The text of this Bill is precisely the same as that of the withdrawn Damage to Property (Compensation) (Amendment) Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading on 17th May, with certain exceptions. Since the Second Reading of the Bill which has been withdrawn further consideration has been given to an aspect concerning which representations have been made to the Minister for Finance from time to time. As Deputies are aware, the recent Bill only covered the same period as that covered by the existing Damage to Property (Compensation) Acts, namely, from 21st January, 1919, which was the date the First Dáil met, to 12th May, 1923. Apart from the special provision made by these Acts, claims in respect of damage to property are, under the Criminal Injuries Code, determinable by the courts, any compensation awarded being charged on local rates. This was the position as respects damage to property in the period prior to January, 1919. Damage caused by British military or police forces was outside the scope of the Criminal Injuries Acts and in 1916 the British Government felt compelled to set up a special committee to deal extra statutorily with claims for damage done during and after the Rising of 1916. This committee rejected a number of claims on the ground of the applicants' complicity with the Rising, with the result that a number of persons who suffered damage failed to obtain compensation from any official source.
This new paragraph which has been incorporated in the Bill enables such persons now to make a claim for compensation to the Circuit Court, if the damage was caused in one or other of the circumstances detailed in the paragraph, that is to say, while the premises were being defended in arms against the British authorities by any person ordinarily resident therein, or while such person was under arrest or was endeavouring to resist arrest. The paragraph as drawn covers not merely the period immediately subsequent to the Rising of 1916, but the period between the date of the Rising, and the date of the assembly of the First Dáil, because it is felt that a number of other cases may come to light as a consequence of the additional powers which are being asked for, and that arising out of the conscription period similar cases may fall to be dealt with.
In paragraph (b) of Section 2 (1) the words in brackets, "including damage to or destruction of property occasioned by acts of the British military or police authorities acting or purporting to act under martial law" are also new. The object of these words in brackets is to remove a doubt which arose as to whether the paragraph as originally drafted covered damage to property in the Twenty-Six County area in pre-Truce days, where the damage was done by Crown Forces as a matter of military necessity.
In Section 1 of the Bill the word "injury" is defined as having the same meaning as it has in the Act of 1923, that is to say, "any loss, damage or injury in respect of which compensation could be given under the Criminal Injuries Acts." On further consideration, it was felt that a court might possibly hold that the provisions of paragraph (b) of Section 2 (1) as originally drafted applied only to damage which could have been the subject of an award of compensation under the Criminal Injuries Acts, and that damage done by order of the military authorities is outside the scope of those Acts, and therefore outside the scope of the Bill. A few claims in respect of damage sustained in such circumstances have already been received in the Department of Finance, and presumably these claims will be presented to the Circuit Court in due course. Our intention was clearly to make these people eligible for compensation. As the matter does not appear to be free from doubt, the words in brackets have been added to make clear the intention of the Legislature.
In Section 2, sub-section (2), the following words, which appear in brackets in lines 34 and 35, "save as is otherwise provided in any subsequent provision of this Act" are also new. In the debate on the Second Reading of the original Bill, Deputy Esmonde suggested that there was some conflict between Section 2 and the present Section 12, which was Section 10 in the withdrawn Bill. The former, which indicates the classes of claims which may be made the subject of compensation under this Bill, provides that the Bill does not apply to any loss or damage in respect of which compensation has been paid by any Department of State or by the Commissioners of Public Works. On the other hand, Section 12 in the present draft, which deals with recovered property which has been or will be the subject of compensation, provides that that section does, by implication, apply to cases in which a payment of compensation has been made out of public funds. While it is not admitted that there is so obvious a conflict as Deputy Esmonde suggested, it was considered desirable, as the question had been raised, to remove any doubt in the matter. Accordingly, I had already, as in the case of the other alterations made by this Bill, given notice of an amendment which would have that purpose. In sub-section (2) of this section, in lines 37-39, the following words, which are also new, are being inserted, "the Government of the late United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, any local authority." This addition is consequential on and becomes necessary by reason of the insertion of paragraph (a) in Section 2. Its effect is to exclude claims for damage to property in respect of which a payment has already been made by the British Government or by a local authority.
Section 8 of the Bill is an entirely new section. It was at first thought that the general power conferred by Section 66 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, to make rules of the Circuit Court would extend to the making of rules of court for the purposes of the Bill. On further consideration, however, it was felt to be safer to take express power to make these rules, as was laid down in Section 19 of the Principal Act. The new section confers this power by definitely applying the provisions of Section 19 of the original Act to this Bill.
Section 10 is also a new section. It arises out of the discovery that in a number of cases where decrees were granted by the Circuit or County Court, under Part II of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, notice of appeal was lodged on behalf of the State on the ground, inter alia, that paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of Section 9 of the original Act applied to the application. Deputies will recollect that one of the reasons why it is necessary to bring in this Bill at all is the number of cases where damage to property was suffered and where the aggrieved persons were debarred, under Section 9, from applying for compensation because of certain political associations which they were supposed to have. In some of the cases in which notice of appeal had been given, an agreement was reached out of court under which the applicant agreed to accept a reduced payment in discharge of the decree originally made in his favour, on condition that the appeal would be withdrawn. After a perusal of the files I am inclined to think that in at least some of these cases Section 9 was unduly relied on to force a settlement. This new section proposes to give me power to reopen such cases and, where I consider that course warranted, to pay such further compensation as I may think proper, but not exceeding the amount of the deduction already made from the original decree.
