Vol. 91 No. 16
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £15,250 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, 1944, for Compensation and other Payments in connection with Injuries to Property caused by the dropping of bombs from foreign aircraft and kindred incidents while the State is not engaged in war (No. 24 of 1941).
This Vote and the next one might be regarded as unprecedented seeing that we hope they will be discontinued shortly. I know that the Minister is bound by the terms of the Act, which laid it down that damage done to property necessitates a claim being made within a certain period. There is an engine of destruction employed now known as the "delayed action bomb." We have no experience of such action and I take it that the Minister might, in the exercise of his discretion, not feel bound by the terms of the Act, and could make an ex gratia payment in the event of anything occurring. The second point upon which I should like information is whether, in connection with the next Vote, No. 73, any case has come to his notice where claims have been ruled out on technical grounds. I take it that when we passed these Acts it was not the intention to rule out claims on technical points. If any such cases in connection with the administration of these Votes occur, I take it that the Minister would be disposed to make ex gratia payments.
It has been brought to the notice of the Minister that owing to a misunderstanding an application was not received as a result of what occurred at Campile and the person concerned is getting no compensation. The man's house was almost blown down. An official of the county council and of the Board of Works visited the place at the time, and told the applicant that he would be all right and need not claim. As a result he cannot get compensation under the Act. I ask the Minister to consider that case because it is one of real hardship.
Are there many or are there any claims under the Damage to Property (Neutrality) Compensation Act outstanding for a long time or have all claims been disposed of? In regard to Vote 73, Personal Injuries (Civilians) Compensation, do merchant seamen who suffer injury as a result of attacks made on Irish vessels by foreign aircraft, identified or unidentified, qualify for compensation under the terms of that Act?
Merchant sailors are entitled to compensation. As to the question raised by Deputy Cosgrave, 100 claims have been turned down because they were not in at the date specified. Deputies will remember that when discussing the terms of the Damage-to Property (Neutrality) Compensation Bill, a very determined effort was made in the Dáil to see that no time should be lost in settling these claims, and it was eventually impressed upon me that I should give a promise to the House that all claims should be completely dealt with inside 12 months. If claims were to be dealt with inside 12 months, they had to be in before 12 months, and we had to fix 12 months as the period for making claims. There are 100 people whose claims have been ruled out by the Attorney-General as impossible of consideration, amongst them, the case mentioned by Deputy Allen. If I am correctly informed the officials who went to see that applicant told him that a claim must be made. Foolishly he did not make a claim until 15 months afterwards.
Have any claims been made in connection with the Campile bombing?
Yes.
And at Carlow?
Up to September 30th, 1943, 2,577 applications were received and 2,386 offers of compensation were made. Every applicant to whom an offer was made was at liberty either to accept the offer or if he refused it, to apply to the Circuit Court for compensation. Only one such application went to the Circuit Court so far, and the case is still sub judice. In 143 cases we refused to make any offer of compensation. In these cases the persons concerned were entitled to go to the court if they wished, but only six applicants have done so and, in the three cases that have been decided by the courts, the applicants failed to establish their claims. Every claim had to be disposed of by my Department by an offer of compensation or by refusing to make an offer within 12 months from the date of receipt. The Dáil insisted upon that being done. That obligation has been fulfilled, and the great bulk of the claims was dealt with in a much shorter period than the Act allowed. Twelve months after the passing of the Act claims continued to be received at a fairly even rate right up to 23rd September, 1942. All these cases have now been dealt with. The fact that it was found possible to dispose of the vast majority of the cases without appeal to the courts enabled claims to be met much more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case, and the fact that the claims taken to the courts were negligible in number is proof that the Department's offers were fair and reasonable.
I have a note of the number of applications made received from the different places where incidents occurred. At Campile, August, 1940, 18 applications were received and 18 offers of compensation accepted; at Sandycove, December, 1940, 30 applications were received, 27 offers of compensation accepted, one offer was refused and two not yet accepted or refused; South Circular Road and Terenure, January, 1941, 463 applications, 435 offers of compensation accepted and nine not yet accepted or refused; North Stand, North Circular Road, Summerhill and Phoenix Park, May, 1941, 1,866 applications, 1,666 offers of compensation accepted, one offer refused, 43 not yet accepted or refused. There were 200 other applications, of which 174 accepted offers of compensation, one offer was refused, and nine not yet accepted or refused. Arising out of the administration of that Act, and the work done by the officials who were told to take charge, I should like to say that they have done a difficult job with great ability and great expedition. They have done a most satisfactory job, and the Minister is most grateful to them, and I think the Dáil should be grateful also.
Could the Minister say what happens when a grantee under this Act refuses the compensation?
He can take the matter to court.
The matter goes to court for arbitration?
He may take it to court.
Or simply get nothing at all?
He can take it to court or accept what the Minister offers.
When the Minister speaks of a grant having been refused, he implies that legal proceedings are pending under the Act?
May be pending.
