When this motion by Deputy MacEoin was last before the House, the Deputy, in moving it, seemed to be under a misapprehension when he stated that the Indemnity Act put a statutory bar to compensation in all cases where food, clothing and equipment were given voluntarily to members of the flying columns or where arms were voluntarily surrendered. The Deputy, in making that statement, must have confused the Indemnity Act of 1924 with the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923. In point of fact, the Indemnity Act Committee recommended payment in all cases where goods were given voluntarily or where they were taken forcibly or under compulsion. Where the Committee found that the goods had, in fact, passed out of the ownership of the person who made the claim in respect of them, the Minister for Finance awarded compensation in every case. Over 5,000 claims were dealt with by this Committee and 2,900 were successful. As I stated on the last occasion, compensation totalling £80,300 was paid in respect of them. Therefore if there were any cases in which goods or equipment or food or clothing were given or afforded to the Volunteers in respect of which no compensation was given, they can only fall under two classes—(1) cases in which, for one reason or another, a claim was not made to the Committee established under the Indemnity Act within the prescribed time, that is, within three months from the date of the passing of the Act. I grant that, in those cases, there is considerable ground for hardship because the time allowed for making the claims was very short and, possibly, some of the people who might have good and sustainable claims to make would not have been, owing to the political situation at the time, in a position to press those claims. I am quite certain that there were a considerable number of people who, on grounds of what they believed to be political principle, did not make claims which they might otherwise have made to the Government. So far as that section of the community is concerned, the Government hope to introduce legislation in the near future which will enable those claims to be dealt with. There is a second section composed of people who did go before the Indemnity Act Committee and were not able to sustain their claim there. It is not proposed to do anything in regard to them under the new Bill. As I was saying on Friday, it is quite clear that, so far as paragraphs (a) and (b) of Deputy MacEoin's motion are concerned, the only question with which we have to deal is the question of billeting. That was a very difficult problem to deal with in 1924. It has become a much more difficult problem with the lapse of time. The State in 1924 was in a better economic position to consider these claims and in a better position to investigate them than it is in 1932. But in 1924 claims for compensation——
Private Deputies' Business. - 1916-1923 Period: Claims for Compensation.
Is the Minister aware that one of the arguments put forward by the late Administration was that there were several people outside the House who had information to give, and would not give it in 1924. Does he deny that these people are available now to give the information —members on the opposite Benches as well as on these?
I am perfectly certain that if this question of billeting could have been satisfactorily dealt with in 1924, the Govenment of the day, in view of the fact that they were anxious to attract the support of every section of the community at that time, would not have refused to consider those claims—that is, if they felt they could possibly set up any satisfactory machinery for dealing with them.
To which evidence could be tendered.
They set up, as I stated, the Indemnity Act Committee. That Committee considered 5,300 claims for compensation in respect of arms, of equipment, of food, and of clothing voluntarily given or, by compulsion, surrendered to the Volunteers. The Committee which dealt with these claims could quite as easily have dealt with claims for billeting if it was felt that it was practicable to consider that sort of claim at all. The Committee, so far as the claims in respect of food, clothing and equipment were concerned, laboured under exactly the same disability as the Deputy alleges the Committee would have laboured under in respect of billeting—the disability which the Deputy alleges compelled this House to rule out claims for billeting and not allow them to come before the Committee at all. If there is any substance in that contention, then the Committee should equally have been precluded from considering the claims which it did consider for compensation in respect of food, clothing and equipment. So it is quite clear that the circumstances which the Deputy has mentioned was not the determining factor which decided the Government and this House to rule out the claims of billeting entirely. The factor was this, that first of all there was no machinery which could investigate those claims. There was no possible way of determining the circumstances, of determining the justice or otherwise of those claims, and there was no possible way in which compensation could be paid in respect of such claims if such claims could be equitably assessed. That was true in 1924. It is much more true in 1932. I wonder if Deputy MacEoin has ever seen some of the claims which might be presented to a Committee in regard to this matter.
I have seen perhaps more than the Minister.
Possibly, but I have seen some. If the Deputy has seen even as many as I have perhaps it would be no harm if I were to refresh his memory as to the sort of claim which might be presented. I have one here. It has been received quite recently, following I think the introduction of the Deputy's motion. Here is the claim: "I have been informed you are having claims for maintenance of the I.R.A. during the Anglo-Irish trouble. Well, sir, I maintained off and on from June to December sixteen men. Myself and my sisters gave them our beds and got up at every hour of the night to admit them. I may also mention that I had to see an eye specialist soon after that. I strained my eyes watching for them." I will now put it to the Deputy if he were a member of the Indemnity Committee——
Read the letter to the end.
If Deputy MacEoin were a member of the Indemnity Act Committee——
I must ask the Minister not to make any comment in the middle of the letter. Let him read the letter first.
The Deputy seems to be unaware of the fact that he is implying that I am suppressing something.
Read the letter.
I have read the letter. I have not mentioned any names. I am asking the Deputy, and I think in fairness to the House he should in his speech tell us how if he were a member of the Indemnity Act Committee or of any other Committee set up by this House what compensation would he award in respect of a claim of that sort on this letter?
The Minister has not read the letter through. I want him to read the letter and to make his point on it afterwards.
As the Minister is not quoting names——
Let him leave out the names.
I cannot dictate to the Minister as to the nature of his speech.
I put it to the Chair, surely if a document is introduced the House is entitled to hear the whole of the document. I am only stating a general principle.
I understand the type of letter that is being read because I have received thousands of them myself. I did not ask the Minister to quote the name or to make a case that could be identified at all, but I want him to read it out to the end.
I hope this is not a new form of obstruction. This is the whole of the letter:—
I have been informed that you are having claims for maintenance of the I.R.A. during the Anglo-Irish trouble. Well, sir, I maintained off and on from June to November 16 men. Myself and my sisters gave them our beds and got up at every hour of the night to admit them. I may also mention that I had to see an eye specialist soon after that. I strained my eyes watching for them. I had a doctor coming here at every hour of the night and a man almost died here. I claim for all my trouble and maintenance £60.
That is just the thing that I wanted that was not read.
Very well, supposing that Deputy MacEoin was a member of an Indemnity Act Committee how could he possibly deal with a letter like that? He is to take at its face value this letter and give the man £60! What record could those people have had of the number of times that people were seated in their houses, what amount of commodities did they place at their disposal and what amount of food did they give them? I will give another letter. This claim is set out in a more ordered fashion.
(1) Food and lodgings supplied to 14 officers and men from the 14th July to 22nd September at £1 per week—£240; cigarettes and drink supplied during the time—£60; service and damages done to four boats used for pleasure by those and other men encamped on the mountains— £30; 650 meals supplied periodically between the 14th July and the 22nd December at 1/- per meal—£32 10s; cigarettes and drink supplied periodically between 14th July and 22nd December—£25; three stacks of turf destroyed by barricading roads—£18; knives, forks, spoons, cookery, utensils and blankets supplied—£20; groceries supplied—£35.
The first thing I would look upon in regard to that thing is that quite a considerable number of these items are for food and clothing and equipment possibly. Probably they have been already considered by the Indemnity Act Committee who, if not, would probably come across it again, but what check can there be as to the number of meals supplied and as to the amount of service and the damage done to these boats? As to the amount of cigarettes and drink supplied under two heads during that time, what check can there be? I have another typical case. The claim runs:—
I claim the undersigned amount for support and work done for men on the run—so and so £109 10s; for so and so £109 10s.
This is supposed to be the amount for support and work done.
I think that the Minister is prejudicing very considerably the actions of the Committee that I am asking to have set up. He has cited a case that can be identified by somebody. After he has cited that and I cite from this side of the House we are both making the case for persons that can be identified. I think the Minister should not go into these cases. In my reply I was going to ask your permission to make a case such as he is making before I had concluded. When one mentions certain particulars about somebody and something one is establishing one's case automatically. There is some such case in the Minister's mind and I think it is not good business. I would ask the Minister either to accept the principle or to reject it straight without going into details of individual cases, because that is what the Minister is doing.
A question has already been asked about the quotation of such letters, in whole or in part. They are not official documents. They are claims which have been sent in and are now submitted by the Minister to support his contention. The Minister is the best judge of the wisdom of doing so. The Chair is not the judge and, if such claims are quoted by the Minister, the Deputy is quite entitled to quote others in reply, but in neither case should names be mentioned.
But between the Minister and myself, we are committing the House to an acceptance of these things because, when we cite them, they can be recognised.
You will not commit the House by quoting them in argument.
These are the sort of claims which would undoubtedly be made in considerable numbers, if Deputy MacEoin's motion were accepted by this House. They would be as thick as the leaves in Vallambrosa, and they would increase with the fecundity of rodents. First of all, there are two claims in respect of support and work done for one man. In respect of one man, he claims £109 10s., and, in respect of another, he claims £109 10s. For one man for two days he claims 12/-; for another man, he claims 12/-, and for another man for four days, he claims £1 4s., while for another man he claims £27 12s. for three months. Then follow a considerable number of men in respect of whom he claims two days at 12/-. Then he comes on down, and there is another man for whom he claims £27 12s. in respect of three months. Then there is an item "48 Dinners, £6," followed by "Bedding and Clothes, £15," and "Canvas and Boards for camp, £5." Then there is "Money lent for buying guns and ammunition, £20," and "Conveying boxes of rifles in a car, £2." The total amount of the claim is £330. How are claims of this fantastic nature—because they are fantastic—going to be sifted and going to be examined, at least ten years after the event?
Because everybody is available to give the evidence.
Everybody is not available to give the evidence. Many of the men whose names might be mentioned in these cases might be under the ground.
But there are the higher officers.
The difficulty and cost of searching and investigating even one of these claims, ten years after the event, would make it absolutely impracticable to set up the Committee, or to consider them at all in the way in which Deputy MacEoin suggests they should be considered, apart altogether from whether they have any claim to consideration on their merits. These services, and it goes to the foundation of the whole matter, were rendered by the people at the time, because they regarded it as their patriotic duty to render them, just as any men to whom they were rendered regarded it as their patriotic duty to be in flying columns, the Volunteers or the I.R.A., and we do not propose, and we have never proposed, and Deputy MacEoin never proposed to pay the men who were in the I.R.A. as Volunteers, and not as mercenary soldiers, or to compensate them in any way for the services which they gave or the risks which they ran during the period of 1919-1921. We have always recognised that the Government had an obligation towards those who were disabled during the conflict, but the men who came out of that conflict unimpaired in health we have at any rate steadfastly refused to compensate in any way for what they did, as a matter of patriotic duty, and when we cannot accept that principle in regard to the men for whom these services were rendered, we certainly cannot accept it with regard to those who now propose to claim compensation for giving these men shelter when they were on the run and for housing and feeding those who were fighting for the cause of Irish independence.
Might I ask the Minister if he states that the farmers who did the work and gave the shelter are not impaired? The Minister says that he admits the right of those who were impaired——
Whose health was impaired, and certainly the farmers' health was not impaired no more than the health of those who were on the run was impaired.
I thought there would be at least two Deputies from Longford-Westmeath to talk on this motion, and I am rather disappointed that they did not.
Is Deputy MacEoin concluding?
Yes.
Because I want to make a claim on the Minister's generosity. I want to refer to a case which might be covered by Deputy MacEoin's motion. I refer to the case of a family identified with the national movement in this country for over a century—identified with the struggle of Ireland for national independence covering that period—and, in fact, if the records were examined it would be found that the family to whom I refer have even a longer record in the national life of this country than I claim for them.
I do not know if Deputy Anthony can go into the merits of the case of a particular family. I tried to stop the Minister from going into a case a moment ago, and I think it is hardly fair to the House——
I understood that the Deputy was anxious to find out whether a certain case would come within the scope of this motion. That was his preliminary statement.
Interpreting Deputy MacEoin's motion as literally as I can, I feel that it would cover the case to which I have just referred and to which I wish to make a further reference. The case I refer to is the case of the family of Kent. It is well-known to most members of this House that that family suffered more, perhaps——
Does the Deputy desire to find out whether that particular case comes within the scope of this motion or not; the merits of the case could not be argued here. That will be for the Commission if and when it is established.
I obey your ruling, sir, but I want to know from the Minister whether the motion would cover the case to which I have just referred and was about to refer to in greater detail when called to order by the Ceann Comhairle. The case to which I wish to bring the Minister's attention is where one member of a family was executed by the British Military Forces and the other brother died of wounds received in action.
Now, sir, I feel that the motion put down here in the names of Deputy MacEoin and Deputy O'Reilly should cover such a case because I feel that, whilst the Pension Bill with which we were dealing during the evening does not cover such cases, if this motion is accepted in principle by the Minister it may enable such persons as I have indicated to appear before the Commission and make a claim for loss sustained during that disturbed period in Irish history. If this Commission which Deputy MacEoin seeks to have set up were established it would undoubtedly give a good deal of satisfaction to many persons who have suffered material damage during that period, and I would ask the Minister, if he is not able to subscribe to sections A, B, C, and D in the Bill in all their implications, to at any rate yield to the demand which is I think fairly general but perhaps not made vocally throughout the country, that there have been a great many special cases of hardship. I am glad to say that, in the cases which I have in mind, these activities, in so far as they related to armed resistance to the established Government of the State, were not continued. These men were executed, one of them was executed by the British military authorities, and the other person to whom I refer, died of wounds received as a result of military action. Now, sir, if the Minister could see his way to accept the principle contained in General MacEoin's motion, and set up a Commission before which the persons I have indicated might appear and make a case, if they are not able to establish, in the opinion of that Commission, a good case for compensation of some kind or character, well then that would be the end of the whole matter. But if the Commission, as I suggest and as I suggested in this motion, were set up, it would enable many persons who now feel that they have a grievance to make their case before the Commission, and it would be a source of satisfaction, at any rate, that their side of the story was heard. I would suggest that the Minister should give some consideration at any rate to the matter and if he is not able to meet Deputy MacEoin on the motion as it is on the Order Paper that he might himself, of his own volition, institute an enquiry on the lines I have indicated.
A Chinn Comhairle, the Minister states that the principal objection to the motion is that the year 1924 would have been a very much better time to investigate claims of this nature. I agree that in normal circumstances his argument would be all right, but he must remember that in the year 1924 the position was not normal and there were people at that time who for various reasons—I do not want to go into all the reasons, but for example there were people who would not put in a claim at that time owing to the propaganda of himself and his Party before they came into the Dáil—although they had genuine claims, did not put them up. I agree that there would be a number of fantastic claims. The Minister mentioned that there would likely to be a number of fantastic claims, but at the same time I think he would find in his record, if he was pleased to produce some different record to that which he has produced, claims that would be supported very fully with regard to losses, with regard to people who gave their services at that time, and with regard to billeting and that sort of thing. In connection with the fact that people gave their services at that time, the same as the Volunteers gave them, and had not expected any payment, there may be something in that also, but at the same time there are people who have lost a tremendous amount, and there are people in this country who have been placed in the position that they are in absolute want owing to the fact that they gave such services as they did at that time, a large number of people, for instance, who, as an example of a similar nature, subscribed to Dáil Loan in 1920, never expected to be paid, but a great deal of expense has been gone to to have the money refunded to those people, and with regard to the expense that would be entailed in setting up a Committee of this sort I do not think it would be very great. It would all depend on the nature of the Committee, and the people who would be appointed. Then with regard to the applications which would be sent in, if a form were available for any people making application,—naturally it would be quite cheap to draw up a prescribed form,—it would not cost a great deal either. With regard to the whole motion, it might, as I said, have been better to have it done in 1924, but there are a great many reasons which I could show as to why it could not have been done in 1924. In regard to (A) the Minister has not stated I think that he is opposed to the motion, and I do not know whether he accepts it in principle or not, but I certainly would appeal to him to accept the principle of the motion, and to have further consideration given to the matter with a view to seeing whether or not something could be done for poor people who have certainly given very great services, and suffered very much as a result of the services they gave at that time.
If the Minister desires to reply to the question of Deputy Anthony, does the Deputy give way?
Yes.
I am not sure whether Deputy Anthony was in the Dáil on Friday when I was dealing with this matter originally, because in my anaysis of the motion then, I pointed out that in so far as existing legislation had not dealt with paragraphs (c) and (d) of the motion relating to pensions, and the grant of compensation to parents or partial dependants of officers who had been killed during the period 1916 to 31st December, 1921, the Bill which the Minister for Defence is introducing would be thought to cover the whole of the ground that remains. With regard to paragraphs (a) and (b) which deal with the "billeting of Volunteers and members of the Flying Columns during the period 1916 to 31st December, 1921, and for moneys claimed to be due in respect of food, clothing and transport, including petrol, and for arms, ammunition and bicycles voluntarily surrendered during the said period by householders and others," I pointed out that the operations of the Indemnity Act Committee of 1924 had disposed of a considerable number of claims which might be made under that head and that in so far as any just claims remained to be disposed of they remained, I think, mainly because they had not been presented to the Indemnity Act Committee. When the Government proposed to introduce legislation at an early date which would enable such claims to be considered, and if found to be just claims, to be compensated for in some way by compensation out of the Exchequer. So far as the Ceannt family are concerned, I do not see how any of them could possibly fail to be dealt with under Deputy MacEoin's motion unless it was in respect of the claim for billeting. If there are dependants of the men who were killed or executed by the British they will be dealt with under the new Pensions Bill. If there are any claims in respect of clothing and equipment——
I am sorry to butt in, but you are not correct when you say that. Unless there is full dependency proved, the new Bill or previous Bill does not cover I am putting in the words "partial dependency."
Yes. I know. I think there must be full dependency proved before a pension can be granted or compensation paid. There is one way in which the Deputy can deal with that—that is by putting in an amendment to the present Bill before the House. I am not promising to accept it but to consider it on its merits, and it might be a helpful amendment to put in, but that is the proper place. When a Bill of that sort is before the House and the question of partial dependency is to be raised, it should be raised by an amendment to the Bill; it could be raised much more appropriately by an amendment before the House than by a motion of this sort.
We are talking on a motion which was in last March. I think the Minister should put the thing that I had in my motion into the Bill.
I am sorry. The Deputy more or less pulled me up in my reply to Deputy Anthony. Unless dependency were proved in the case of people claiming in respect of men killed or executed, I cannot see how they can come in under the Pensions Bill, and I do not think any member of the Ceannt family would make such a claim. With regard to the other items whether it is for food, clothing, or transport supplied, either voluntarily, or as I say, by compulsion, any people may make claims under the new Bill which we hope to introduce, and I believe that, considering the scope of the new Bill and the Pensions Bill now before the House and the existing legislation, any claims that might be made by people circumstanced as those are to whom the Deputy referred will be fully considered.
Am I to understand from the Minister that if and when claims are made for injury to property, such as injury to the houses which were bombarded during that period if a claim is made under that heading——
I want to be quite clear in that regard.
I want to be clear too.
The new Bill will not deal with questions of compensation for property damaged during 1916.
That is the reason I mentioned the case at all, because I did consider that the sins of omission in the Pension Bill and sins of omission in this motion of Deputy MacEoin's were too great to be passed over very lightly. The cases I had in mind were cases of very grave and severe hardship and I did think that the Minister, as he is becoming so liberal in the treatment of other persons—that the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Finance might at least have regard to those persons who suffered so severely as the family I referred to. Some compensation should be paid, apart altogether from the question of dependency, because a case of partial dependency could easily be made out. I think the Minister for Finance knows sufficient about common law to recognise that it could easily be established that there was partial dependency, not that this family want to make a claim on that score as far as I know, but certainly there should be some compensation given for damage to property.
The Minister for Finance in the course of his speech on Friday and to-night has attempted to meet the case by opposition, and we have had some interesting statements made by both Deputy Anthony and Deputy Conlon. Deputy Anthony said that my motion contains sins of omission. Well I want to reply to that very briefly by saying there is no sin of omission in the motion that could not be amended if somebody else thought fit to do so. I believe under the rules of the House, sir, it is possible to amend a motion standing in any Deputy's name, and therefore, there is no sin I may have committed by omission that could not be amended, and therefore it is quite possible to make the thing right if there was somebody anxious to do so. Anyhow there has been no amendment made to the motion and while we may get criticism now for its shortcomings, I submit that the motion standing in Deputy O'Reilly's name and my own meets the case as we see it all over the country. The Minister for Finance, in the course of his speech on Friday last, told us that he had legislation in the course of contemplation—in contemplation and about to be produced—and that it would meet and make provision for certain paragraphs of the motion, and he paid particular attention to paragraphs A and B. Then he set off and he gave us an outline of what his proposed legislation was and then he told us in the next breath that he could not give effect to it at all simply because some Board of Inquiry or some Court of Inquiry set up by this House in 1924 had made investigations and reported against it. He said the chief argument that he based himself on that point was that when there was not information available in 1924 it could not be available now. I want to point out, what was not possible in 1924 is possible to-day, that there were a great number of people in this country in 1924 violently opposed to each other, and what one thought the other automatically thought against, and I must confess to the Minister we were afraid of each other, if you like, and that the Government that has gone out of office would not accept my word because the Minister for Finance would not certify it was true. But we are both here now to certify what I say is true, because he knows the fact just as well as I do, and therefore, it can be an accepted fact—there is neither of us to dispute it. Therefore, there is much more information available in 1932 than there was in 1924, and I hold the Minister's point there breaks down completely, and it does not stand any test.
Now, he said that in his proposed legislation he intended to cover certain types of cases. I do not know if it is necessary to quote the Minister's speech in the Official Report to sustain my case, but if the Minister thinks I should do so I will, but I do not think there is any purpose to be served. All I want to say is this, that the argument he made against me on last Friday as to his intended legislation does not cover my case at all and if he asks me to cite examples of the cases I have in mind I will do so. I interrupted the Minister in his speech by saying that I would much rather not because if I cite certain cases they are capable of being identified. Somebody would know the cases cited, and the result would be, if this motion were passed, that these people would say that the Dáil had accepted these claims. If, however, the Minister wants to hear some of my cases against those he has quoted, I will quote them to him. I do not know if he wants to hear them but if it will help him to make up his mind to accept the motion I shall quote them to him with pleasure.
If the Deputy thinks they will prove his case.
I submit they are as relevant to the point at issue as those he has used against me. I feel, however, it is not wise to do so, if the motion is accepted, because these would be cases that could be identified just as I can identify some of the cases the Minister has quoted. I do not know whether I shall do so.
The Deputy should act in accordance with his own judgment.
It is no harm perhaps to quote some of them. The Minister tells us that there is no hardship involved and that most people voluntarily did so and so. I want to quote a few cases in regard to what people did. On Friday he said referring to cases under (a) and (b), cases from 1916 to 1919, that there could be no recognition given to them and that there was no reason why any Government should accept responsibility, that is a Government in this country, for that period. I do not know, sir, whether you are aware of the conditions that obtained all over the country at that time or not.
Well aware of them. I was over most of the country at that time.
You were over most of the country? From 1916 to 1917 you were under lock and key.
From 1917 to 1919.
You were somewhere else during the period 1916 to 1917. There were people that the British were trying to capture. There was only one Government at that time, the Government of the Republic. The Minister knows the Government to whom I refer. They gave certain farmers in this country orders that certain people must be received in their houses, kept there and maintained. If they refused to give them the food and shelter necessary for their maintenance you know what would happen. You might say that these people were of no importance but you cannot say that they were not soldiers. They were soldiers just as good as you and I and they fought their fight just as they knew how to fight it. They were kept in these farmers' houses all over the country from Easter Week in 1916 right down to the general release and the first time we saw them was when they had full-blown beards in 1917. Then they came out and told the natives that they were on their keeping. The fact remains that these people did maintain them during that time. From 1917 to 1918 there was an order issued—any officer who is here remembers it well— that if you were arrested in your own home you would have to account for the fact that you were arrested there. The result was that these men, obeying an order that the Government of the Republic issued to them and, carrying it out to the full extent of their ability, had to go into homes in the country and somebody ordered the occupants of these homes to take them in.
I think that is very unfair. I think it is, if I may say so, a slander on those who willingly with open arms received those men.
I am not denying that the people received them, but remember there was a certain amount of compulsion there.
There was no idea of compulsion.
Refute it so.
I scarcely for four years slept in my own house and I know I was well received everywhere and everybody in the same circumstances knows it as well.
Because they might not like to offend you as I should not like to offend you.
If there was an element of compulsion, would they not send you to an enemy house?
I am talking of a certain period. The Deputy can talk of his own period after I have finished.
I say it is a slander.
It is no slander to say that there were people who were told to take in certain other people.
The people voluntarily took them in.
The people who would take them in voluntarily could not afford to do so because they were as much suspect as the people seeking shelter and you know it. If that is a slander I will slander them.
Where is the compulsion?
There was the compulsion that people who would take men into their house in order to provide them with a safe shelter must not be suspect by the authorities and you know that. What is the use of saying I am slandering somebody because they were not friendly? They might be members or supporters of the Irish Parliamentary Party. To what better shelter could these men go than to a house such as that? I am slandering nobody when I say they had to take in so and so. It is no slander because they did it. I think it is something of which they might well feel proud.
They were not compelled to take them in.
I do not know what the Minister means by compulsion. There was just the amount of compulsion the Minister would use on me to induce me to make the speech that he would like me to make.
I would rather quote the Deputy.
He would just compel me so far and no more. I want to make the point under paragraph (a) and (b) that people supplied all that refuge and succour to us in our hour of need and I think it would be much better that I only just touched lightly upon it. Being the mover of the motion, if I quote too much of any case, in the event of the motion being passed I am definitely proving that that person is entitled to recognition. Therefore I do not want to cite any particular case that can be identified. I want to make myself clear on that before a decision is reached. I can assure you that this is a fact, that a small farmer with a wife and about six or seven children, accommodated 21 men for approximately 24 weeks during the period covered in my motion. I do not say what county he is in. I have travelled many counties, and it can be any county, but I can give the details to the Minister, if he wants them, for the period covered by the motion. He contracted debts in the shop for the food consumed during that period. He supplied beds to that number and he is now financially embarrassed from that time and it can be safely said to be due to that cause. I do not want to go any further than that because it might do more harm than good.
Another case was that of a small farmer and artisan. He had two wounded people in his house, billeted on him for nine weeks, and this entailed a guard of from two to four first-aid helpers and doctors during a period of from three to six weeks, just as the circumstances demanded, and there were special expenses. The Minister has estimated the sums that would be demanded. I will not cite any sums in case they might say that this was a case which I cited. The smallest case which I investigated or which has been investigated on my behalf was that of a small farmer with two men billeted on him for three weeks. That is the smallest case and it works out at about a £5 claim for two men for three weeks. The other case runs to about £60—the highest. This is a case where you have two wounded men left in a house and the case was carefully weighed, not by a Cumann na nGaedheal organisation or even by an Army Comrades' Association, but by one that I can depend on to a great extent, and they have assessed that amount. That is for billeting and that represents five counties. Having taken the claims of five counties they have estimated that the total amount for billeting would run to, approximately, £100,000. I have told you that the whole cost of my motion for the Twenty-Six Counties is £540,000. There are some people, I admit, who say that I have underestimated for billeting, but, as I have told you, in moving my motion, the higher you make the claim or the more you increase it, the more imperative it is that it should be paid.
Under Section B, that is the arms and ammunition, you have told us that sections so-and-so and so-and-so of the Indemnity Act and the Compensation Act have done so-and-so and so-and-so. I want to tell you this for a fact—that nobody has been paid under these Acts except the men from whom the arms have been compulsorily taken. I will cite a case on that, and I can cite two or five or six or ten or a hundred cases. John Brown, an officer, proceeds to the house of Tom Jones, a farmer, and he takes a single-barrelled shot-gun from him with a force of Volunteers behind him, but in doing so, Jones, the farmer, fires at him before he gives it up. The result is that when the Anglo-Irish war is over, Jones sues that officer for £7 damages for the forcible taking of that gun. That case is heard in court and all that the Indemnity Act does is that it protects that officer. When the judge gives a decree for £2 or whatever the amount is for that gun, the amount is paid under the Indemnity Act instead of forcing the officer to pay.
I will cite the other case now. Tom Murphy, down the road, had a shot-gun as well as Jones and he voluntarily surrendered that shot-gun. In other words, he simply goes down to the officer and tells him, "I have a shot-gun, and any day you care to come for it you will get it." The officer walks up and gets the gun and takes whatever ammunition may be in the house. Because Murphy voluntarily surrenders that shot-gun he cannot get compensation, but the man from whom we took it compulsorily and who brings us to court about the matter, gets paid. These are the kind of cases which I am trying to cover.
I think that the Deputy is misinformed and I would like to correct him on that. The cases under the Indemnity Act Committee never went to court at all. There was a Special Committee consisting of a District Justice and two Civil Servants set up to try these claims, and I am advised that whether the guns were surrendered voluntarily or not, if they were taken by a Volunteer or Volunteers or any servant of Dáil Eireann, the claim was paid. If the Deputy would give me particulars of the cases he is citing I would have them examined.
I can cite them by the score.
If the Deputy will write to me about them I can promise him that I will have them very searchingly inquired into.
I am not going to write to you about something which Deputy Fitzgerald would not do. I am telling you what actually happened. The case is that if a man can prove that the guns were taken compulsorily he can succeed, but if they were given voluntarily he cannot succeed.
Is not this tantamount to suggesting that the people who are advising me are deceiving me on these matters? If the Deputy will give me particulars of the cases he has in mind I will have them searchingly investigated.
This is only the second part of the motion and the Minister has not yet told us whether he is taking (a), (b), (c) or (f). You ask me to cite you cases of (d) and (e) of the motion. The Minister tells us that the previous administration has done everything that can possibly be done in the matter as far as certain types of claims are concerned, that they have covered all the members of the National Army and Defence Forces very generously, and that the only people to be seen to are people who, for political reasons or for some other reason, have not yet made application, and that these latter cases are amply covered under the new Bill. Again, that is a question which I dispute very strenuously.
I want to point out that the late administration refused recognition unless there was full dependency established, or at least a certain degree of partial dependency. I agree with the Minister that they were fairly generous. I believe it is true to say that the International Labour Bureau at Geneva admitted that the two Bills of 1923 and 1927 were generous. Notwithstanding the fact that the International Bureau at Geneva thinks so, I do not think it and I am not going to take my information from them. I can cite cases. The Minister on Friday last said: "I do not think that he put forward the proposition—I would be surprised if he put it forward—that irrespective of whether the people to be compensated were dependent on the deceased or not they should be paid for the death of their son." These are the Minister's exact words following the introduction of my motion. My answer to that is "Yes." I do put it forward with all the vigour at my command, that the very fact of a father and mother losing a son is sufficient to entitle them to recognition and compensation of a definite kind. Even that does not sufficiently compensate them for the loss of their son, because that could never be done. You could never give them adequate compensation for such a loss, but you can give them compensation that would be some recognition of the services that son rendered to the State. That is what I ask you to do. I will not raise any question as to whether that son fought on this side or that side. I will ask you to remember that every man who fought in the interests of the State deserves recognition from the State. He is deserving of some little recognition if he has fought in the interests of the country.
I will put one question to the Deputy. Is the only consideration which the Deputy has in mind a monetary consideration?
I am asking you to set up a committee to inquire into what is the best way of compensating these people, whether it be a monetary or some other consideration. I am not tying you to anything in this motion. I am merely asking for a committee that will inquire into the matter and report——
——on the granting of adequate compensation. The Deputy has just now said that nothing can adequately compensate them.
Nothing can. But at least there can be some recognition of their services and that is all I am asking you for. I do not know that I should labour the point any further beyond mentioning that this motion is brought forward in the interests of the people who have served Ireland faithfully and well in her hour of need. I ask the House to give them whatever recognition it is possible for the House to give.
Does the Deputy wish to press this motion to a vote?
Perhaps the Minister will agree to accept it?
The Minister has already stated that so far as the compensation which the Deputy is asking for in this motion is concerned, if dependency is proved it is already given in the existing Acts so far as members of the National Army are concerned and those who served in the Volunteers before 1921, but not afterwards. So far as that latter class is concerned, they are dealt with in the Bill before the House and therefore it is not necessary for the Government to accept this motion. We have, in fact, given everything the Deputy asks for. We have conceded everything except this question of billeting. On that we cannot do anything more.
I cannot and I will not accept that. I would like this to go to a vote of the House. In this connection I will ask the Government to permit a free vote and not have the Whips put on. I do not see any reason why they should put on the official Whips.
This is a matter which could have been raised by the Deputy's Party during the last ten years and yet it was not raised. I am not questioning the bona fides of the Deputy in raising this matter now, but when his Party had the responsibility they could have raised the matter quite easily. It is in view of the fact that we have the responsibility that the Whips must be put on.
The Minister is unfair when he makes a statement like that at a critical point. I have tried to meet the Minister's points in every way.
I frankly admit that the Deputy is a comparatively newcomer to the House, but so far as the general body of his Party are concerned they could have raised this matter when they had the responsibility.
I may say that even if Deputy Blythe were in the Minister's place now this motion would have been brought forward. It was bound to come sooner or later.
I am not saying that the Deputy has not good intentions, but the fact remains that this was not done until the responsibility changed hands.
In the circumstances I will have to press the motion to a division.
I think the motion is carried.
Votáil.
May I ask how many Deputies are challenging a division?
Is it not usual when a member of the Front Bench challenges a division, that the Chair accepts it? Therefore there is nothing in Deputy Cooney's point.
It was a member of the Deputy's Party who called the division and the division was called before the Deputy rose.
Tá
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Desmond, William.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Myles.
- McDenogh, Fred.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Hara, Patrick.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mrs. Mary
- Vaughan, Daniel.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo. V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormley, Francis.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).