Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 May 1930

Vol. 35 No. 2

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 14—Property Losses Compensation.

Mr. Blythe

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £168,000 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha án Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1931, chun íocaíochtanna i dtaobh mille no díobháil do mhaoin fé sna hAchtanna um Dhíobháil do Mhaoin (Cúiteamh), 1923 go 1926, agus ar shlite eile; agus chun deontaisí d'íoc a socruíodh a íoc do bharr mola an Property Losses (Ireland) Committee, 1916, mar chúiteamh i bhfoirgintí a milleadh i mBaile Atha Cliath i rith Seachtain na Cásca, 1916.

That a sum not exceeding £168,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for payments in respect of destruction of, or injuries to Property under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Acts, 1923 to 1926, and otherwise; and for payment of grants awarded on the recommendation of the Property Losses (Ireland) Committee, 1916, as compensation for buildings destroyed in Dublin during Easter Week, 1916.

This is a Vote which will very shortly disappear from the Estimates. A very large sum was paid out last year, and if the amount in the Estimate is paid out in the present year only comparatively small sums will remain for discharge thereafter. I think the only thing I need mention with reference to the Vote is the claims of Northern Nationalists. It has been found that twelve cases are prima facie within the scope of the offer made by the President. In these twelve cases the forms of statutory declaration have recently been completed by all the applicants, and investigation is being pursued, though there are certain difficulties, owing to the location of the property that was damaged and to the lapse of time, in completing that investigation.

Mr. MacEntee

I am sure the House will be glad to learn that something is at last being done for the Northern Nationalists. In that connection I would like to know whether, included among those whose cases he has felt it possible to consider, the Minister has considered that of Mr. James McGuill of Dromintee.

Mr. Blythe

I could not say.

Mr. MacEntee

Because that was a case of particular hardship, the facts of which Deputy Aiken related to the House on the occasion of his motion. I do not wish to make an ad misericordiam appeal to the Minister in connection with it, but I do think that if there is one man whose case deserves consideration on its merits for the services which he was willing to render and the assistance which he gave to the Republican Party from 1916 until after the Truce, that man is Mr. McGuill. I do hope, even though it may somewhat exceed the conditions which the Minister laid down when he promised to consider the case of the Northern Nationalists, that he will give sympathetic consideration to the case of this man.

In this connection also there is another case, with the facts of which I think most Deputies are familiar, and that is the case of Mr. Pat O'Byrne, whose premises in Henry Street were destroyed in 1916. I know again that there are special difficulties in that case, but I think all of us who are familiar with the circumstances of Mr. O'Byrne would be glad, even though it might entail the introduction of a Private Bill, if the Minister could see his way to do something for him. It is pitiable to think of the circumstances to which that gentleman has been reduced, in contrast with the circumstances in which he formerly lived and to feel that the primary cause of his present position was the Insurrection of 1916.

I think that we may regard him as being the only civilian who has suffered serious loss in consequence of the Insurrection, and whose lot has not been ameliorated, and whose loss has not been diminshed in any way. Even though it may require special legislation to deal with this case, I am sure that not only on this side of the House but from every section of the House action of that kind on the part of the Minister would receive a warm welcome.

Mr. White

I desire to join with Deputy MacEntee in his request to the Minister to take into consideration the case of Mr. McGuill. This is a very deserving case and it is one that is worthy of sympathetic consideration. I desire to impress on the Minister the necessity for making further enquiries with a view to giving the man some compensation.

Mr. Blythe

I cannot say anything about the McGuill case. Perhaps it is scarcely relevant to this discussion, but it does seem to me that the entire blame in connection with this case falls on the shoulders of Deputy Aiken, and that we would really be taking responsibility arising out of any wrongful act by Deputy Aiken. However, the matter has not been put forward on that basis. With regard to the Pat O'Byrne case, I would not hold out any hope at all. I considered the case myself, and it has been considered frequently by others and, looking at it from one aspect, the gentleman's misfortunes may have come out of the Insurrection, but from another angle they could have been due to his own lack of foresight and his own miscalculations. I think it is only to a slight degree that you can ascribe them to the Insurrection, though they might not have happened if the Insurrection did not take place. I would not say his present position is due to the Insurrection of 1916. The position might be different if he had a person who would act more wisely in regard to the award and in regard to the construction of the premises afterwards; perhaps he would not have suffered the same loss. I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of the Pat O'Byrne case. I was familiar with them because, owing to representations put up, I found it necessary to read the file on a couple of occasions. I would not hold out any hope at all in that case. While the details of any of the cases have not come up to me, they are being examined in the Department, and I do not know what view is being taken departmentally. The other case is a different type of case altogether from the Pat O'Byrne case.

Mr. MacEntee

In regard to what the Minister has said about Mr. O'Byrne, I would like to mention that that gentleman brought an action against the Post Office in 1920, and the judge was debarred from giving a decision in his favour because of the fact that one could not take an action against the King. He did say in his judgment that Mr. O'Byrne's case was one of very grave and serious hardship and one to which the Post Office should give consideration. The two facts which appear to me to be salient in the matter are, first of all, the origin of the man's misfortunes. Whatever his own personal feelings may be—I do not know and I have not heard what they are—I believe the origin of his misfortunes was the 1916 Insurrection. The second fact is the recommendation made by the judge that the man's case should be considered favourably and that he should get some compensation for the loss he had suffered. I think those two things ought to outweigh in the Minister's mind any folly or mistake which Mr. O'Byrne committed. These things appear to me to be things which ought to determine——

Mr. Blythe

I hope I did not give any impression that Mr. O'Byrne did anything except not handle the case well. He proceeded to erect a building and had not the funds to do so. His errors were of that kind.

Mr. MacEntee

Is it not a fact that he had to proceed to erect the building in order to secure portion of the ex gratia grant given by the British Government at the time? Before he was able to build, the Post Office stepped in and took over the property from him. Though he had certain rights as a lessee in the matter he found himself deprived of those rights. Like the Minister, I am not quite familiar with all the details, but I do remember there was one circumstance which was held against Mr. O'Byrne, and that was that he received what would be considered a fair offer to settle the matter. He denies that that offer was ever submitted to him; he denies, in fact, that the offer was ever made. If these were the circumstances, I suggest the Minister should inquire into them. Mr. O'Byrne's contention is that this alleged offer never came to his notice. Had it been, he possibly would have accepted it and it would have enabled him to retrieve his position, but he denies that it was ever made. Then we have the judge's statement that in his opinion it was a case in which some ex gratia grant should be made by the Post Office, and we have also the primary and fundamental fact that the man's misfortunes arose out of the 1916 Insurrection. In view of these facts, I think the Minister ought favourably to consider the matter, and I am sure any proposal to mete out justice to this man would receive a warm welcome from every section of the House. The Minister ought to see, even if it requires special legislation, whether he cannot do something to meet Mr. O'Byrne's claims.

Mr. Haslett

I do not wish to discuss the merits or demerits of these matters, but I hold in my hand a letter sent to me, and I understand that a copy of it was sent to the Minister. It is arising out of these property losses. In this case, in February, 1922, a gentleman was taken from his home in his motor car and he makes up the amount of his claim to be £330 13s. 6d. Out of that claim he received £75. That man's case was across the Border, too. Does that come under what the Minister has been speaking about?

Mr. Blythe

Damage to property was covered by the offer made by the President. If the person to whom the Deputy refers thought he had a claim, he should have sent it in. We fixed, in the case of these losses, the last date on which we would receive claims. I do not know the exact nature of the loss that was sustained. Unless it was damage to property, it would not be included at all. In any case, in order to prevent that matter dragging on indefinitely a date had to be fixed, and I think it would not be possible to admit the claim now if it has not been sent in already. I do not know whether it has or not.

Mr. Haslett

I do not know either, but I have to ask the Minister if damage to property in 1922 comes within the ambit of what we are now discussing?

Mr. Blythe

I do not think it was intended to go as late as that.

Vote agreed to.