HC Deb 14 June 1892 vol 5 cc1130-41

COMMITTEE.

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

(10.44.) MR. SEXTON

I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, leave out from "date" to "the," in line 9, and insert "on the passing of this Act," so that the clause shall come into effect in the usual way from the date of the passing of this Act. The object of the clause is to equalise the salaries of the Commissioners of the Irish Land Commission, and I may state in a few words how the matter at present stands. The Land Commission is composed of five members: three of whom held office under the Land Act of 1881, and two under the Land Purchase Act of 1885. Of the Commissioners who hold office under the Act of 1881 the Judicial Commissioner has the salary of a Judge of the High Court, and the other two Commissioners under the original Act have each of them a salary of £3,000 a year. The two Commissioners who hold office Under the Act of 1885, commonly called Purchase Commissioners, have each a salary of £2,000 a year. Last year, at the time of the passing of the Land Purchase Act, the Government were placed under a pledge to introduce a Bill this year for the purpose of equalising the emoluments of these functionaries; and the present Bill has been introduced as the redemption of that pledge. I must observe, however, that it appears to me that this clause proposes to carry out that object in rather a questionable fashion, because it proposes that the salaries should be equalised, not from the date of the passing of the Act, but from the date at which the appeals mentioned in Section 29 of the Land Purchase Act shall be disposed of. When the Land Purchase Act was before the House last year it was proposed that all the Commissioners should have equal functions, and that all the five Commissioners should participate in all the functions of the Commission. But it was pointed out at the time that the Rent Commissioners were considerably in arrear with their work; that there was a great bulk of appeals in cases where fair rents had been fixed to be disposed of; and that it would not be fair or reasonable that the Rent Commissioners should participate in the work of the purchase department until they had disposed of the arrears. A provision was accordingly inserted in the Land Purchase Bill that until the Rent Commissioners had cleared off the arrears of fair-rent appeals, they should not concern themselves with the work of the purchase department; and con- versely, that until the Rent Commissioners had disposed of the fair-rent appeals, the Purchase Commissioners should not concern themselves with the work of fixing fair rents. Now, the proposal of the Government is that until the Rent Commissioners clear off the arrears of work which lie upon their hands, the Purchase Commissioners shall not have the increase of salary of £1,000 a year to which they are admittedly entitled. I should point out that the Rent Commissioners are juniors to the Purchase Commissioners, having been comparatively recently appointed. The Purchase Commissioners are at present the same gentlemen who were appointed under the Act of 1885, and are seven years in office, whereas the present Rent Commissioners are only in office three or four years. I do not think that it shows much consideration for the dignity of the senior Purchase Commissioners that they should be placed substantially at the mercy of one of their juniors, Mr. Wrench; and I think it is an invidious position to put Mr. Wrench in, as it may possibly expose him to undue temptation. It may possibly be conceived that he might not go through the arrears at a headlong pace if the increase of the salaries of the other Commissioners were to be dependent upon the speed with which he disposed of them. Moreover, supposing Mr. Justice Bewley, or Mr. Wrench, or Mr. Fitzgerald were, through illness or any other cause, to become incapacitated for the discharge of their duty, so long as the fair-rent appeals were delayed the proposal actually is that Mr. M'Carthy and Mr. Lynch would have to wait for the increase to their salaries of £1,000 a year until the ailing Commissioner was restored to health or was able to return to his duty. Therefore, it is with very considerable confidence that I propose to insert these words, which will bring the clause providing for the increase of salary into operation from the date of the passing of the Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 7, to leave out from the word "date" to the word "the," in line 9, and insert "of the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

(10.54.) MR. JACKSON

The hon. Member has stated with great fairness pretty well the facts of the case. But he left out one or two considerations which it is necessary to bring before the Committee. He has stated that this Bill has been brought in, as he put it, in pursuance of a pledge made last year when the Land Purchase Act was before this House. I do not think it can be put quite so far as to say that a pledge was given on the subject. Certainly there was an understanding; but I think that understanding only went this length, so far as my information goes: A question was raised as to whether the salary of the two sets of Commissioners ought not to be identical; and I remember it being urged on that side of the House that a certain date should be fixed before which time neither set of Commissioners should do the work of the other. The hon. Gentleman states that the Fair Rent Commissioners are in arrear with their work; but I am afraid it cannot be said that the Purchase Commissioners are not in arrear with their work. They are not making such progress as we could have hoped; and, as a matter of fact, we have recently strengthened their hands by giving them additional assistance in order to try to catch up the arrears of purchase work. But I am afraid it will take some time, and probably a longer time than the hearing of the appeals, before the arrears can be overtaken. We found it necessary that the date fixed in the Act of 1891 should be adopted in this Bill; that is, the date at which the Purchase Commissioners on the one hand can take part in the fair-rent cases, and the Fair Rent Commissioners on the other hand can take part in the purchase business. When that time arrives the duties would become identical, and practically interchangeable in the two classes of work. With regard to the salaries of the two sets of Commissioners, we do not propose to make any comparison between the work of the two sets of Commissioners. The work of both sets of Commissioners is undoubtedly of great importance. Both sets of Commissioners are entrusted with dealing with very large sums of money, and no doubt their work is important. The Fair Rent Commissioners are entrusted with very important work in fixing fair rents, or hearing cases of appeal against rents fixed. But these salaries have been fixed already. It is true that on the passing of the Land Act last year Parliament thought fit to raise the salaries of the Fair Rent Commissioners beyond the salaries enjoyed by the Purchase Commissioners. Parliament took that view; and it was on an appeal being made on the other side of the House that the salaries should be equalised that an understanding was come to that when the work, as I have said, was identical and interchangeable, the salaries should be equalised. Of course, equalisation must take one of two forms.

MR. SEXTON

Three forms.

MM. JACKSON

They might be equalised by raising the one or lowering the other. We have taken, perhaps, the most generous course of raising the salaries of the Purchase Commissioners. But we hope it may be possible, when the time arrives when the work of the two sets of Commissioners shall be interchangeable, that we may be able to do with four Commissioners instead of five; and that therefore we may be able to save the salary of one, and thus while equalising the salaries improve the position of the Purchase Commissioners, and at the same time effect some economy in the Department by the abolition of one of the Commissioners. I think I need say no more on the subject. Perhaps I may say, however, that there is another Amendment following in the name of the hon. Member upon which I shall have something to say. But, in the meantime, I do not think I can accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member.

(10.59.) MR. SEXTON

I think the reply of the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely unsatisfactory. I think it is a matter for strong comment that such an able and painstaking body of officials should be dealt with in such an ungenerous manner. The right hon. Gentleman has argued that the Purchase Commissioners cannot now transact the business of the Rent Commissioners, but he is also forced to argue that the Rent Commissioners cannot now transact the business of the Purchase Commissioners. The force of that argument disappears in the fact that the Land Commissioners are confined to one Department. The existence of the arrears has been referred to, but that fact affords, I think, a very good case for pressing this Amendment on the acceptance of the right hon. Gentleman. Why are there arrears? Because of the policy of the Government with regard to the Land Purchase Acts. The Government passed the Land Purchase Act of last year with a new condition by which the tenant was obliged to provide an insurance fund; and it was well known to every one that the insertion of that provision would so hamper purchase that the tenants would be very eager to avail themselves of the balance under the Ashbourne Acts, which required no insurance fund. Therefore, last year there was a rush made in Ireland for the balance of the Ashbourne money, and that involved a great increase in the transactions before the Purchase Commissioners. Surely it would be very unjust to argue that, because the policy of the Government has caused a rush of applications and has vastly increased the work of the Commissioners, these facts should now be cited as a reason for arguing that the increase of salary should not be immediately given. I rather think that the existence of these heavy arrears due to the policy of the Government is a double reason why the increase of salary should be immediately conceded, because that increase in their labours was not foreseen last year. I must again emphasise the inexpediency and the disregard of the dignity of the Purchase Commissioners involved in leaving the increase of their salaries at the will of their juniors. The Purchase Commissioners have seven years' service; the Land Commissioners were only appointed three or four years ago. Mr. Wrench and his colleagues can determine how fast they will dispose of these appeals. They may for the next five years allow some appeals that were lodged before June last year to remain undetermined, and so long as one remains undetermined Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Lynch are not to have their £1,000 a year. Any Government which makes such a proposal is not mindful as it ought to be of the respect that is due to the senior officials of the Department; officials who have discharged their duty in a devoted and painstaking manner—a manner which not only frees them from blame from any quarter, but has entitled them to praise from all sorts and conditions of men interested in the administration of the system of land purchase. I do trust the reply of the right hon. Gentleman may not be taken as his final word. The question is whether this £2,000 a year shall be given at once, or at some future time to be determined, not by the merits of the officials concerned, or by anything they can do, but by something that may be left undone by other persons, with which they have no concern and over which they have no control. The work under the Redemption of Rent Act has fallen not upon the Rent Commissioners, but upon the Purchase Commissioners. That work has fallen entirely on Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Lynch, and I do strongly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take that into consideration. We do not deny there may be economy in the expenses of this Department. No doubt, within a moderate time it will be possible to reduce the number of the Commission to four; but that, instead of being an argument against my Amendment, seems to me a reason why the older officials of the Department should receive a generous recognition. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to do a graceful and a gracious act by giving practical acknowledgment to the merit of these officials, and paying due deference to the wishes of all the Representatives of Ireland.

(11.9.) COLONEL NOLAN

The hon. Member for West Belfast has made his case very clear, and it seems to me that the Chief Secretary has advanced no argument against the proposal. The salaries of the Purchase Commissioners are to depend on the speed with which another set of Commissioners do their work. How would the Chief Secretary like his salary to depend on the speed with which the Irish Attorney General did his work? That would strike everyone as being very curious, but it would not be more curious than the proposal of this Bill. There has been no reason alleged in this Bill for this extraordinary proceeding. You have got two gentlemen called Purchase Commissioners and three others called Rent Commissioners, and you propose that one body shall not be paid until the other body has done some particular work. It is the most complete case of flogging one man for the offence—if it is an offence—of the other that I have ever seen introduced into a Bill. I cannot understand the principle for the adoption of this extraordinary and anomalous proceeding; and, unless the Government accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, we must look upon it either as a practical joke or as a Party question. I fear there is something of this kind at the bottom, but as all the Irish Members have said that these salaries ought to commence from the beginning of the Act, I am surprised that the Government have brought forward this grotesque proposition. If we adopt the proposition, the people will question the good sense of an expiring House of Commons. We may be considered to be in our dotage at present, but I do not think we ought to set up as a future precedent such an extraordinary and strange Pill as this. I hope the Government may accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.

(11.10.) MR. MAURICE HEALY

I think this is the shabbiest Bill I have ever come across, and really I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not feel ashamed to get up and defend its provisions before the House of Commons. I cannot say, astonishing as its provisions are, that I am altogether surprised, because this Bill is simply a continuance of the policy, I might almost say, of contempt which the present Government have consistently displayed towards this Department of the Irish Land Commission. The odd thing is that these two gentlemen were appointed by Lord Salisbury. This is the one Department of the Government in Ireland which possesses the confidence of the Irish people. Why, then, should the salaries of the Purchase Commissioners not be increased until the Fair Rent Commissioners have cleared off their arrears of work? I contend that the salaries should be placed on the same level without such delay, and that it is most shabby to treat the Purchase Commissioners in this way. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division on the subject.

(11.18.) MR. JACKSON

I would like to say a few more words, as the hon. Member has used some strong language on the subject. The date is fixed in the Act of 1891, before which neither set of Commissioners shall do the work of the other. We have scrupulously followed that arrangement in order that there should be no charge made against us of having in any sense departed from it. The Government are therefore acting entirely in harmony with the Commissioners. All they want is to have the work done as soon as possible. I am afraid, however, that it will take twelve months to finish it, but hon. Members may rely that every attempt will be made to push it forward. Any suggestion, therefore, that the Government wish to prevent an increase of the Purchase Commissioners' salaries is entirely unfounded. I will only add that as the date has been fixed by Parliament, we are not justified in altering it.

(11.20.) MR. SEXTON

I wish to suggest that a compromise should be made on the subject. I offer this suggestion because I am extremely anxious to secure harmony in the management of affairs, and to promote the public interest, which depends a great deal on harmonious action on the part of the Land Commissioners. I also desire that a painful impression should not be left in the minds of the Representatives of Ireland on account of the irreconcilable action on the part of the Government in this matter. I must take issue with the right hon. Gentleman when he mixes up the question of salary with the question of clearing off arrears of work.

MR. JACKSON

It is so arranged in the Act. There can be no interchange of duties on the part of the Commissioners until a certain date.

MR. SEXTON

That is not the question. This is a question of increase of salary, which does not depend upon when the changes take place. We argued that it is absurd to cast upon the Fair Rent Commissioners the functions of purchase until they had cleared off their other work, because otherwise the duties to be imposed upon them could have no real effect. We never dreamt for a moment that the delay of the transfer of the Fair Rent Commissioners to the Purchase Department would also delay the increase of salary of the Purchase Commissioners. Therefore we disclaim any responsibility for it. In our view, the Purchase Commissioners are entitled to the increase of salary from the passing of the Bill. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that in his view the work will not take more than nine months.

MR. JACKSON

A year.

MR. SEXTON

Then I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to do a graceful act in deference to the unanimously expressed wish of the Representatives of Ireland, and relieve the Purchase Commissioners from the humiliating position in which they are placed. I hope he will also give the Fair Rent Commissioners a gentle hint to clear off the arrears of work in a limited time, and thus secure for the people the advantages conferred by the Act of last year.

MR. JACKSON

I do not like to answer without a little consideration. I agree there is force in what the hon. Member has said about the possibility of one or two appeals delaying the time even beyond the power of the Commissioners themselves, because there might be technical difficulties or legal delays, over which they had no power. Perhaps we had better adjourn the matter, and in the meantime I will see whether I can accept the suggestion of the hon. Member, or something approximating to it.

MR. SEXTON

I leave the matter with every confidence.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Would it not be most convenient to pass the Bill through Committee, so that it may be printed, and then deal with this matter on the Report stage?

MR. SEXTON

I am quite satisfied with that arrangement.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?

MR. SEXTON

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

Before my second Amendment I wish to raise the question in regard to the scale of pension. As the clause now stands these Purchase Commissioners will only be entitled to pensions calculated upon the scale as if they were clerks in the Civil Service. They are judicial persons; their functions are, in large degree and eminent character, judicial; the tenure of office is the same as that of a County Court Judge; their salaries are based on the Consolidated Fund, and, by the withdrawal of their salaries, the Government and the House have shown that they regard the salaries as judicial. The County Court Judge is entitled to a pension on a judicial scale. The County Court Judge is a Court of First Instance, and his decisions come before these Commissioners for review, and they hold a higher position, so far ascertain actions in regard to land are concerned. Yet we have the anomaly that the lower office of County Court Judge has pension fixed on the judicial scale, while the Appellate Court only receives the pension of a Civil Service clerk. I move to leave out after the word "calculated," in the last line but one in the clause, in order to insert "upon a judicial scale."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, to leave out the words "calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Superannuation Act," and insert "upon a judicial scale."

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. JACKSON

This question has been carefully considered by the Treasury, and I think there can be no difference made between the Purchase Commissioners and the Fair Rent Commissioners in the scale of superannuation. I think it would be impossible to accept this.

MR. SEXTON

Then I do not press this matter further, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see in it a further argument for equalising their position as far as possible in regard to salaries.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

My last Amendment provides what is very necessary with regard to Commissioners who hold office and discharge analogous functions before they become Purchase Commissioners. The principle of the Amendment is one the Government have urged with so much energy upon the House in regard to a less important and, perhaps, less deserving class of officials, that I have no doubt as to its acceptance.

MR. MADDEN

In substance I am in a position to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, but I would move in substitution words which have been carefully considered by the Treasury. The difficulty is that under the Act of 1881 the Commissioner or Sub-Commissioner was precluded from coming in that Act for the purpose of valuation. In the removal of that disability I think the words I propose would carry out the intentions of the hon. Member.

MR. SEXTON

That Amendment will dispose of the case of Mr. McCarthy, but is it certain that Mr. Lynch will also be included?

MR. MADDEN

There is no difference. The interval will be covered.

MR. SEXTON

Is it quite certain that will be taken into account without provision in the Bill?

MR. MADDEN

Yes; I may mention that even without the words I suggest, where there had been service to the Crown under the Act of 1881, there would be title. But in order to make it perfectly clear, those words have been suggested.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, at the end of the clause, add "notwithstanding anything done in the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881."—(Mr. Madden.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.