I move:—
That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to enable compensation to be paid to persons who suffered property losses during the period from 21st January, 1919, to 12th May, 1923, and who either did not apply for compensation or, having so applied, were debarred, and are debarred, under existing legislation from receiving compensation. In its general scheme the Bill follows the lines of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, and the subsequent analogous legislation. It might be mentioned here that the burden of compensation for malicious injuries to property sustained prior to the 21st January, 1919, was borne by the local authorities. The reason why we have taken the 21st January, 1919, as the commencing date for the period in respect of which the Bill is to apply is that the First Dáil sat on that date, and that date is regarded as marking the opening of hostilities with the British Forces. It is also the date which the Act of 1923 recognised for the purpose of assuming responsibility for compensation for property losses sustained from that time up to the 12th May, 1923, when the civil war ended.
Under existing legislation, particularly under the Act of 1923, claims for compensation for damage to property were dealt with in the following way: Claims in respect of damage in the post-truce period, that is from the 12th July, 1921, to the 12th May, 1923, were heard and determined under the Act of 1923 by the County or Circuit Court. Pre-truce damage to property was under a different category. Claims in respect of such damage were determined by the Compensation (Ireland) Commission, a body which was set up by agreement between the Irish Free State Government and the British Government. This Commission confined itself to the consideration of claims for compensation for damage to property per se. The taking away of chattels was not, for instance, a proper subject for a compensation claim under the Criminal Injuries Code, and the Compensation (Ireland) Commission accordingly were precluded by their terms of reference from awarding compensation in respect of such chattels. This particular Commission ceased to function in March, 1926. All claims which did not properly come within the terms of reference of that Commission were dealt with, as to one part, by the Act of 1923 to which I have referred, and as to another part, particularly as to the pre-truce damage—chattels taken away and such injuries done—by a Commission or Committee which was set up under the Indemnity Act of 1924.
Claims, as I have already said, for post-truce damage to property were heard and determined by the County or Circuit Court. Under the Act of 1923 a time limit for making claims was enforced, and this time limit expired in September, 1923. Except where the damage was sustained in the course of a conflict the court was empowered to make a decree—a decree as distinct from a report. Payments under such decrees were mandatory on the Minister for Finance, while payments under reports were not mandatory, subject, however, so far as decrees were concerned, to the right of the Minister for Finance to appeal to a higher court. The court was also empowered, in connection with claims for damage to property, to attach a reinstatement condition to any award in respect of injured buildings. One of the disabilities which this Bill is designed to remove is that the Statute specifically disentitles to compensation any person who, in the opinion of the court, connived at, assisted in, or actively facilitated the committal of an injury, or was a member or helper or active sympathiser with any organisation engaged in armed opposition to the late Provisional Government or the Government of Saorstát Eireann. The section of the Statute which specifically imposed this disability in relation to claims for compensation for damage to property was Section 9. A somewhat similar disability was imposed under Section 15 in relation to claims for chattels taken away. As I have already indicated, claims in respect of chattels taken away during the post-truce period were also referable to the County or Circuit Court. In such cases, and also in cases where damage to property was sustained during the course of the actual fighting, the court could only make a report—a report as distinct and contrasted with a decree. I have already pointed out that decrees were mandatory upon the Minister for Finance, subject, of course, to his right to appeal to a higher court. Reports were not so mandatory. In regard to reports the Minister had complete discretion. Generally, the reports were discharged in full, but in some instances a reduced payment was made, where it was ascertained that the amount specified in the report was excessive. Billeting claims were outside the scope of the Statute, and the disability imposed by Section 9 applied also, as I have already said, to chattels taken away. In this case it was provided that reports could only be made when the goods were taken without the consent of the owner, and when in effect the goods were taken by persons engaged in armed opposition to the Government of the time. I may say that, on the ground that one or both of those conditions applied, payments on foot of reports, aggregating £52,000, were refused by the former Administration.
I have mentioned the Indemnity Act of 1924, and I pointed out that it dealt with certain pre-truce claims. Under this Act, a Committee was established to assess and recommend payment of compensation in respect of direct loss for damage arising through interference with property in the period from the 21st January, 1919, to the 28th June, 1922. In the words of the Statute: "By any person holding office under the first Dáil Eireann or second Dáil Eireann or any person employed in any military or civil service established or maintained by or under the authority of the first Dáil Eireann or second Dáil Eireann." For all practical purposes this might be construed as meaning, by members of the Irish Volunteers or pre-split I.R.A.
This Committee dealt mainly with claims in respect of property, including guns, motors, cycles, groceries, taken by or supplied to the Volunteers in the pre-truce period, these claims as I have already pointed out being outside the purview of the Compensation (Ireland) Commission. It also dealt with similar losses sustained during the further period down to the beginning of the civil war on the 28th June, 1922. It is to be noted in this connection that there was no stipulation in the Indemnity Act as to property taken without the owner's consent. The Statute of 1923 specifically debarred the Committee from taking into consideration any loss or damage arising from the quartering or billeting of troops. Payment was authorised by the Minister for Finance on foot of the Committee's recommendations in every case. In a small number of cases where the amounts recommended were regarded as excessive reduced payments were made. This Committee ceased to function in March, 1928. To complete the picture it is necessary to point out that claims in respect of damage to property commandeered by the National Army and in respect to goods supplied to or taken by the Army were investigated departmentally, and payment made in approved cases by the Office of Public Works and the Department of Defence, respectively.
The present Bill is not concerned in any way with claims of this class. If any such claims remain outstanding or if claimants are dissatisfied with the amount of compensation already paid, the matter is one for direct negotiation with the Department concerned. I should like to emphasise that, because judging by some claims which have already come into the Department, it is presumed that they will all come within the provisions of this Bill, whereas quite a considerable number of them may be settled outside the Bill, as I have said, by direct negotiations with the Departments concerned. I move the adjournment of the debate.