§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Mr. SHORTTI beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This is a short Bill to provide for an increase in the pay of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The details are neither numerous nor complicated. The House will remember that the police in Ireland are the creatures of Statute, and their rates of pay can only be altered by Statute. That is the reason why this Bill is necessary. The Act of 1882 substantially regulated for many years the rates of pay and pension for the members of both forces. There have been amending Acts since then which have to some extent increased the pay of these forces. But, in common with the police in England, Scotland and Wales they have felt very severely the increased prices which are the result of the War. They have had bonuses granted them from time to time, but they have felt, and in my opinion rightly so, that they ought to have not only the war bonus but a considerable increase in their pensionable pay and a corresponding increase in their pension rates. The object of this Bill is to give effect to that claim, a claim which I believe all hon. Members for Ireland will admit to be right and just. The Bill, first of all provides for changes in the rates of pay and they are briefly these. For the Royal Irish Constabulary the increase in the case of the county inspectors is £50 per annum, and in the case of the district inspector £40, while in the case of the constable, which includes all ranks below the district inspector it is 11s. per week. In order to avoid any misunderstanding I should mention that in the case of the county and district inspector we have been obliged to provide that as they get an increase of £50 and £40 respectively their war bonus must be the same as that of other members of the force who are in a different rank.
With regard to the Dublin Metropolitan Police the constable, a term which covers all ranks up to chief superintendent, will have his salary increased 12s. per week; the chief superintendent's salary will be increased to £335, rising by £20 to £455, and the superintendents will start at £285, rising by £14 to £355, while the inspectors start at £160, rising by £8 to £200. 3024 All the constables defined in the term "constable" have the increase of 12s. per week. When it comes to the question of pensions, one of the grievances of the police in Ireland, as was the case of the police in England, is that of widows' pensions. These were settled under the Act of 1883. Undoubtedly they were very small—£10 yearly. There were other grievances. We have endeavoured to preserve the proportion in the raising which has always been borne in respect to the English police. But, as I said last night, you cannot absolutely compare the two, because the conditions of the two sets of police are quite different. An endeavour, however, has been made always at an equivalent. So here the same principle has been adopted of trying to preserve the same proportion with the police in England in the case of the pensions of widows. We have therefore provided in this Bill that the widows' pensions in Ireland should be the same as in England. The Bill provides that
a constable who was serving in the police force on the first day of September nineteen hundred and eighteen.And here I may interpolate the observation that all this increased pay will be antedated as from the 1st of September this year—Anyone Serving in the police force or in the service of the Crown for the purposes of the War, and anyone who joins after that date, but has been a constable five years, his widow shall be entitled to a pension.Hon. Members may notice in Clause 2, Sub-section (1) the words that the pension will be given "if they think fit"—that is, the police authorities. These were the words in the English Act, but we propose to follow here the example of the Solicitor-General in respect to the English Act, and we propose to amend the words by substituting "shall." These are the really material points of the Bill. There are other details having regard to the pensions of officers. They are increased. I would remind the House that they have always been given by the Lord-Lieutenant in proper cases; but the maximum has been increased from £30 to £50, and it may be increased a further 50 per cent in the case of an officer who dies as a result of following his duty. There are other provisions in the Act, but I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with them now. There has been in Ireland for some time a feeling that the police are improperly and insufficiently paid and I think everybody in Ireland is of that opinion. 3025 They are a body who, no matter what people's politics are, who command very-high respect, and they do their duty loyally and carefully, and I think everybody gives them credit for doing their best under very difficult circumstances. I do not think there is a single person in Ireland who will begrudge the police this not too great—as great as I could obtain—improvement in the rates of pensions. I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and I hope to get through the Committee stage to-morrow, and then I can deal more in detail with any sins of commission or omission.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BRADYThe right hon. Gentleman has correctly stated that all shades of Irish political opinion are agreed that the members of both the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force are well entitled to the increases of pay proposed in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to tell the House, however, that notwithstanding urgent representations made to him not only from these Benches, but I am glad to think also from other parts of the House above the Gangway, he has ignored the claims of pensioners in both these forces to a revision of their pensions which he could easily have provided for in the present Bill. In my remarks earlier to-day on this subject I am vain enough to think that I carried the House with me in the contrast which I drew between the pension system in this country and Scotland, and in Ireland, and I think that I satisfied hon. Members that a grave injustice would be done to both these police forces if this occasion was not availed of to increase their pensions. I pointed out that these pensions were fixed by Act of Parliament in 1883, and I think to state that fact is a sufficient reason for a revision. In this matter as in others, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt give us his sympathy, but he gives us no more and it will be very little satisfaction to the members of these two forces to simply have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to their application for an increased pension. I do not wish to say anything exaggerated or offensive, But I do say that I have never heard a poorer case offered to the House than that made out by the right hon. Gentleman as his reasons for not acceding to this demand. The right hon. Gentleman substantially agreed that these unfortunate men had a most genuine and legitimate grievance, and that their pensions 3026 ought to be increased, and then he tells us that this cannot be done. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is governed in his action by the Treasury, but we have been told not only on this occasion, but in other matters, that if there was unanimity of opinion in Ireland we had only got to come here and get that unanimity given effect to in the form of a Statute. There is absolute unanimity in this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman meets us with a blank refusal. As far as I am concerned—and I think I speak for my Friends on these benches—I am determined up to the very latest stages of this Bill to press on the attention of the Government the claims of these men for a revision of their pensions. Earlier in the evening I understood that there was some hope on the Treasury Bench that the Bill would pass through all its stages to-night. I do not lay claim to any very intimate knowledge of the procedure of this House, but I was advised that would be impossible under the Rules of the House, and I was confident, if an attempt of that kind were made, that you would rule it out of order. We are not, however, concerned with that now, because the right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is not his intention to ask the House to consider this Bill in Committee to-night, but when he moves the Committee stage, as I understand he will do to-morrow, I shall certainly avail myself of such opportunity, as I have to bring these pensioners within the ambit of the provisions of the Bill, and I hope, to use a popular phrase, the right hon. Gentleman will keep on it. Perhaps, in the meantime, he may have an opportunity of consulting the representatives of the Treasury with a view of granting the concession for which we ask. To be quite fair, that was evidently his original intention, because the title of the Bill indicates that it was intended to deal with the question of pensions. Of course, he will say that the Bill does deal with pensions, but it only goes back as far as 1st September last. The right hon. Gentleman made a great point of that fact and that the widow's pension would be of the same amount as obtained in England. I do not think there is anything very much in the nature of a substantial concession in that proposal. I notice, from Clause 2, Sub-section (2), that a constable who has completed five years' service will be entitled to pensionable rights. In the 3027 ordinary course of events, now that the War is over, the cost of living will have considerably decreased in five years' time. These young constables will be able to retire five years hence and reap the advantage of these decreased prices, but the unfortunate constable who has given his entire life—
§ Mr. SHORTTMay I point out that the hon. Member is dealing with the widow's pension?
§ Mr. BRADYThe same argument would apply to the widow's pension, because an existing pensioner might die to-day or tomorrow, and his widow could not enjoy the same rate of pension as the widow of a young constable will enjoy after her husband has served five years. I earnestly implore the right hon. Gentleman, even at this eleventh hour, to confer with the Treasury, and to see if something cannot be done to meet as just a claim as can be put before this House.
Mr. NUGENTI wish to call attention to the title of the Bill, which is,
A Bill to deal with the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, and for other purposes in connection with those forces.I desire to deal not only with what the Bill contains, but with what it omits. One of the serious blots on the Bill is that it does not remedy in regard to the Dublin Metropolitan Police a grievance of a very serious nature, in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor regretted that the Act as it stands did not give him power to grant a sworn inquiry. On many occasions I have had to bring before the House grievances in connection with that force. They were only brought to light when the men agreed to an organisation. The Chief Secretary promised in this House that no one should be penalised because of that organisation. That guarantee was broken, and five members of the force were dismissed because their comrades asked them to bring forward their grievances. That was afterwards admitted and dealt with in a Bill in this House. Will the Chief Secretary deny that the first officer dismissed was a man who had seventeen years' service? What was the cause of his dismissal? I have challenged the Chief Secretary time after time to deny that it was the result of a conspiracy on the part of the superintendent and a sergeant, who met in a public 3028 house on the 7th November. The date and hour were supplied to the Chief Secretary. These two men hatched a conspiracy to have these men dismissed. We were told by the Chief Secretary that there is ample opportunity for the men to bring forward their grievances. What is the fact? The superintendent makes a charge—
Mr. SPEAKERI do not quite follow what connection that has with this Bill, which deals only with pensions and pay.
Mr. NUGENTI beg your pardon, Sir. It does not say "connected with pensions and pay," but
for other purposes in connection with those forces.
Mr. NUGENTI am not a lawyer and am unable to follow the technicalities of the Bill, but it says
in connection with those forces.I can only complain that it was not included in the Bill, and that there is no opportunity of exposing these men's grievances, and discontent exists and will exist as the result of it.Widowers are permitted to live outside with their families and they have a lodging allowance of 13s. a week. But the moment the widower's youngest child comes to sixteen years of age he is deprived of his lodging money, and is compelled to pay 4s. 4d. barrack rent. Is that fair and reasonable? Surely that is not a thing that any human person would attempt to defend. This is either a Bill to do an act of justice or a Bill which has been forced on the House through agitation. If it is an act of justice, surely that justice should apply 3029 all round. Surely it should not be made manifestly clear that the policy pursued is that of the sucked orange, and that men who have spent years in the service and whose widows are granted the princely sum of £10 are to continue with no more than that sum, while in future the widows of men who have died are entitled to £26. Was there ever a more grotesque or scandalous thing presented in any Bill? You hold out the inducement of £26 for the widows of those who die after the passing of the Act to satisfy discontent. Will it not create discontent in the minds of every one of the widows who are trying to get an existence upon £10? If you want to allay discontent, you must make some attempt to show that it is not the result of agitation. These unfortunate widows have no one to make a fight for them. The pensioners were retired the moment they had spent twenty-five years in the service. There is a feeling among these people that they have been treated badly. They have been soured and made bitter. You are going to perpetuate that so far as the existing pensioners are concerned.
In the Act of 1914 provision was made that certain counties could be grouped together for the purpose of economising county inspectors as those counties became vacant. It is a strange thing, that when one of these counties becomes vacant a county inspector is appointed who has never been in the county from that day to this. Why did this gentleman get promotion, drawing, I assume, the salary of a county inspector, and all his other emoluments? Because he was one of those who organised a conspiracy to have imprisoned the hon. Member for Mayo and the hon. Member for West Belfast. The county inspector of Car-low to-day is the notorious Major Price. What is the meaning of this? Is it not a pure piece of jobbery? It is conduct of this character that sinks into the minds of the people and satisfies them that so far as fair play and justice are concerned, there is none meted out to the people in Ireland. The Chief Secretary is responsible as head of the force. I suppose he will give us his sympathy. He tells us that he sympathises with all these people, but so far as anything practical is concerned the sense of justice and fair play is absent. This will convey an extraordinary lesson to the people of Ireland. The Bill has been rushed in practically at the conclusion of 3030 the War. Two Bills have been necessitated in two years. The Government are now at last making some attempt to bring the pay of the policeman up to the same standard as that of an ordinary labourer in the city of Dublin or in any other large centre. The maximum salary he receives now is such that nobody would say he is treated in any way generously, and the Government should at least raise the wage to a standard sufficient for the men.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERI desire to congratulate the Chief Secretary upon having brought forward this long-deferred measure of justice for the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police in regard to their pay and pensions. Some time ago I went in considerable detail and with some care into this question, and I satisfied myself that considerable alteration was necessary in the statutory pay and pensions at that time. I am glad the Chief Secretary has found it necessary and desirable to bring forward this Bill; but in saying that I desire to associate myself with the hon. Member (Mr. Brady) in an expression of profound regret that he has not thought it advisable to deal with the question of pensions of retired members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The very fact that this Bill has been introduced for increasing the pensions of the existing members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police is in itself an admission that the pensions of the retired members is insufficient. I do not know where the difficulty arises against bringing forward a reasonable provision for these old pensioners. If it is from the Treasury, I would ask my right hon. Friend to exercise his influence with the Treasury to rectify it. It is notorious, and I do not think the Chief Secretary would deny, that the existing pensions of the members of these forces are entirely inadequate, having regard to the present cost of living and the standard of prices. This has been recognised in regard to many matters which have arisen in this House.
We know the great services that have been and are being rendered by the members of these forces, and why these men should not receive justice I cannot understand. I appeal to the Chief Secretary to answer the unanimous expression of opinion in Ireland, and the sympathetic desire of all 3031 English and Scottish Members who have considered the question, and before the Bill comes to the Committee stage to consider the question so that we may introduce an Amendment which will remedy this undoubted injustice. If a further Resolution in Committee is necessary I have not the slightest doubt that it will receive sympathetic consideration in this House. I trust that the Chief Secretary will be able to assure us that he will use his influence with the Treasury to remedy the injustice which has been explained to the House.
§ Mr. DILLONI regret that I cannot congratulate the Chief Secretary on this Bill. The granting of the increases of pay and pensions is regarded by, I suppose, all in Ireland as a long-deferred act of justice to these forces. Though I have come into collision with these forces on many occasions I recognise fully that they have done their duty in very difficult circumstances, and the Dublin police especially are a body of men who deserve every consideration at the hands of the Government. But I cannot congratulate the Chief Secretary on this Bill because I regard it as another example of a most dangerous principle which has been adopted by the present Government on many occasions lately—a principle which is sowing the dragon's teeth in this country as well as in Ireland. The hon. Member who has just sat down said that he could not understand where the difficulty arose in dealing with former members of the police force, whose claims are as strong as those of the men now serving—in some respects even stronger, because many of them served at a time when the difficulties of the Royal Irish Constabulary were considerably greater than they have been in recent years. What makes it more difficult to explain the leaving out of these men is that the sum of money at stake is comparatively trifling, and it would be a gradually diminishing sum, which in a few years would disappear entirely. But why is this Bill, which is the recognition of a long-deferred claim, brought forward now? It is brought forward now because of the strike of the London police. That is the real and only ground for this Bill. The strike of the London police forced the hands of the Government to increase the pay of the police here, and this Bill was promised because of the fear that the Dublin Metropolitan Police and Royal 3032 Irish Constabulary would follow their example. That is the whole explanation of the Bill, and I do not believe the Dublin police or the Royal Irish Constabulary would have had the slightest chance of getting this Bill if it had not been for the action of the London police. That is a most deplorable state of affairs. The pensioners are left out because they cannot strike. How could they. The only way they could would be to refuse their pension, and that would not be a profitable way. The Treasury and the Government adopt the principle which they have adopted on many occasions, and will not concede anything to men who do not make themselves dangerous, but the moment there is a dangerous strike they immediately concede what they have even refused to consider before. That is a horrible principle for any Government to adopt. I regret to say it has been pursued not only in the case of the London police, but in the case of many large bodies of men during the last few years. That is the whole explanation of this Bill. The Chief Secretary is unable to say, and has not attempted to argue that this Bill is founded on justice as regards the treatment of the pensioners as compared with the treatment of the men now in the service. He cannot do so. All he says is that he cannot get any more, or in other words, that the Treasury and the Government will not consent to justice being done. Why is that so? It is because they are afraid that the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary would follow the example of the London police, and that he dare not face that, but the pensioners have a remedy. I think it is really a monstrous thing, and all we can do is to warn the Chief Secretary that at every stage of this Bill he will have to fight us on this question. He cannot stand up at this Box, because he has not got a single word to say in defence of this principle.
Major NEWMANWhatever principle may have induced the Government to bring forward this Bill, I am perfectly certain it will be welcomed generally by public opinion in Ireland. I welcome it especially for one small reason, and that is that the pensions of widows of county inspectors and district inspectors has been increased from the beggarly sum of £30 to the small but bigger sum of £50. I had a series of pathetic letters from those poor ladies asking me to do what I could, and I am very glad to see that in some 3033 way the Chief Secretary has recognised their claim. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might do one small thing in the case of the county and district inspectors and allow them to get their petrol at the same price as doctors. While I welcome this Bill I regret very much that it has been brought up at this late stage. We have had to debate it on two succeeding nights. I am sorry for that, because I think a Bill of this importance might have been debated some afternoon with a full House or full Committee present. I am also sorry that this Bill, like many other Irish Bills, has not been referred to some Standing Committee sitting in Dublin with Irish Members, and perhaps some Irish Peers thrown in. If this Bill had been carefully looked into by such a Committee, it would, of course, have had to cut its coat according to its cloth, but it is perfectly certain that it would have looked at the particular title of this Bill, and would have explored every possible way of relieving not alone those who are the younger men in the force, but the older men, the old pensioners, and I am convinced that that Grand Committee would have explored very carefully a region which I doubt myself the Chief Secretary has explored. They would have gone into the question of the Constabulary Fund. I used to endeavour to get the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office to make some survey of that fund. I used to put a great many questions on that point, but I never got a satisfactory answer. I gave up harrying the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but the subject is well worth exploring.
The benefit branch of that fund is absolutely wrapt in mystery. It is a very old fund. It dates from 1836. It was established by an Act known as the Drummond Act, and was called the Police Reward Fund. It was laid down that this was a fund to accumulate for the payment of rewards, gratuities, bounties, pensions, and other allowances. In 1891 something happened. The fund was divided into two parts—a reward branch and a benefit branch. I am not a lawyer—the right hon. Gentleman is—but I understand there are very grave doubts if that could be done legally. In other words, I doubt if a test case had been brought before the Courts as to the division of the fund into two distinct branches that it could have stood. Of course the object was to open the reward branch to non-subscribers. The Drummond Act directed quite plainly that 3034 everyone who participated should be a subscriber and therefore it is open to doubt if that division were legally made, and if large sums were not diverted from this fund which ought to belong to these old pensioners. Undoubtedly lavish money was given as rewards to county and district inspectors out of this fund. For instance, when an inspector-general went his tour round Ireland and called to inspect the barracks of a particular county, having found everything right there, that the buttons of the men were clean, their brass nicely kept, and so on, he gave out of this reward fund a tip to the county inspector or the district inspector as the case might be. In that way, again, large sums were diverted from the pensions, and the result was that some time—I think it must have been about 1891—£150,000 had to be allocated, apparently to make the pension part of this fund solvent, but though that was done it was forgotten that some years previously £42,800 had been taken from this fund and passed to the Consolidated Fund, and no payment was given for that. There has been a Committee in Ireland for some time past of these police pensioners, called the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensioners' Association. They have gone very carefully into the question of this fund which is, of course, restricted to the payment of widows and orphans of subscribers. They first of all want to know, as I want also to know, to whom is the surplus to go when the last widow and the last child is dead?
Major NEWMANI am going to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that he might, without asking the Treasury for further funds, meet the claims of these pensioners. They suggest
- "1. To pay to the subscriber and his wife, conjointly, the amount of gratuity payable at death to the widow.
- 2. To pay to the widower subscriber and his children, conjointly, the deceased mother's full share—same as paragraph 1.
- 3. No grants claimed for children under eighteen born in the service, as it is presumed they would all pass over the limit before claims would mature in the ordinary course.
- 4 Single men (subscribers) still serving and lapsed subscribers now on pension to receive back their full contributions to the Fund, with reasonable interest added."
Mr. SPEAKERIt would require a special Bill to deal with that particular point. It involves a grant of money out, of the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. DUNCANAs one who was directly connected with the recent police strike in London, I should like to say a word on this question. I know, of course, the different reasons for the recent disturbances. From what has been said by the Irish Members, and especially by the hon. and learned Member for York—whose speech I thought was very reasonable—it does seem to me that there has been a case made out for some further consideration, especially of the pensions which come within the scope of this Bill. It has been pointed out that there are possibilities of trouble in Ireland with the police, as there have been in this country. I feel that just as much as the Chief Secretary for Ireland. In this House I have heard the highest possible testimonials given to the Royal Irish Constabulary, and that makes me desirous, as I am sure every hon. Member is, that these men should be kept thoroughly loyal and looked after in the best possible way as far as their wages and conditions of service are concerned. I am convinced that the grievances of these men have not been attended to as they should have been, and it is not altogether an oversight, because the attention of the authorities has been drawn from time to time to these matters. The men have had to contend with the enormous increase in the cost of living, and it is really impossible for them to tolerate the existing conditions any longer. There need be no surprise at all if those who have to deal with the wages and conditions of these men would only put themselves in their place, and consider seriously what these men have to face in order to eke out an existence. I would only humbly add my word of appeal that when this Bill goes to Committee some little further consideration may be given to this matter.
§ Colonel McCALMONTUnlike some other measures, this Bill does not benefit anybody who has a vote, because the Royal Irish Constabulary have, I think, no votes. I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given this excellent body quite sufficient credit. He 3036 has compared it with the police force of this country, but various points of difference make the Royal Irish Constabulary much nearer a military force and takes away their independence, and therefore, in my opinion, necessitates their being very much better paid than the English policeman. The latter lives, it may be, in his own place, and merely turns out once a week or a fortnight when asked by someone to arrest somebody. That is a very different life to the life of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I should like to pay a very brief tribute to the Irish constable as being connected very closely with the regiment in which I have the honour to serve; for had it not been for the men we got from the Royal Irish Constabulary during the present War the regiment would probably have ceased to exist. For that reason I am very anxious to see the conditions of this force improved. I hope the Chief Secretary thoroughly realises what sort of force they are as compared with the ordinary police force. I am bound to say that I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Mayo in regard to the causes which have given rise to this Bill. I think it has been extracted from the Government very unwillingly. I think it is a not very generous Bill. I am bound to say—and I think in this matter I speak for my party—that, in the matter of ignoring the claims of pensioners, and especially the old pensioners, a mistake has been made. Anything we can do, short of looking a gift horse in the mouth, to co-operate with hon. Members below the Gangway in order to press the claims of the pensioners on the Government we shall most certainly do. Several matters may require to be altered in the Bill in Committee. I think the powers given to the Inspector-General in the matter of money require revision. Like the hon. Member who has spoken from below the Gangway, we feel that the pension question is an urgent problem, and we feel it has been very seriously neglected in this Bill.
§ Mr. BOLANDThe Chief Secretary had plenty of warning before this Debate came on as to the weak points of this Bill. We could not help noticing that in introducing the Bill that he very carefully-skated over points to which reference has been made and dwelt upon the other provisions of the Bill. He must be perfectly-aware of the strong feeling in all parts of the House that as regards the position of the old pensioners the Bill does not do 3037 justice. I would like, however, to call attention to this: During the course of the War, in the case of separation allowances and increases of pensions a great deal has been made—and rightly made—of the increased cost of living. So much so, unless I am very much mistaken, that when the case of soldier pensioners who have fought in previous wars was made out for an increase of pension that was taken into account. These police pensioners are in precisely the same position. They are men who have ceased to serve but whose cost of living has been increased in precisely the same way. Tonight the Chief Secretary has heard the strong expression of opinion from all sides of the House upon this point, and I hope that before the Committee stage is reached to-morrow he will consult with the Treasury authorities and meet the general wish of the House.
§ Mr. BOYLEI should like to join with other hon. Members on these benches and with hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway in expressing appreciation of the Royal Irish Constabulary as a body and of their services. If they deserve well of anybody, they deserve well of the Government, to whom, in very difficult and trying circumstances, they have always given loyal service. For many years I was associated with police administration in a large city in England. When the Chief Secretary talked about the police in Ireland being advantageously placed because they live in barracks, he surely overlooked what the hon. and gallant Gentleman above the Gangway (Colonel McCalmont) referred to, the fact that one can hardly imagine anything more trying than the life of an Irish constable in a country station. He has to answer the roll call and appear in all circumstances and at all hours of the day, as well as answer the last roll call at night, and always has to pass the supervising eye of his sergeant. A constable in England is exempt from all that. He lives in his own home, and except for his eight hours on duty he is in everything a free citizen. The Royal Irish Constabulary should be placed on an exact equality with the constables in the English police services, both in regard to pay and pensions. The Chief Secretary referred to the fact that because they lived in barracks they were exempt from the payment of rent, to which the English constabulary were subject. In most cases in the English 3038 police force an allowance is made for rent. In the force with whose administration I was connected there was, in addition to the rent allowance, a travelling allowance to enable them to reach their homes.
I do not know how the Government are going to escape from the dilemma in which the Debate has placed them in regard to the pensions of retired constables. A pension is, in the strict sense of the word, deferred pay. If the constables now serving are entitled to an increase because of the additional cost of living, the same argument applies to the pensioner, who has to live and pay out of a very small competence for the commodities that sustain life. I join with my colleagues on these benches, with hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, and with the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) in the appeal to the Chief Secretary to secure reconsideration of this question. It is a pity that the Treasury is not represented here to-night, in order to hear the unanimous appeal made on this question from all parts of the House. I have no doubt the Chief Secretary has exerted every effort to get the Treasury to accede to this demand, but evidently he has not been successful. On an occasion like this the Treasury should be present to listen to the case that is made for a reconsideration of the question. The Royal Irish Constabulary who have retired have served through strenuous times in the last thirty years in Ireland. They have given loyal service to the Government, and, although in many cases they have come into conflict with the party with which I am associated—fortunately, I was never in conflict with them myself—we say that does not matter. Justice is justice, and it is deplorable that these men who have given the best years of their life should in their later years be abandoned by the Government they have served so loyally and left to live on a small pittance that is unable to keep them in respectable conditions. Old age pensions have been increased, and there is a demand that they should be still further increased, but these policemen and their widows are left without consideration. It is ungrateful, unkind, and lacking in generosity on the part of the Treasury not to respond to the appeal which I am sure the Chief Secretary has made to them and to sanction this item, along with the rather tardy and belated advance that is being made to the men both of the Royal Irish Constabulary and 3039 the Dublin Metropolitan Police. We all hope that before the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman, in view of this Debate, will make further representations, and that the heart of the Treasury may be melted and they may meet this appeal which is made from all quarters of the House on behalf of a class of men who deserve well of everybody, and especially of those who speak in this House for the Government.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Gilmour.]