CIAUSE 2.—(Prohibition against Constables being Members of Trade Unions.) (Hansard, 31 October 1919)

§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHS
This is a most drastic and unjust Clause. We are forced to protest against it on principle, because we cannot allow the impression to go forth that this House is in favour of it. We opposed a similar Clause in the English Police Bill, as we considered it anti-trade unionism legislation. It deals with the liberty of the subject. By Act of Parliament the workers in various industries are permitted to organise and join a trade union. I cannot understand why these privileges are being denied to policemen.

§ Mr. LYNN
Have they asked for it?

§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
They have asked for it.

§ Mr. LYNN
In Ireland?

§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
And on the Second Reading of this Bill we heard flattering remarks from the Government and Members from Ireland about the loyalty of these policemen. Why should these men be denied the same liberty as other people who are connected with trade unions in connection with other industries in the country? Some people have the opinion that the trade union movement is in existence simply to raise wages. That is a very great mistake. I am speaking after twenty years' experience. So far as wages are concerned, we generally meet employers round a table at a conciliation board, and very often fix up wages for six or twelve months. But I have to pay more visits to an office to meet an employer on account of dismissals and promotions than in order to deal with the question of wages. The questions of dismissal and promotion affect policemen in exactly the same way as they affect every other trade unionist in the country. We know that through prejudice, spite or spleen many serious disputes have arisen as the result of foremen showing favouritism towards some men whom they have under them.
I may give an illustration of a case in South Wales. There was a certain foreman who had a prejudice and spite against one of our members. The result was that this member was dismissed, and he went before the employer—and I may say this, that the employers of labour with whom I have come in contact always try to be fair and just as between workmen and foremen; that is the experience I have. When the man who had been dismissed went before the employer and stated his case the foreman also stated his case, and the employer could come to no decision, because he had to take it that one statement was quite as truthful as the other. Therefore, these people had nothing to do but to appeal to the trade union officials. I went. I had a deputation with me. The charge against this man was that he had handed in his ticket after coming to the works an hour late. A very serious charge, on which not only could he have been dismissed but he could have been charged with trying to rob the firm. When I took the deputation to the 1073 office I had six men there who were able to prove conclusively that this man was at work at six o'clock in the morning. We had corroborative evidence to prove that this man was not guilty of the charge brought against him, with the result that the employer reinstated him and paid him his month's wages. If the man had been dismissed from his employment it would have been very difficult for him to find employment elsewhere, because he would have been considered a dishonest workman. As a result of his reinstatement he took a leading part in my society and in the branch work of it, and to-day that young man is one of the most brilliant officials we have in our society. His character and future would have been destroyed as a result of the foreman's spite and spleen had he not been cleared from the charge. Take a man in and around the House of Commons who is charged. We know of charges being brought against a policeman for being drunk. He has been charged by some officials, and he is brought up and the charge is made against him. He denies it, but the chief officer will always believe the sergeant or the inspector before he believes the policeman. He has no one there to protect him or to give evidence in his favour. If these men were allowed to organise and join a trade union in exactly the same way as other workers in the country they would be able to call in their officials in order to state a case on their behalf, as other trade unionists do. On behalf of the Labour party, I protest strongly against this Clause, and we ask from the Government that the policeman may get the same form of organisation and be allowed to fight for his rights in the same way as other people.

Mr. TYSON WILSON
I beg to support my hon. Friend. I am not going to repeat the arguments I used when the English Bill was before the House, but I do protest strongly against punishment being meted out to men, perhaps under a misapprehension, and the men being discharged from the force for committing an offence under this Act, and being thereby disqualified from pension rights and from being employed thereafter in a police force. That seems to me to be an extremely vindictive provision in an Act of Parliament, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, if he 1074 cannot see his way to accept the Amendment, will agree to modify the harsh provisions of the Clause.

§ Mr. SEDDON
I do not think anyone would take any exception to the remarks made by the Mover of the Amendment except that those arguments were based on false premises. He is comparing two things that are not alike. There is not a single workman in this country who has to take an oath of allegiance to his employer, but that is the duty of every man who is a policeman, whether in this country or in Ireland. The oath they take is that they will defend the property and life of the subject. A dispute takes place and tile police, if the Mover of this Amendment had his way, would be able to forego the terms of their oath and join with the strikers for the destruction of life and property. What did we see in Liverpool only a short time ago 1 There you had a number of policemen who were prepared to break their oath, with the result that the hooligan element turned Liverpool into a second Petrograd for a short period. While I have the utmost sympathy and have been associated with the trade union movement for thirty years, it would be an injury to moral values to say that a man can take an oath of allegiance, and having taken the oath, lie can be able to break that oath at will or because he has a grievance. I believe policemen should be given the fullest liberty of association and opportunity for dealing with any complaints or grievances they may have. I think the right of appeal ought to be extended to its utmost limit, but in the interests of the policeman and for the sake of the oath he has taken he should not be allowed to ignore, as people are liable in these days, those great moral values which if brought down would destroy the very foundations of society. Let us be as generous as we can to the policemen, but let us remember that the policeman on his own part takes an oath. If the object of this Amendment is carried out, that oath would be non effective, you would do more injury to the social fabric of this country than any good that would come to the policeman by this Amendment.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry)
The Amendment would have the effect of largely destroying the discipline and efficiency of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The main object of this Bill is to place the forces in 1075 Ireland and England as far as possible upon the same footing, and we must bear in mind that quite recently the right bon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), in Committee on the Police Bill for England, moved to omit a precisely similar Clause. The arguments used by him are familiar to the House, and on that occasion, without a Division, the Amendment was negatived. Is there any valid reason for drawing a distinction between the two countries? In the first place, if we pass this Amendment the police force in England would have a grievance. They are much more suitable bodies to become members of a trade union than a semi-military force like the Royal Irish Constabulary, who have to take an oath and are under very much more severe discipline than any police force in England. I can assure the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that there does not exist in the Royal Irish Constabulary the arbitrary power of dismissal that he seems to think. When a constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary is charged with any offence, no members of the constabulary can dismiss him as a right or as a matter of course. He has a right to be tried, and always is tried, by two district inspectors who are not over him but who are taken from another district. When these district inspectors have heard him and counsel or solicitor representing him, and have heard the prosecutor, they have to make a return of a complete copy of the evidence to the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and even then the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary has no power of dismissal until that evidence is submitted to the Attorney-General for the time being, who has to certify, under his hand after having read it, the conviction is justified by the evidence.

§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
Do you get a statement from the policeman as well?

§ Mr. HENRY
I get a complete copy of the proceedings conducted by the two district inspectors and part of the file. In addition to the evidence is a written statement by the constable setting out the grounds of his defence. All these matters have to be considered, and I need hardly tell hon. Members that it is a very onerous task, because I, for one—and I am perfectly satisfied it was so with my predecessors also—realise that a man is not to be deprived of his employment as a matter 1076 of course. And we consider the matter to the best of our ability absolutely independently, so that the difficulties which have been suggested by the hon. Member do not exist. This matter has been very recently considered and decided by the House, and I would put it to the hon. Members opposite whether they should divide in this matter, seeing that it would draw a distinction between the police force in Ireland and the police force in England.