaimed the 21st January, 1919, as the commencement of the period of damage or loss in respect of which liability for compensation was accepted by the State, and the same date was fixed in the Damage to Property Compensation Act, 1923, and the Government could not accordingly go back to April, 1916, without involving themselves in a liability for compensation in respect of injuries or loss sustained between then and the 21st January, 1919, which would increase very substantially the burden on the Exchequer.
In reply to the final part of the Deputy's question, I may say that I am not aware that the only persons now denied compensation are those who the British Government considered were concerned in the Rising. Inquiries have, in fact, been made at my Department by persons who claimed to have suffered personal injuries or damage to property in 1916, but who did not receive any compensation, and I cannot assume that all or any of these were persons who took part in the Rising. Apart from the 1916 cases, however, there must also be a number of persons who suffered losses in the period between April, 1916, and 21st January, 1919, who did not receive any compensation.
Am I to take it that the Minister's reason for refusing compensation in this case is because there are cases other than the Transport Union case in connection with Liberty Hall? Does the Minister deny that there is a liability on the State to pay compensation? If the Minister admits the liability, is he not in a position to make whatever arrangements are necessary and, if it is essential, to come to the House in order to get sufficient authority to pay compensation?
I do not admit there is any liability. I say that the matter should have been raised, as it easily could have been raised, when the damage to property legislation was being passed. I say that it is really too late in the day now, and while it might happen that it would be possible to investigate this particular case properly, if we were to go back at all, we would have to admit other cases which could not be properly investigated. Consequently, the door being closed, and having been allowed to remain closed so long, I do not think it could now be opened.
Could not this case be dealt with in a manner similar to the case that was discussed on Deputy Aiken's motion in the House quite recently, with which the Minister promised to deal?
No; I do not think so. As I say, this particular case suffered even more from the point of view of delay in having the matter brought forward for investigation.
Does the Minister not believe that this is really a debt of honour on the part of the State, considering the part that the Union took in the Rebellion? Will he undertake to look into the matter again?
I have looked into this matter two or three times since it was first brought to my notice in the House two and a half years ago. I said that while I might be disposed to consider it favourably, I had come to the conclusion that it would not be right to reopen the matter because of the difficulties that would arise from considering cases as far back as 1916 and the utter impossibility that would in most cases exist of getting reliable evidence.
This is a special case.
How many other cases of a similar character are there?
There are numbers of other cases. We have made no attempt to find the actual number. We considered this case on the basis that it was the only case. When we found it was not the only case and that there were others, we came to the conclusion that we would take no further action in regard to it.