CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 2 August 1922)

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
I beg to move that these Amendments and Reasons be now considered.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Perhaps the noble Viscount will take the opportunity of explaining to us the effect of the Commons Amendments, or perhaps he would prefer to do so on the Amendments as they come up.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
My Lords, I will make a very short general explanation, because I think it would be tedious if I went into each Amendment now. I think I can say in a few words what is the general effect of the attitude taken up in another place towards your Lordships' Amendments. I must say first that I faithfully carried out the undertaking that I gave to your Lordships. I strongly urged upon the Government and upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the strength of your Lordships' feelings upon this subject, and that the utmost consideration should be given to your Lordships' Amendments upon their merits. I think I went even further, because, of course, I suggested that if they could be considered on their merits in another place it would be a considerable advantage. That was done, and your Lordships will appreciate the fact, if you have studied the debate, that these Amendments were considered on their merits.
It is true that the objections are set out here in the form of privilege, but it is equally true that the merits were considered when the Amendments were discussed. Now it always appears, when these documents come back from another place, that the House of Commons disagrees with many of your Lordships' Amendments. Of course, there do not appear upon the Paper the Amendments moved by your Lordships that were accepted in another place, and quite a number were so accepted. Altogether about sixteen Amendments were introduced 1074 by your Lordships, and of those no fewer than seven were accepted in another place. May I refer to two of them which were in the nature of privilege Amendments? One was the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, which I did accept. That was on the question of not taking into consideration, in fixing these pensions, the amount already received as compensation for wounds and injuries. That has been accepted. And of course, although I moved it myself, there was a privilege Amendment about the alteration of the date.
There is another important Amendment to which I will allude here, and it is on page 3 of the Commons Reasons. Your Lordships will see that it refers to the pension of an officer or constable retired since January 1, 1919, through unfitness caused by injury. Now, a good deal of sympathy was shown in another place with that Amendment, but the House of Commons were unable to accept it for one very simple reason, that it was outside the general scope of the Bill, and it would have been necessary, and obviously impossible at so late a stage, to start the machinery over again and have another Financial Resolution.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
It is the second point which is the material one.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
At all events, taken together they form a very considerable objection.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I apologise to the noble Viscount for interrupting him, but the fact that it is outside the scope of the Bill is not so good a reason as the technical reason that it would require another Financial Resolution. That is a substantial reason, because of the mechanical difficulty of setting it up.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
I am obliged to the noble Marquess for his interruption, because he has put the matter before your Lordships in a more succinct way than I could have done, and has therefore shortened my remarks. But anyhow, the relative value of the two objections is not of great importance for the purpose of my argument, because an undertaking was given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that this matter should be dealt with. I will read his exact words on that point, because it is of importance. I think you will see he fully meets 1075 this point. It is done in this way. He said— I have had a consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whilst the Government cannot accept the Amendment in this Bill, because it is outside the scope of the Bill and of the Financial Resolution— the noble Marquess will see the order of the reasons— and is therefore impossible for the House to go into it, my right hon. friend will agree to an Amendment of the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions Order, 1922, so that these particular wounded Royal Irish Constabulary who since 1st April, 1919, have been discharged from the force because of wounds with a wound pension less than they would have received had they stayed on unwounded and been disbanded, will have their pensions raised to what they would have received had they been disbanded. That really very solidly meets the case.
But there is one very small point remaining. The noble Lord's Amendment dated back to January 1, 1919; this undertaking goes to April 1, 1919. The reason of that is that this Bill only dates back to that particular period. There is no substantial difference whatever, because I understand that nobody in these circumstances did retire from the Royal Irish Constabulary in those intervening months, and so the matter is entirely covered. Those very substantial alterations in favour of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been made in another place, and I hope that, having regard to that and to the other Amendments accepted there, your Lordships will be content not to disagree with the other Amendments and with the attitude taken up by another place to them when we come to deal with them.

THE EARL OF MAYO
May I ask whether there will be the same sort of scale of disablement pensions as is being settled in the Army for these Constabulary who are to have their time for pensions so to speak increased. For instance, a man has his right arm injured by a bullet and rendered useless. Will there be a scale in the same way as there is in the Army for partial disablement, total disablement, and slight disablement?

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
Although I have a general knowledge of the arrangements in the Army I have not in my head the exact details, and I do not quite know how the two compare. But that is not a question strictly relevant to this point, which simply brings these men within the ambit of the arrangements made for those who are being disbanded.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Viscount for interrupting him just now, but the reason why I did so was this. I think it very important, in the interests of the procedure in your Lordships' House and its relation to the other place, that it should not come to be thought that there is anything in the nature of privilege in inserting Amendments here which are outside the scope of the Bill as it reaches us from another place. The rule of the House of Commons is that Amendments which are outside the scope of the Bill cannot be inserted in the House of Commons, but it is not the rule as between the two Houses. Once the Bill has passed from the House of Commons and is in your Lordships' House, and your Lordships are pleased to alter the Bill, even outside its scope; then that cannot be taken notice of as a matter of privilege by another place, because each House has complete control of its own business. They may, of course, differ from us on the merits, but they cannot say there is any violation of privilege. This has no kind of analogy to the objections on privilege which have to do with finance, and I was very anxious that it should not be thought, from a colloquial phrase used by a Minister, that there was any recognition by this House of authority in the House of Commons to disagree with our Amendments upon the technical ground that they are outside the scope of the Bill as it left the House of Commons. There is no such rule. That is important.
The other point referred to by the noble Viscount, the mechanical difficulty, though not conclusive, is a real one. Though I do not pretend to be an authority on the procedure in another place, it appears to be a rule that where an Amendment of your Lordships' House increases a charge beyond the scope of the Bill, and even if privilege is waived, the Amendment has to be agreed to by a Financial Resolution, just as it would have to be if it originated in the House of Commons. That adds, of course, two more stages to the procedure, which is a matter of importance at this time of the session.
On the merits of that particular Amendment, I think that the noble Viscount has met us in a very substantial manner. I do not mean that I like an administrative Order as well as a provision in an Act of Parliament. What a Government can do by administrative Order it can undo by 1077 administrative Order, and therefore in that respect the wounded pensioner is at the mercy of the Government, if they were so disposed. I do not suggest for a moment that the Government, after having given this assurance to the House, are likely to do anything so unfair as to alter the Order again, to the disadvantage of the ex-constable. And so I think there is a very substantial concession in this Amendment. There is, however, another Amendment upon which, no doubt, some noble Lord will have something to say directly, where a pensioned officer, an ex-constable, is involved; that Amendment the Commons have thrown out, and I do not understand that there is any concession upon it.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
Which is that?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
It is the Amendment in Clause 1, page 4, line 34, to insert a new clause, and then in subsection (1) the noble Viscount will find the words to which I refer. Perhaps I am wrong, in which case he will be able to explain.
We are all obliged to the noble Viscount for his intervention with the Government in another place, and for the concessions which he has obtained. If he has not obtained all the concessions, then I am afraid, if there is an injustice still left— if there is, I say; I do not know that that is sa—I am afraid the noble Viscount must not complain if notice is taken of it out of doors. But, so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, I am sure no member of the House would wish us to try to insist upon a privilege Amendment. We did our best, and if the privilege Amendments cannot be accepted by the House of Commons it is not for us to insist upon them.