Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1931

Vol. 39 No. 10

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 14—Property Losses Compensation.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £124,700 chun slánuithe na suíme is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun íocaíochtanna i dtaobh mille no díobháil Mhaoin fé sna hAchtanna um Dhíobháil do Mhaoin (Cúiteamh), 1923 go 1926, agus ar shlite eile.

That a sum not exceeding £124,700 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, 1932, for payments in respect of destruction of or injuries to property, under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Acts, 1923 to 1926, and otherwise.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whether this is in order or not under what was sub-head (d) of the Vote. I wonder has the Minister been able to do anything in the case of that poor man, Pat O'Byrne, whose case has been before the House? I need not recite the facts to the Minister, but it seems to be a pitiful case. I quite admit that it was not handled in the best way by the man himself, but I feel that his present unfortunate position is, to a certain extent, attributable to the Rising of 1916. If it had not been for that he would not have been out in the street. That was the primary cause of the whole chain of events which have left him in this unfortunate position. Many members of the Minister's Party and members of the Labour Party have approached him in the matter, and there would be agreement in all parts of the House if special steps were taken to help him. It may be that on the merits of the case he has a great deal to blame himself for as regards his present position. But at the same time, in view of the fact that it did originate in the burning of Henry Street in 1916, I think we should not entirely wash our hands of any obligation to him in the matter. If we can do anything to help him now, any action the Minister might take would meet with the general concurrence of all sections of the House.

Mr. Blythe

There are any number of other hard cases, and I think more deserving cases, although they are not people who have the persistence to go around to Deputies and gain audience of them. Many cases have been brought to my notice of people who are in an extreme financial condition, perhaps in a condition of poverty, and their poverty is due to circumstances arising out of the Anglo-Irish struggle. There are a number of cases one has to meet from time to time. It may be difficult to verify the facts, but people will come to you in great distress and say that the beginning of the break-up of their business was that they spent so much in keeping men on the run or keeping columns or other things like that. That element is sufficiently important possibly to have been a deciding factor in particular cases, but there may have been wilful neglect of business or many other contributing factors. I quite often had these cases before me. I felt that quite probably, if it had not been for the struggle or their own part in the struggle, their financial position would not have been what it is to-day. Yet we have not taken any steps to deal with these cases, largely because of the extreme difficulty of being certain of the facts, but also because every person who has got into bad circumstances because of certain expenditure he made, can claim compensation. You might as well claim compensation for people who are in good circumstances because of this. If we are going to compensate for losses we must compensate for losses irrespective of whether the person is in a poor position or is relatively well off. Therefore it seems to me that we can hardly deal with hard cases of this sort. I have not looked at the file, but my recollection is that the misfortunes were entirely due to miscalculations and so forth of the individual himself, whilst possibly if there had been no Rising in 1916, and if his premises were never burned down, the person might be well off. On the other hand, there may have been vicissitudes in business that we do not know of.

I am satisfied from examining the case that he has no legal or, in fact, moral claim on us, and not as great a moral claim as thousands of others who have not pleaded or canvassed so persistently. I do not see any ground for dealing with a hard case simply because it is continually brought to our notice. If proposing some sort of general scheme for dealing with hard cases many cases quite as good as this one could be made.

Mr. de Valera

I would like to put it to the Minister, quite apart from the circumstances of Mr. Byrne at the moment, which I think should be left out, that it is a question whether we have a moral responsibility. I got the facts of the case some years ago. I was not in a position to examine them with him, but there was prima facie evidence to satisfy me that it would be the duty of anyone who wanted to be fair to test whether the statements made were true or not. It is not a question of the man's own fault. At the time it seemed to me that his claim was not allowed because of some legal technicality, which was on all fours with the position that arose in connection with teachers' pensions. Perhaps the Minister may remember the case that was brought forward by Deputy Fahy, where a teacher was deprived of his rights owing to misunderstanding a circular that went round, and because he did not make application in the prescribed way. It appears to me there was a similar legal technicality in the case of Mr. Byrne, and it was through the operation of that that he was deprived of a right he would otherwise have had. I think it is hardly fair to allow justice to go by the board, in default simply because there has been some legal technicality. It would take me some time to go into the details, but I know that a very full file was presented. I went through it and satisfied myself that there was at least prima facie evidence for ascertaining to what extent this man's claim was justified. I think it is due to the man in justice that the Minister should go through it and have an examination as to whether the assertions made by Mr. Byrne are true or not. If true, it seems that he has a good case. It was only ruled out by what I might call a legal technicality, and justice was not done to him accordingly.

Mr. Blythe

I am not able to speak in great detail about the case now, because it is very hard to recollect the precise facts. I know that I went into the case some years ago very carefully with another Minister. We spent a good many hours discussing it with a very influential citizen that Mr. Byrne had induced to meet us. We were satisfied at the time that neither on a legal technicality nor on the broader moral ground had Mr. Byrne any claim against the State other than the sort of claim any person who had misfortunes might perhaps make.

Mr. de Valera

As far as I am concerned, my impression was quite the opposite.

Mr. G. Boland

The Minister referred to the difficulty of proving losses that might have been sustained in the case of Mr. Byrne. There is a particular case in which he should have no such difficulty—that of Mr. Patrick Ryan, of Doon. I think the Minister enjoyed his hospitality on many a day. Mr. Ryan made repeated applications. The Minister knows that he is a man who was very lavish with his wealth during the trouble. He actually produced bills for some of the few he did keep, which only amounted to a couple of hundred pounds. The Minister and the late Quartermaster-General of the Army, Seán O Muirthuile, are aware of the circumstances. Mr. Ryan practically ruined himself, but he was treated as a sort of impostor by both the Minister and the President. There is no question about his case. The Minister may have assumed a judicial attitude in this matter, pretending that he did not know anything about it, when he has personal experience that Mr. Ryan suffered in the movement, and did not get one penny.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid this particular case does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. Boland

Why not?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a Vote for Property Losses.

Mr. Boland

There is property involved in this case too. I do not want to let the Minister get away by stating that the difficulty arose of showing how some people suffered. There is personal knowledge of this case, but Mr. Ryan was treated in a callous manner. Of course, the principal reason for that was that he did not see eye to eye with the Minister in his later attitude. Has the Minister anything to say now?

Mr. Blythe

So far as I know, I do not think any payment has been made to people who kept men on the run or who kept columns. I was not in Mr. Ryan's house except in the early days. I know that he was very generous and very lavish, but I do not know whether any payment was made. The decision not to make such payments was really because of the enormous sum they would run to, taking the country generally, and the difficulty there would be of checking the amounts in any way. Cases could be pointed to that could be checked, but there would be an enormous number that could not be checked.

Mr. Boland

I admit that. Mr. Ryan understands the difficulty, but he actually got it vouched by Mr. O Muirthuile, and it was turned down. He was treated in a most callous fashion. Mr. Ryan was not the type of man who would claim unless he came on hard times. At least he should be paid the amount of money for which he had vouchers. I cannot say what the amount was. He was able to show that he was out of pocket a certain sum, and he had receipts. His case received no consideration.

Mr. Blythe

The real difficulty is that there must be a general decision to pay for that sort of thing. It is not possible to take out one individual or twenty or a hundred individuals. There must be a decision to pay under what is described as an Indemnity Act or else not to pay. The general decision was not to pay because of general considerations. As I indicated there might be many people who could trace their difficulties in that way. There may be contributory causes—I am not referring to any particular case —where such people are now in extreme financial difficulty. Billeting was only a contributory cause, and perhaps only a minor cause, while in others it might be the main contributory cause. The decision taken at the time the Indemnity Act was passed and that the committee was set up was to exclude billeting from the consideration of the committee. There was no special treatment of a particular individual.

Mr. MacEntee

In the case of Mr. Ryan certain moneys were provided for expenses in connection with an operation. I think it was at Knock-long. The money was actually advanced and he held receipts.

Mr. Boland

There is no doubt about that, and the Minister should know it if anyone knows it. This may be out of order, but the Minister introduced the matter first. A certain section of people who kept people like the Minister and others during the Black-and-Tan time were actually paid. Mr. Ryan was not the type of man who would make a claim. I admit that he was a bit too generous with people.

At least it was money he could prove that he handed out and paid to Collins, money that he got a receipt for at first. When I took up this case he was in extreme difficulties. He was turned down as if he were a complete stranger, and as if he had no claim at all.

Mr. Blythe

I have explained that there was a general rule adopted and that rule must apply to everybody.

Mr. de Valera

Might I suggest to the Minister that that was with respect to billeting, whereas it was suggested here that this was money in the way of a loan, and if it was advanced really in the form of a loan, I think it ought to be repaid.

Mr. Blythe

I do not think that the papers in the case ever came to me. I have no recollection of seeing the papers in the case. I know that local collections made by volunteers were not repaid although some people gave very big sums.

Mr. G. Boland

That was a forced levy. This is quite a different matter altogether. People had to pay whether they liked it or not, as they have to pay the income tax now.

Motion agreed to.