Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Jul 1942

Vol. 88 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 76.—Personal Injuries (Civilians) Compensation.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £16,667 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1943, for Compensation and other Payments in respect of Personal Injuries sustained by persons, not being members of State Services, as a result of the dropping of bombs by foreign aircraft and kindred incidents while the State is not engaged in war.

This Vote is required to meet expenditure during the current financial year under the Emergency Powers (No. 98) Order, 1941, made by the Government on the 15th July last. Article 4 of that Order empowered the Minister for Finance to make a scheme providing for the payment of periodical or lump sums to persons, or the dependents of persons, who suffer personal injuries resulting, broadly speaking, from breaches of our neutrality.

A revised scheme under that Order was made on the 16th June, 1942, in the light of representations as to the inadequacy, in present circumstances, of the scale of compensation provided for in the earlier scheme made on the 17th September last. The new scheme revokes the earlier scheme and provides compensation on a basis permitting of allowances to the dependents of persons suffering injury and of allowances also instead of lump sums to the dependents of deceased persons. Briefly stated, while I have felt constrained to retain the maximum disablement allowance of 30/- a week for earners provided for in the original scheme, I have made provision for additional allowances as follows:—

In respect of dependent wife or husband or in respect of any female person residing with a widow or widower for the purpose of having the care of her or his children—7/6 a week. In respect of each dependent other than husband or wife—4/- a week.

Disablement allowances will be reducible by reference to the percentage degree of disability.

In the case of fatal injuries I propose allowances as follows:—

For a widow over 45 years of age or, if under that age, in receipt of an allowance in respect of a dependent child, or incapable of earning—18/- a week.

For a widow under 45 years of age not in receipt of an allowance in respect of a dependent child and capable of earning—12/6 a week. For a widower dependent on deceased wife and incapable of earning —18/- a week.

In respect of dependents while living with a widow or widower 5/- a week and after the death of the widow or widower—7/6 a week. For dependents of an unmarried man or widower or of an unmarried woman or widow—7/6 a week.

Widows' allowances will cease on remarriage and an allowance in respect of any other female dependent will cease on marriage.

I do not propose to make awards of compensation in respect of the dependents of deceased non-earners unless necessitous circumstances are established. For earners under 18 years of age, the maximum disablement allowance will be 15/- a week. For non-earners over 18 years of age the maximum rate will be 18/- a week, and for non-earners under 18 years of age 9/- a week.

As regards partial dependency, I cannot undertake to make continuing payments, and I have decided that partial dependency—but only in fatal cases—will be dealt with on a lump sum basis measured by Workmen's Compensation Act standards, where the merits of a case are established. As regards classes of dependents, there has been included, in addition to those provided for in the original scheme, a child in respect of whom the injured or deceased person had placed himself or herself in loco parentis. I have decided also that allowances in respect of children shall be payable up to the age of 18 years, unless they are prevented by physical or mental infirmity from supporting themselves, when the allowances will continue to be payable up to the age of 70 years. Moreover, any injured child up to the age of 18 who is not an earner will be treated as a non-earner for the purposes of the scheme and injury allowances will, accordingly, be payable in respect of young children.

Some Deputies may consider that the revised scale of compensation which I have outlined is still inadequate, but in this connection I can only repeat what I have already stated in this House, that I am bound in a matter of this kind to take into account the consideration that, in providing for compensation of this nature, we are undertaking an unlimited liability, and the contingency of further incidents giving rise to claims for damage to life and property on a widespread scale cannot be ignored. Recovery from outside sources of the cost of compensation may not always be feasible, and it is essential to have regard to the possibility that compensation payment may, in large measure, fall finally on the taxpayer.

The actual payments of compensation have been provided for under sub-head A of the Estimate. Under sub-head B, provision is made for payment for medical and surgical treatment and the supply, where necessary, of medical and surgical appliances. It is the intention to afford such treatment at the expense of the Exchequer, on the advice of the Army Pensions Board, where it is considered that suffering may be alleviated and a reduced degree of disability secured. In addition, the sub-head provides for the refunds of medical and hospital expenses incurred by applicants contemplated by the scheme.

General Mulcahy

It is of the greatest importance, in considering this matter, that we should be clear as to the Government's intention in regard to the proposals. For that reason, I confine myself to taking the case of a married man with a family who, as a result of bombing such as we had on the North Strand, finds himself adjudged completely disabled and, therefore, unable in any way to provide any part of the income for the family. Is it the Government's intention that compensation would be paid to enable such a man to maintain his wife and children, continue the children's education and launch them in life? We have to take it that, by hook or by crook, such a man and his wife must live and rear their family without any serious hardship or misery. We want to know whether the Government's intention is that the compensation in that case will be sufficient. If it is not, then we are condemning people, on whom this misfortune has fallen, to seek additional assistance through the poor law system.

The Minister may say that we are unable to do it through the compensation machinery, because of the cost that would fall on the taxpayers, but the fact is that these people must be provided for by some means or other. If whatever compensation the Government gives is inadequate, the ratepayer must find the additional amount through the poor law system. It should not be the policy of the Government that a certain amount will be paid by way of compensation and that the parents, already stricken by the fact that the head of the house has been completely disabled, should be forced to come under the patronage of the relieving officer and get assistance through the poor relief scheme to maintain the family.

The original approach to this matter was very unsatisfactory, and I am sure the Government could not explain in any reasonable way what they intended when they fixed the compensation at a flat rate of 30/- a week, as was done in the scheme issued last September, without any reference to what kind of family responsibilities the man might have, but the fact that they approached it in that particular way makes me all the more insistent now to ask the Government to state what is their intention.

In connection with that, I would point out that, from time to time, during the last 12 months, we have discussed the question of what would be a maintenance allowance for an ordinary family, and reference was made to an examination carried out by Mr. Rowntree, in York, as a result of which, from figures that he made out in 1936, he showed that it would take 43/6 to maintain a family of five— that is, a man and his wife and three children—for a week, at the prices existing in 1936. Now, the cost-of-living index figure has risen from 160, for the year 1936—that is, over all items in Ireland—to 226—all items, over an average—for the year 1941. That is an increase of 66 points, which would mean that, in order to do what Mr. Rowntree intended should be done for a family of five, the amount should be raised from 43/6 to 61/-. Now, I do not think that the cost of living for a family in York would differ very much from the cost of living for a family in Dublin. If it differed at all, it would be higher in Dublin. The Minister, however, is now providing, for a disabled man, with a wife and three children, 49/6 a week—30/- for the man, 7/6 for the wife, and 4/- each for the children.

Now, when we compare what is being done in similar cases in Great Britain, we find that where we are providing 30/- for the man, in Great Britain the man gets 37/6; where the wife here gets 7/6, she gets 9/2 in Great Britain; where the first child here gets 4/-, 7/1 is provided in Great Britain; and where the second and third child here get 4/- each, 5/5 each is provided in Great Britain. In other words, where we provide, under the present scheme, 49/6 a week, the British provide 64/7. When we compare 64/7 with the scaled-up figure of 61/- on Mr. Rowntree's estimate, we see that there is at any rate a relationship between what is provided in Great Britain and what has been systematically estimated as giving a fair subsistence to a family. Accordingly, I ask the Minister whether 49/6 for a completely disabled man and his wife and three children is intended to keep that family in, say, reasonably undistressed existence, or does he not realise that they will have to go to the relief authorities for further assistance? Why should the parents, already so distressed, be driven to do so, and if the cost has to be borne in some way or another, why cannot it be systematised and paid in such a way as will avoid adding a certain amount of serious inconvenience, in the first place, supervision by the poor law authorities, in the second place, and a certain amount of degradation that, because of the unfortunate thing that happened in the North Strand, these people are driven into the arms of the poor law authorities until such time as the family is raised? We talk a lot about the family and what it means as a unit, what it means to our social and political outlook that we should put the family in its proper and Christian perspective here. I think that when we take into consideration how much we emphasise that in our Constitution and in our talk here, we ought not to allow a situation to be accepted here where the compensation that is given in this particular way is of a kind that forces a family to go to the poor law authorities in order to maintain themselves. That is the principal point that I want to make in connection with this.

The next point that I want to call to the Minister's attention is this. Nothing, I think, has yet been done to provide a scale of compensation for persons in the L.D.F., L.S.F. and the other voluntary services, on the same lines as is done here for civilians that are injured. I should like to hear the Minister say when it is his intention to have these schemes, whether they are going to be related in any way to the scheme outlined here and, if so, whether he will review the problem in the spirit in which I ask him to approach it, and do it at once before he finally fixes a scale of compensation for injury in the voluntary Defence Forces. I would again point out that, apparently, the scheme in Great Britain is that compensation paid for civilian injuries and to people in the voluntary services is based upon the compensation paid to the lowest serving rank of soldier in the Army. An examination of the situation, even with this inadequate scale of compensation for civilians, when compared with the compensation paid to soldiers injured on military service, under the 1927 Act, shows that this is a magnificent and munificent provision. That Act reduced substantially the compensation that was paid to injured members of the Army under the 1923 Act. The reduction under the 1927 Act was contested pretty seriously here and, to my mind, there was no justification for it. The Act was passed in special circumstances, when it was thought that no soldier would ever again be injured here, but now we are brought up against eventualities that were not then foreseen, and when families are treated in this particular way, we have to ask ourselves will there be less provision for the families of soldiers who may be injured at the present time than for civilians.

There is one particular matter that is urgent, and that is a scheme of compensation for men in the rescue services. At the present moment, in the City of Dublin, there is no rescue service, such as was called into operation and into action in a very important way when the bombs fell in the North Strand in May of last year. The type of work that requires to be carried out by the rescue squads is of such a nature that there is serious danger of injury while in training, and because of the fact that there is no provision of any kind at the present time for compensation for men injured while in training on rescue work, all such work in the city has ceased for months past. As a result of the cessation of training it has not been possible to hold that rescue squad together. After all our excitement about our danger and our machinery for defence and evacuation, it is shocking to think that that is the position in Dublin to-day, and if a bomb did fall to-night in Dublin, the rescue services that would turn to render first assistance to people trapped in burning or destroyed houses would be composed of workers not standing together in an organised way, because their organisation has broken down, and because a scheme of compensation for them does not exist.

I say that these are matters that require urgent and serious attention, and that it would be a serious thing for this Dáil to adjourn for the Recess except we have an assurance from the Minister for Finance that some definite pronouncement will be made at once in regard to compensation schemes for the rescue services in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and other places. I know this all means money, but we here at least are being saved from the shocking cost that would fall on us if we were actually engaged in war or suffering the severe damages caused by it. We have had experience of one or two horrible incidents, but they are nothing at all to speak of in the matter of cost compared with what, in other circumstances, we might be suffering. We are stimulating our people to face the future vigorously, resolutely and with courage in an organised way. But what are we proposing to defend for the kind of future that we look forward to in this country when the unfortunate victims of to-day, few as they are, are going to be left by us in the position that, in order to maintain whatever families they have, they must go to the relief authorities? We have civilian defence forces, and surely we ought to see to it that their members, married men with families, will be maintained in a systematic reasonable way that will indicate to them that we are thinking thoughtfully and earnestly about the country and of the organisations that we need to keep it safe and sound. They ought to be given the feeling that the country is worth defending, and that we are not neglecting them or the really fundamental things that matter. They should be made feel that we are prepared to maintain the families that are injured in present circumstances, and that we are prepared to do that in one way or another for all our people.

Mr. Byrne

I want to express my keen disappointment at the amount of the allowances that are being made available for men who become completely disabled. I agree with Deputy Mulcahy that these allowances fall far short of what would be required to maintain a man's family in reasonable comfort. They are such as will drive a man to seek help from the board of assistance. No provision is made in the Estimate for rents which, as we know, are pretty high in Dublin. A man with a wife and three children will not have much left out of the allowance after paying a rent of 10/- or 10/8 a week. What will be left will put that man and his family on a starvation diet. I think the Minister ought to review the provision that is being made in the light of the high cost of living in Dublin to-day. Deputy Mulcahy said that the members of our rescue services at the moment are dissatisfied and discontented.

General Mulcahy

They do not exist.

Mr. Byrne

He added that, if anything should happen to-night, those services would not be available in an organised way. But the Deputy and myself know that, if anything did happen, our Dublin men who have been in the rescue services and are discontented would, despite that, turn out to do their duty in the cause of humanity. Due to lack of training they might not be as efficient as they should be, but I believe they would do their duty and render all the assistance possible. About two months ago I received a deputation in Leinster House composed of representatives of the rescue services. They showed me copies of the correspondence that had passed between their trade unions and the Departments concerned, but, as far as I could judge, they appeared to get no satisfaction. In reply to a Parliamentary Question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures said, some days ago, that a measure would be introduced that would give those men some satisfaction. I gathered from him that whatever was done would have a retrospective effect, certainly in the case of one man.

Speaking from memory, there is at least one man in the rescue services who got injured following the last bombing. His position was such that his colleagues in the A.R.P. were obliged to run whist drives and things of that sort in order that he might have some little allowance to live on. Afterwards, I understand he got 30/- a week, but whether that payment is being continued or not, I do not know. What I know is that there is grave discontent in the rescue services in the City of Dublin to-day. Those men have given practical evidence of their fire-fighting abilities and should be treated in a more generous way. The other services, the L.S.F. and the L.D.F., are not being treated fairly either. I think the Minister should do something to make the men in all those services more content, to indicate to them that, if any misfortune should overtake them, this House will see that their dependents will be adequately compensated. In making that appeal to the Minister we are not, I think, asking too much. We know, as Deputy Mulcahy has stated, that the allowances proposed do not compare at all with those paid in Great Britain. Yet, it is an extraordinary thing that a few days ago a Minister, in dealing here with the case of a man whose son lost his life on the "Clonlara" rather boastfully said that we were paying the same allowances to the dependents of those lost at sea as are being paid in Great Britain. The Minister, in defending the attitude of this State on that matter, forgot to mention that in Great Britain, in cases of that sort, there is no means test applied, such as occurred in the case that happened here. The man here whose son was lost on the "Clonlara" was paid 5/- a week, but then his unemployment allowance was reduced by 4/6, so that he was left with 6d. a week for the loss of his boy.

That would not happen in Great Britain. If we are to follow Great Britain in any of these compensation schemes we should adopt the maximum, not the minimum. Nothing less than the maximum that Great Britain gives is good enough for our people. I put it to the Minister that he ought to give our people the maximum. The cost of living is very high and the standard of living of certain people has gone down because they have not the money to buy the necessaries of life.

I made reference to-day to the question of the wives of serving soldiers in our Army. They have been writing to Deputies that the allowance they are getting is not sufficient to purchase the necessaries they were able to purchase six months ago. Owing to the high cost of living they are not able to purchase the necessaries of life. I appeal to the Minister when preparing compensation schemes, especially for those who give voluntary service, that he should give the maximum amount and not the minimum. It would create contentment and a greater desire to serve in the voluntary services. Our people, young and old, answered to the call for these services. The least they can expect is that if they meet with an injury the compensation given them should not compel them to apply for home assistance to augment the amount given them by the Government. I think it is grossly unfair and the Minister ought to reconsider the matter.

Dr. Hannigan

I have a case in mind, and perhaps it is the one to which Deputy Byrne has made reference. If the treatment meted out in this particular case is typical of the treatment meted out to members of the A.R.P. services, the effect will be to deter rather than to encourage recruiting for these services. This case is one in which a member of the auxiliary fire brigade in Dublin was injured in the course of fire-fighting exercise, and suffered a fracture of the tibia. He is still incapacitated owing to that injury. For several weeks he received no money from any source. Finally, his case was dealt with by the Commissioners administering public assistance in Dublin. Only after strong representations had been made by the chief of the fire brigade was the miserable sum of 22/6 granted to him, plus a food voucher of the value of 7/6 provided he signed a form that he would reimburse the local authority when compensation was paid to him by the Minister for Finance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That case does not come under this Estimate. This Estimate only deals with the case of persons, not being members of State services, injured by bombs from foreign aircraft.

Dr. Hannigan

I understand that reference was made to this case by Deputy Byrne. Perhaps I am wrong.

General Mulcahy

I submit that we are dealing with a very important matter here, and that this Vote reacts on the whole situation, and on various classes of cases.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I agree with that, but it does not come under the terms of the Vote.

General Mulcahy

It certainly bears on it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A different Minister is in charge of the matters that are being referred to now.

Mr. Byrne

Perhaps the Minister would explain for the benefit of Deputy Hannigan and myself whether this scheme is the scheme that was promised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence in regard to compensation for injury to persons in the voluntary services which would cover the case of the auxiliary fire brigade man. It was left to his comrades to raise money for him. Perhaps the Minister will say whether this covers such cases as that or whether there is to be a new scheme. I think the Minister has nodded assent.

Dr. Hannigan

The case comes under the Air Raid Precautions Service (Compensation Scheme), 1940.

Mr. Byrne (Junior)

If payments for compensation under the Air Raid Precautions scheme do not come under this Estimate, what Estimate do they come under? I think they come under this one.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think they do.

General Mulcahy

If I did not think that these matters could be suitably discussed on this Estimate I would have dealt with them on the Estimate for the Minister's Department. I think it is only reasonable that the whole question of compensation should be dealt with on this Vote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would extend the scope of the Vote and go outside the legislation which provides this money.

Mr. Byrne

If it is not included in this will there be another scheme brought in which would deal with the men in the auxiliary fire brigade service who were injured? I know that there are at least two cases awaiting consideration and a promise was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence.

General Mulcahy

From the point of view of saving time, I submit it would be much more reasonable to discuss the matter on this Estimate, because if it is not discussed on this Estimate it may be raised on the Appropriation Bill, and the intention was to let the Minister have that Bill without very much discussion. There is no very long argument to be made. It is simply a question of bringing forward a number of different aspects of the compensation requirements in relation to the scheme that is under discussion.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is hidden away under Superannuation Allowances, Vote 16.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All I am concerned with is to point out that it cannot be brought into this Estimate.

General Mulcahy

There is no provision made for the unfortunate people.

Mr. Byrne

I think the Minister nodded assent when I asked the question. He did not say "Yes" or "No". We would like to have something on the record. I think he nodded assent when I asked if these men were covered by this. I should like to know if these two men are covered by it. Their colleagues in the service are very anxious about this as they want to get back to their training.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Am I to conclude on the Vote?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is a scheme dealing with the A.R.P. services, the L.D.F. and the L.S.F. in course of preparation. It has been in the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence for some weeks, perhaps a month, and I think it will be ready very shortly. That scheme, which deals with the L.D.F., the L.S.F., the A.R.P. and all these voluntary services, I expect will be announced without very much further delay.

Mr. Byrne (Junior)

I was told in November, 1941, that it was ready.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There was a scheme then, but it was not regarded as satisfactory, and a revised scheme has been under consideration since then. This scheme that we are now discussing on this Vote, Deputy Mulcahy knows very well, was brought before the House in another form and discussed here before. Suggestions were made both in the Dáil and in the Seanad that the proposals of last September were not regarded as satisfactory or as being as generous as they should be. I think that was the general line of criticism. I withdrew the scheme, and am now putting forward a revised one which I know will not be regarded generally as giving full satisfaction. I do not think that any scheme I could introduce, knowing the limitations that are on me as Minister for Finance, would get general approval here. I think, however, that I have gone as far as we can go in circumstances where we do not know what our liability is likely to be. We have no way of measuring what our liability will be. We cannot, in the circumstances, know that. If we could have any idea of the total bill that the State will have to meet at the end of this emergency under this heading, then we might be able to approach the matter differently. When the emergency is over, and we are able to reckon the cost of the compensation we have to pay, we may be able to treat people more generously than we propose to do here.

General Mulcahy

Maybe the Minister will report progress now, and sleep on it. I would prefer that the Minister should resume on the matter to-morrow rather than conclude to-night.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m., Friday, 17th July.