§ 1. £150,000, Constabulary Force, Ireland.
1090§ *MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)We are asked to grant £150,000 to make good a possible deficiency. The Royal Irish Constabulary have their pensions voted direct by Parliament. The amount this year is £305,388, but this fund forms no part of the superannuation fund at all; it is a separate fund called the Police Reward Fund, or the Constabulary Force Fund. It was created originally by fines of the police, and by a reduction of their pay by 10s. per cent. The time has actually not arrived when the fund is insufficient to meet its liabilities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that contingency may arise, and yet we are asked, without having a single fact or figure placed before us, to vote this £150,000. I would submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee that we are, at all events, entitled to know the present condition of the fund. Parliament is entitled to know exactly what are the assets and liabilities of the fund. If there is a deficiency let Parliament annually vote the sum. I think this is a dangerous precedent, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Vote this evening.
§ *(5.32.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover SquareI am not surprised at the view which is taken by the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt there have been laches in the past, and while the present Government believe that no obligation has been incurred, past Irish Governments have allowed the idea to grow up in the Force that practically there is an obligation to meet any deficiency. The Force is uneasy with regard to the solvency of the fund, and the unhappy position is this, that while the members of the Force have been encouraged to believe they are safe, Parliament may theoretically, nevertheless, reject the responsibility. I think that would be a very serious thing for Parliament to do. It does not seem to me to be a good suggestion that we should leave the matter open from year to year, neither getting the benefit of freedom from liability nor increasing the confidence of the Force. I must say I think the course we have taken is the soundest course. We are not going to hand over the money, but we are going 1091 to say we have provided for any deficiency. We have at all events taken a course which is somewhat inconvenient to ourselves, as it raises the expenditure of the year, but we have done so because we think it is the soundest course we can adopt. I cannot state exactly what the assets are; but I can say that few questions, if any, have given us more anxiety, and there are few which we have examined in greater detail. We should not feel justified in taking a smaller sum than this. I think the right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to believe that if I had not thought it wise and necessary to increase the expenditure of this year, which is already very large, by asking Parliament to assent to this sum, I should not have given my assent to this Vote. I cannot accept the view that the Vote ought to be withdrawn, as it would give the impression to the Force that Parliament was doubtful about its obligation to pay. Parliament should either repudiate that obligation or pay; but it would be unwise to halt between the two opinions.
§ *(6.37.) SIR G. TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)The right hon. Gentleman has told his story clearly, although he has not given the details my right hon. Friend has asked for. But it is clear from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that nobody feels more strongly than he does how unfortunate has been the story of the past. As far as I can see, the concessions that have been made to the Constabulary have been made by the Executive and not under statute. We have been objecting very much to a large liability being laid upon subsequent Parliaments with regard to ships and guns; but in the case of ships and guns, the policy can alter from year to year, and we thought that Parliament ought to have an opportunity of reviewing it. With all respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not see the same objection in this case if we are quite certain that the scale of gratuities, allowances, and rewards, is fixed for ever—at any rate that the maximum is fixed. I think it is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary, that the Secretary for Ireland or the Secretary to the Treasury should speak most positively on this point. Nobody knows better than those who have been at the Irish Office what great pressure is put on the 1092 Government to increase the allowances for gratuities of this sort; and if the Government acquiesces in what I cannot but describe as the self-denying policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in putting all this sum on himself in one year, it should be on the distinct understanding that there shall be no increase at all in these allowances. I cannot help paying a tribute on this subject to the great financial and administrative abilities of Sir Robert Hamilton, and pointing out that if he was not the first to see, he most clearly, of all who had preceded him, saw through the objects of the administration of the fund, for it was while he was at Dublin Castle, in 1883, that the liabilities of the Fund were brought to an end.
§ *(5.40.) THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.We are fully alive to the dangers which have been pointed out. Undoubtedly there has been laxity in the administration of the fund in the past, but whether this is due to the Irish Government or the Treasury I will not pause to inquire. But the members of the Constabulary Force are in no way responsible for the regulations. They are bound by statute to contribute to this fund. The amount of the gratuities is settled for them, and we are bound in honour to see the transaction is a prudent one. If the transaction is financially rotten the burden should fall on the Government and not on the men. The lesson, however, will not be thrown away on the Irish Government or on the Treasury, and the Committee need be under no apprehension that the evils which have occurred in the administration of the fund in the past will be repeated.
§ *(5.42.) MR. GOSCHENI will supply the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton with full details in regard to the assets and liabilities, but he is acquainted with the character of the gentlemen who have been inquiring into these questions, and he may be assured that the Estimates have been very carefully scrutinised.
§ (5.43.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)It seems to me very astonishing that there is not a single Irish Member in the House when this Vote is being discussed. We have frequently to complain that we are persistently 1093 voting money for Ireland, and I think we ought to have some statement from the Irish Members as to whether they consider this Vote legitimate and proper.
§ Vote agreed to.