CLAUSE 1—(Disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary.)

HC Deb 01 August 1922 vol 157 cc1301-34

(1) The Royal Irish Constabulary shall be disbanded on such day not being later than the thirty-first day of July nineteen hundred and twenty-two, as may be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant, and on or before that date every officer and constable of that force shall retire from the force as and when required by the Lord Lieutenant, and shall on his retirement be entitled to receive such compensation as may be awarded to him by the Treasury in accordance with the rules contained in the Ninth Schedule to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as amended and modified by the provisions set out in the Schedule to this Act and, in the event of his dying after a compensation allowance has been awarded to him, the Treasury shall grant a pension or gratuities to his widow and children in accordance with the said rules as so amended and modified.

(2) The provisions of Article 15 (which relates to assignment and Regulations as to payment of pensions, etc.), and Article 16 (which relates to forfeiture of pension or allowance) of the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions Order, 1922, shall apply as respects compensation allowances awarded in pursuance of this Section in like manner as they apply as respects pensions under that Order, with the substitution of references to the Treasury for references to the Inspector-General.

(3) If any officer or constable to whom a compensation allowance has been awarded in pursuance of this Section takes service in any police force the allowance may be suspended in whole or in part so long as he remains in such force.

(4) Sections eight and ten of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, shall not apply to the service in the Royal Irish Constabulary of any officer or constable to whom a compensation allowance has been awarded in pursuance of this Section, or to his prior service in any other police force so far as the same has, for the purposes of the award, been reckoned as service in the Royal Irish Constabulary, but if any such officer or constable takes service in any police force, and on his ultimate retirement therefrom is awarded a pension, then, if the amount of the compensation allowance when added to the amount of his pension exceeds the higher of the two following sums,

1. (a) two-thirds of the salary on which his compensation allowance was calculated; Or
2. (b) two-thirds of the salary of which he was in receipt at the time of his ultimate retirement;

or should those sums be equal, exceeds either of those sums, his compensation allowance may be suspended to the extent of the excess:

Provided that where the officer or constable on his ultimate retirement is awarded a lump sum instead of or in addition to a pension, the annual amount which would represent that sum, if converted into a life annuity, shall be determined by the Treasury, and the amount so determined shall, for the purpose of the foregoing provision, be deemed to be or to form part of his pension.

(7)Where, for the purpose of expediting the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary, any member of that force has, since the twenty-fifth day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and before the passing of this Act, been discharged with compensation, his discharge and the grant of compensation to him shall be as valid and effectual as if they had been expressly authorised by this Act, and the compensation shall be treated as compensation payable under this Act, and the provisions of this Act with respect to a compensation allowance awarded in pursuance of this Section shall apply to any annual allowance so granted.

(9)The powers of the Lord Lieutenant or Inspector-General with respect to pensions, allowances, or gratuities of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, their widows, children, or dependents, under the Acts or Orders relating to that force may. after the day fixed for the disbandment of the said force, be exercised by the Treasury.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1),leave out "July" and insert "August."

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is necessary for obvious reasons owing to delay in disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Colonel ASHLEY

Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the 31st August is late enough? Does he expect to have completed the disbandment by then?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

That is what I hope.

Mr. SPEAKER

This Amendment raises the question of privilege. It will extend for a month the period during which these men will have to be paid. Does the right hon. Gentleman move to agree with the Amendment?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

Yes, Sir.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to us what he means by delay? I take it that it means extra cost. I do not think the delay in the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary is a matter that can he waived aside in this manner. What is the cause of the delay? Have the Government wobbled again in their policy? This is a matter of some substance. Have you a handful of men you are keeping on for military or police reasons, or has there been some muddle about the accounts? I received a letter this morning from a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary saying that he expected to be home within a week, and that he was the last. He was a barrack master. That does not bear out the statement about delay in disbanding the remaining members of this famous force.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

The men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who now remain in Ireland are men required to guard valuable stores. While the Provisional Government needs the whole of its forces in keeping down rebellion in different parts of Ireland, it is not possible for us immediately to disband all these men. It makes for the security of the property of the Crown and for peace that these men should guard certain places in Ireland.

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER - SHEE

I thought this was a matter about which we were all agreed, but I can see that there may be further difficulties. Supposing these stores are still left in Ireland, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the end of August will be a late enough date? Why should he not put in a later date?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I am of opinion that by the end of this month we shall be able to disband them all but, of course, even if they are disbanded, steps will have to be taken, in any event, to protect the stores, if they need protection, subsequent to the end of August. I am justified in putting in this date. The members of the Royal Irish Constabulary still left in Ireland wish to be disbanded at the earliest possible date, and their wishes ought to be considered.

Sir J. REMNANT

That may not be on the 31st August.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the Ninth Schedule to fie Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as amended and modified by the provisions set out in the— and insert "Part I of the First."

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I beg to move "That this House dab agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is the first of a series of drafting Amendments which their Lordships consider necessary, and I propose to accept their Amendments, in order to avoid what is called legislation by reference. The original Bill, when it went to the House of Lords, contained many references to previous Acts of Parliament. Their Lordships thought that this might confuse those interested. namely, the policemen themselves. Therefore, instead of referring to the Schedule of the Act of 1920 and the modification thereof, we are including the Schedule in the Bill.

Lord R. CECIL

There is no alteration?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

The alteration does not affect the substance of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to. Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1),leave out "as so amended and modified, and insert Provided that in awarding any such compensation, allowance, pension or gratuity, no deduction shall be made by reason of the fact that any compensation has been awarded to the officer or constable in respect of injuries sustained in the discharge of his duties.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is an Amendment to avoid the, risk—I did not think there was any risk, but I am prepared to meet their Lordships' views, and to avoid any possible risk—of payments being made which take into consideration the compensation for malicious injuries awarded to a disbanded man. Their Lordships want to make it impossible that such malicious injury award received by a constable or officer of the force, who is disbanded, should be taken into consideration in the assessment of pension.

Mr. SPEAKER

This Amendment is technically a privileged one, but I understand that it does not alter the practice.

Sir J. BUTCHER

I understand that, in assessing either the pension of the man or the gratuity allowance to the widow, no account is to be taken of any compensation for malicious injuries which the man has received.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

May I read the Proviso? It is very important that this matter should be clearly understood— Provided that in awarding any such compensation, allowance, pension or gratuity, no deduction shall be made by reason of the fact that any compensation has been awarded to the officer or constable in respect of injuries sustained in the discharge of his duties. That is perfectly clear.

Sir W. DAVISON

In the Amendment of the Pensions Order, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it should be made clear that the man who was wounded some months ago, and before the time came when the force was disbanded, will receive the entire compensation which he has been awarded for his wound, in addition to the disbandment allowance, which is now being paid to the man who was not wounded.

Question put, and agreed to. Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2), leave out of Article 15 (which relates to assignment and regulation as to payment of pensions, etc.) and Article 16 (which relates to forfeiture of pensions or allowance) of the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions Order, 1922, and insert contained in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act.

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2), leave out "that Order, "and insert" the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions Order, 1922."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "the Treasury," and insert "a Secretary of State."

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

As the Bill left thin House, the Treasury was to take the place of the Inspector-General, who, prior to disbandment, was the proper custodian of the well-being of the police, and was responsible for administration of pensions. As all officers of the police force, including the Inspector-General, are being disbanded, some other authority must be put in his place. Their Lordships suggested that, instead of the Treasury, there should be a Secretary of State. I have no objection. It makes a Secretary of State, in all probability the Colonial Secretary, responsible for the administration of pensions and compensation allowance.

Lord R. CECIL

I would like a little more explanation on this point. I should have thought it a rather odd thing to substitute a Secretary of State for the Treasury in dealing with strictly financial matters. This is a matter dealing with pensions, to be awarded to disbanded members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I should have thought that that was a matter which, strictly speaking, was within the purview of the Treasury, and that there might be some inconvenience, not only constitutionally, but to the men themselves, by putting in a Secretary of State, because you would not be able to exclude the Treasury. The Treasury would come in sooner or later to control the financial aspect. I should be glad to know what is the skilled advice of the Government? I am a little afraid that the result will be that a man will have to go to two Departments instead of one. If that is so, I should have thought that the Bill was better in its original form, both in the matter of constitutional propriety and still more from the point of view of simplicity in carrying out its provisions.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

This is a matter of administration only. It concerns the Schedule. As the Bill left this House, the Treasury was the authority, but their Lordships considered the Treasury to be unsympathetic towards the administration of this portion of the Bill. Though I agree with the Noble Lord that the Treasury is bound to come in whenever questions of this kind are involved, yet the desire of the Government was to meet their Lordships in this, and, as further down in the Bill, he will find that a Secretary of State has still wider powers in reference to considering this question, we thought it better to accept the Amendment, especially having regard to the fact that a Secretary of State will, in future, be responsible for a great many of the questions arising in connection with Ireland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out Sub-section (3).

Mr. SPEAKER

This is a privileged Amendment.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is an Amendment which is not only privileged, but is outside the scope of the Financial Resolution. But even if it were not, one would oppose it on the merits. It is a question of the compensation to disbanded police who join another police force. As a matter of practice it refers only to any police force, the expenses of which are defrayed in whole or in part out of money provided by Parliament in this country or by a Parliament in Ireland. The principle of the thing is this, and it is one that permeates the whole administration in this country in reference to persons who have been disbanded and are paid compensation out of public funds. The disbanded policeman receives the addition of 12 years' service for the purpose of compensation, and he gets a very much increased compensation allowance by reason of that 12 years' addition. The principle applied by the Government in this Bill is that, if that man re-engages, say, in the London Police Force, he shall not get the whole of his compensation allowance, and also the whole of the pay paid by the London Police Force, which is supported very largely out of public funds by a Vote of this House. I think that the principle is a sound one, that the same authority should not pay the same man twice over. But we had provided that the Royal Irish Constabulary man shall not suffer.

I will give a case in point to make that quite clear. A Royal Irish Constabulary man is disbanded with his 12 years added, and we presume that he gets £4 a week at the time of his disbandment as a constable, £3 10s. is the pay which he will receive if he joins the London Police Force. His own compensation allowance would abate, so that he would not take the total of his allowance, but if he lost his employment, his compensation allowance would at once revive. This system has already been put. into operation in reference to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. 1,200 of the men, who were disbanded one day from the Royal Irish Constabulary, became members of the Royal, Ulster Constabulary the next day. We consider that it would not be fair, either to Northern Ireland or to Great Britain, that the taxpayers should pay both the compensation allowance for disbandment in Ireland and also the full pay of a policeman if he seeks employment in that capacity. I think that the principle is perfectly sound. We say, further, that the same principle also applies to pensions. The man is incomparably better off in another way. If a man was a sergeant at the Royal Irish Constabulary, and, on disbandment, gets £5 a week, and joins as a constable in London at £3 10s., we can take out of his compensation allowance 30s. a week, so that his pay in the new force will never be less than it was in the force which has been disbanded.

Mr. HANNON

Suppose he joins no force?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

Then he will get his compensation allowance, payable in full.

Mr. HANNON

You encourage the man to remain out of any forge.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

By no means. The fact is that it works so well in practice that I do not know of any complaints that have come from Ulster or elsewhere-. This is a matter which the Government must stand. I was very glad to be able to get the consent of the Treasury to restricting the operation of this principle to the case of those police forces in Great Britain or Ireland, paid in whole or in part out of the public funds, so that, if a man joins a force in Canada or Australia, he will not be affected. I ask the House to support me in this. It is impossible to give way on this Amendment, which is outside the Financial Resolution altogether.

5.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

In view of your decision, Mr. Speaker, that this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, and the Financial Resolution, I am afraid that we have not much prospect of getting it accepted as it stands. I think that this is a great pity, because it is against public interest to discourage these pensioners from doing useful work. If people are better off by doing no work for the state than by doing it, obviously very large body of competent men will be shut out from being employed to the advantage both of themselves and of the State. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of his restricting the operation of disqualification to the cases of men who join a police force which is paid in whole or in part by this Parliament or by the Irish Parliament. I am glad to hear that he has got the consent of the Treasury to that concession, but, by disagreeing with this Amendment, we do not get to that position. We simply put the Bill back to the position which existed when it left this House, and there is no proviso limiting this disqualification to those police forces which are paid either by the British or the Irish Parliament. Therefore, I suggest to the Chief Secretary that instead of putting the Bill back as it was, he should. send to the Lords an alternative. I have handed in a form of words which was brought up in the House of Lords as a. result of the proceedings of the Select Committee on this Bill. The suggestion is that at the end of this Subsection we add the words: This Sub-section applies to any police force the expenses of which are defrayed in whole or in part out of moneys provided by Parliament, or by any Parliament in Ireland, or out of funds assisted by the Exchequer or by the, Exchequer in Ireland. To accept such a suggestion would be to carry out the intention which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If a man engages in a Colonial or Dominion police force, there is nothing in the argument that he should forfeit his pension. If the Government choose to say that a man is being paid for more than his full time, I am afraid that one is not strong enough to upset the Government's decision. But there is certainly no case for extending that principle to a Colonial or Dominion police force any more than to a roan who goes into private employment. It has nothing to do with this House or with the Irish Parliament. I understand that this compromise was not objected to by the Government in the House of Lords, and that it had every appearance of having been accepted. I would like to move the form of words I have read out as an alternative. If it be not in order for me to do that, I would beg the Chief Secretary to move the Amendment in that form himself.

Colonel ASHLEY

I oppose the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of principle. I can quite understand the Government saying to a Royal Irish Constabulary man, or to a soldier or sailor or airman who had a disability pension given him by the State for injuries received in the public service, "If you re-enlist in some other police force or take up some other form of public service, we cannot go on paying you full salary in your new employment as well as your disability pension. "That is only fair. After all, a disability pension is given because it is assumed that the man is unable, through having been injured in the service of the State, to earn full wages. But here we have quite young men, who have served the State and undertaken to serve the State for a certain number of years. This House, for a reason which seemed good to it, decided to tear up the bargain with these men, and to say, "We will no longer keep you in our service for 10 or 12 years, or whatever the period may be; we will, at a month's or two months' notice, get rid of you. "Then the Government have agreed to give the men certain compensation, which is quite liberal, in order to make up for their loss of prospects. When the men have been disbanded and the money has been paid, I hold that the transaction is closed, both on the part of the State and on the part of the individual, and that the man is in the position of a citizen who has a private income. To say that that man, who is presumably able-bodied, because he is anxious to serve the State again rather than to live a. life of idleness, shall have his money taken away from him by the State, is unjustifiable. It is an extremely mean and almost a dishonest procedure on the part of the State.

If it he unfair and wrong to go on paying these pensions to these men if they enlist in the Metropolitan Police, surely, on the ground of equity, it is equally unfair and wrong for the British taxpayer to pay the pensions if the men go into the Canadian or Australian police? There is no difference in equity, whether we are finding the money, or Australia or Canada or Tim-buctoo is finding it. The only possible ground on which the right Gentleman can resist the Lords Amendment, is the fact that we have compensated these men generously, that we cannot afford any more if they re-enlist, and that the taxpayer has not the money. I do not agree with that view. On the ground of justice the Government have not a leg to stand an, and I hope the House will go to a Division on the Amendment.

Mr. HANNON

I strongly support the contention of the last speaker. When the Irish policeman, on disbandment, agreed with the State to accept certain compensation, the transaction was complete. It is almost shame-faced impertinence on the part of the Government to say that if a man is received into another police force he must forego the compensation which, in virtue of his service to the State in Ireland, he received as a bargain. This is a new interpretation of the relationship between the State and its servant. I have deliberately refrained hitherto from saying anything on Irish questions in this House, but I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without saying that, of all the public servants who have served the Crown, none deserves more sympathy and consideration than the Royal Irish Constabulary man. It is monstrous on the part of the Chief Secretary to ask the House to pay no attention to a bargain completed by the Government between itself and its servants in Ireland—a bargain with men who have undergone risks and treatment the like of which no servant of the Crown has undergone. This bargain has been completed, and the Chief Secretary says it is not to hold good if the man obtains employment in another police force in this country or in either of the police forces in Ireland. I can be no party, and I hope the House will be no party, to the violation of a bargain of that character. You cannot make bargains with public servants and then come to the House and break them into fragments at the suggestion of a Minister of the Crown. This proposal is putting a premium on unemployment. Let us vindicate our obligations to these splendid public servants in Ireland by doing them justice in this House.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

There is obviously some misunderstanding. There is nothing new in this principle. It is well-established. It applies to al' Civil Service pensions under the Superannuation Act. It applies to all police pensions in Great Britain under the Police Pensions Act, and it has applied to Irish Constabulary Pensions since 1883. The State should not pay twice. You compensate a man for loss of employment as a policeman. He secures re-employment as a policeman.

Mr. HANNON

You are forgetting the exceptional circumstances under which he was compensated.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

That is taken into consideration by adding 12 years to his pension rights. I agree that the man deserves it all. We have disbanded him with the largest compensation allowance which has been given by this House or by any other House, and because he has lost his vocation as a policeman. It is for that that the disbandment payment is made. If the man follows the same vocation in a police force in Northern or Southern Ireland or in Great Britain, we say that he should not draw both the compensation allowance for loss of his office and also the full pay for work in the same calling. It is a principle that goes back more than a generation, and it is a sound principle. It is accepted by the men themselves. There must be now, in police forces supported out of the funds which I have indicated, something like 1,500 or 1,600 ex-Royal Irish Constabulary men who, as far as I know, have never complained of the terms which we have laid down, for they are continuing in their calling as policemen and their compensation allowance is in part in abeyance. As soon as they cease their present calling as policemen they are in an incomparably better position than those who have not the compensation allowance. The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Limit.- Colonel Guinness) has suggested that we should accept an Amendment which was put into the Bill by their Lordships to the following effect: This Sub-section applies to any police force the expenses of which are defrayed in whole or in part out of moneys provided by Parliament or by any Parliament in Ireland or out of funds assisted by the Exchequer or by any Exchequer in Ireland. I am quite prepared to accept that suggestion, and to put into the Statute words to the effect that that was the practice. But I think the procedure of the House must be, first, to reject the Amendment of the Lords, and then to move the Amendment I have read.

Mr. SPEAKER

if that be what the House wish, the procedure would be to disagree with the Lords Amendment, and, in lieu thereof, to move, as an Amendment to the Bill, to insert the words mentioned, at the end of Sub-section (3) as it stood when the Bill left this House.

Sir J. BUTCHER

I hope that the House will insist on the Lords Amendment. An objection has been raised by the Chief Secretary that it is outside the scope of the Financial Resolution.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

Let me correct that statement. If I led the House to believe that that was so, I was wrong. It is not outside the scope of the Financial Resolution.

Sir J. BUTCHER

That clears away one great difficulty. If it were outside the scope of the Resolution, the House could not waive that objection, although it could waive the question of privilege. There is no difficulty before the House in adopting the Lords Amendment. All we have to do is to waive the question of privilege, and on the merits that is what we ought to do. We are compulsorily retiring a number of men from the occupation in which they looked forward to spending the rest of their lives, and we are giving them a certain compensation, but we go on to say to them, "Whatever walk of life you go into afterwards; whatever employment you take up you may keep that compensation, but if you do the one thing for which you are fitted, if you engage in the one occupation for which you have been trained, then you will suffer in your compensation." We say to these men, "You may become prison warders or go into private employment or do anything in the world for which you have no training, but if you do the one thing for which you have been trained you will suffer in your pocket." There is neither justice nor reason in that. The Chief Secretary says, this is the usual rule in the Civil Service; but there is no analogy whatever between the case of these men and the case of ordinary civil servants. In the case of the Civil Service a man is not turned out of his occupation, but is pensioned off in the ordinary course, and in such circumstances there are certain limitations upon the money which he can otherwise earn in the public service. This, however, is an entirely different, and an exceptional case. In this case, the man is not pensioned because he has completed the term of his office, but is turned out of his occupation and is told to go into the world and seek for whatever employment he can get. Consequently the analogy of the civil servant who receives a pension in the ordinary way, has no bearing upon the question whatever. As the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Ashley) has pointed out, this is a simple question. A bargain has been made to give these men compensation, and by Subsection (3) the Government is trying to cut down that compensation and to alter that bargain. I hope the House will adopt the Lords Amendment which seems to be reasonable, logical and just.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE

I wish to add a few words in support of the view which has been urged by several previous speakers. It is quite true, as the Chief Secretary says, that this rule prevails under the Superannuation Act. It exists in regard to police pensions, and even in regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary pensions, since 1883. Because it is an old rule, however, it does not follow that it must be a very sensible or very sound rule. As has been pointed out, a man may take up any other kind of employment and may draw both his pension and his emoluments from that employment, and to specially preclude these men from the duty for which they are particularly fitted, such as that of serving in the police force in any town or district, and to put obstacles in the way of joining such forces, seems to be extremely shortsighted. Let me remind the Chief Secretary that there are precedents for an entirely different procedure. For instance, during the War, this country paid the pensions of Army officers, while, at the same time, giving those officers the pay of their rank during their period of temporary service. There are many other precedents against the action which the Chief Secretary proposes to adopt in this case. The case of these men differs entirely from the ordinary cases, and it differs even more than the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) has indicated. Many of these men have been disbanded at a very early age. They are not like civil servants retiring at the age of 60, having earned their pensions, who probably would not be of much value in their old age if they did join up again. These are young men who have got small pensions. They are the very men whom we would like to have, if not in an Irish Constabulary, in some other constabulary. They are just the very men that we require for such a purpose, yet they are to be deterred by being told that if they do join a police force they will suffer financially during the time they are serving in that force. The right hon. Gentleman the, Chief Secretary should give way to the evident feeling of the House in this matter and accept the Lords Amendment.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY

Is it the case that where officers of the Civil Service are retired compulsorily the rule described by the Chief Secretary operates? Does it operate in those cases as well as in others?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I will see that the hon. Member gets an answer to that question, but I cannot reply off-hand.

Mr. G. MURRAY

That is the whole point. The right hon. Gentleman says that this Sub-section applies in the case of all civil servants. I do not believe it would apply under the Superannuation Act to the case of civil servants retired compulsorily. Before we come to a conclusion on the matter, that point ought to be settled, but apart from that, I agree with hon. Members who have emphasised that the ease of these men is quite a special case. Various reasons have been given to show why it is a special case. I should like, to supplement those reasons by drawing the attention of the House to the fact that not only have these men lost their employment, but in many cases they have had to leave the country in which they have been brought up and in which they have lived all their lives up to now, in order to seek employment elsewhere. That is another very strong reason why the House should not agree to disagree with their Lordships' Amendment, but should, on the contrary, insist upon their Lordships' Amendment being adopted.

Mr. A. SHORT

I feel I must add my plea to those of other hon. Members who are appealing to the Chief Secretary to accept this Amendment. The Members of this force joined it under terms and conditions which were well defined and clearly known and which constituted a contract between them and His Majesty's Government. To suit the exigencies of His Majesty's Government and to comply with the policy of His Majesty's Government, supported by this House, their service has come to an end automatically by the disbandment of the force. The contract which they entered into has been destroyed and His Majesty's Government has in some measure compensated them by making certain payments to them. That is only right and just, but having regard to the services they have rendered to the country and the Government, we should bear in mind that, in consequence of those services, they will be handicapped in their efforts to secure employment. Many avenues of employment are already closed to them because of their service in this force: but His Majesty's Government put forward the claim that we ourselves ought to be a party to the closing of one of the principal avenues through which they might reasonably be expected to find the most suitable employment. That strikes me as one of the most foolish and most monstrous proposals ever put from the Government benches. I hope the House will maintain its desire not merely to appreciate the services of these men, but to express that appreciation in a tangible form and that if necessary a Division will be taken and the Government defeated upon this question if they insist on their point of view.

Colonel Sir C. YATE

I wish to support the view put forward by the hon. Member who has just spoken. It appears to me that a pension once earned should not be touched by the Government or anybody else, and that a man who has once earned his pension should not be bound by any conditions whatever as to any future employment he may be able to secure.

Mr. BETTERTON

I should not have intervened in this Debate were it not for the fact that I have formed a very firm conclusion that the Chief Secretary has entirely failed to answer the point made against him. The analogy which he draws between the case we are considering now and the case of the ordinary civil servant retiring at the end of his time, is wholly illusory. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. A. Short.) described the true position. These compensation allowances are really in the nature of damages for breach of contract. These men entered into a contract with the Government under which, if they served a certain time, they would receive pensions. As the hon. Member quite rightly pointed out, in order to suit our own convenience and for our owe purposes, that contract was broken, and in lieu of the pensions to which they would have been entitled, they are now getting a lump sum by way of compensation. We, however, propose to say to these men, "Because we give you this compensation you shall be precluded, except at your own cost, from taking up the work for which you have been specially trained and for which you are best suited." That seems a preposterous attitude, and I am bound to support those hon. Members who insist upon the Lords Amendment if the matter goes to a Division.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I entirely concur with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member who spoke last. I never heard of anything quite so hare-brained as the idea of saying to one of these men, "You have been a policeman all your life, but if you ever become one again we will take a lot of money from you." That is almost incredible, but it goes to show that, after all, the other place is not so obsolete minded as this place, when this place ever agreed to such a suggestion. Why, the very thing we ought to say to these men is, "Go and be policemen." I understand we have already sent a lot of them out to the new Ulster we are making in Palestine. We have sent a number of the Black and Tans out there. It would have been better if the Government, at the beginning, had turned to the Royal Irish Constabulary and said, "We will give you similar positions all over the world," and had offered them equal employment for which they were competent, instead of turning them out on to the streets, where they were liable to be shot, and telling them to look for employment themselves. Now the Government say that if these men find the job for which they are fitted, they will be deprived of a certain amount of compensation. I do not think there ever was quite so silly a proposal. It is a curious thing that when Governments touch the Irish question, they all seem to get into the realm of topsy-turveydom, and I think that this is the most complete example of topsy-turveydom that has ever been provided by any Government. It would be insanity to insist on this preposterous proposal. It cannot be tolerated. I do not care how loyal a Member may be to the Government, we cannot support such a proposition. The Government is getting out of its compensation in reference to Ireland very lightly, for, after all, we have reversed the policy of 100 years, and—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

This seems a little wide of the Amendment.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

If they are going to get off with only this little bit of compensation to the unfortunate men who believed in the continuity of British Government, and that they would never desert their friends, I think they are getting off very lightly, and that they ought to do the utmost they can for these poor, shamefaced men, who must feel, every time they go out and see what is taking place in the South of Ireland, that their lifework is being destroyed. The least they can do is to be very generous to these men. It is one of the shabbiest things that has ever been suggested, that these men, having once been policemen, should try and find something in the same line to do. I think it must be a sickening job, after the experience they have had, and I appeal to the Chief Secretary to think a little coherently in this matter.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

Let me deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. G. Murray), as to whether civil servants who are retired compulsorily are liable to have their pensions abated if they secure other public employment. I am informed that the answer is "Yes, they are liable to have, their pensions abated." The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) talked about compensation allowances being a lump sum down, but I am sure he did not mean that, because the compensation allowance is an annuity based on the highest scale ever granted by this House, and when the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Macquisten) talks about a little bit of compensation, he really does not give the Government and himself credit in supporting the Government in this matter.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I did not vote for the Irish Treaty, and I am glad I did not.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

Let us stick to the Bill before the House. The little bit of compensation starts with an annuity or compensation allowance, as it is called to distinguish it from a pension, of £46 16s. a year for the last joined constable, whose service may be anything up to six months, and who is, as a rule, a young man of 19 to 25 years of age. There has never been a compensation allowance granted to so young an official of the Government of any country on such a generous scale as that. More than that, he can double that for two years from the date of his disbandment, and have a lesser pension for the years following. It is not quite, therefore, in accordance with the facts to deal with these compensation allowances as if they were not the most generous ever granted by this House to any of its public servants.

Sir J. REMNANT

So they ought to be.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

We are all agreed on that.

Sir J. REMNANT

You are now.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

The House has not followed this as closely as I have. There is not a question dealing with the treatment of the Royal Irish Constabulary as to generosity that has not been heartily supported by the Government. Now I come to the Amendment before the House. Here is a principle established by the Government and working for many years, namely, that when a man is retired compulsorily, as these Irish policeman have been, he gets an annuity from the State to compensate him for loss of office as a policeman. If he secures employment as a policeman, the loss of office element to that extent disappears. Let us take a practical case. We have had a reference to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland recruited the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the extent of some 1,200 from disbanded members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the question to be faced at once was this, whether they could get compensation for their loss of office as Royal Irish Constabulary men, and full pay the next day as Royal Ulster Constabulary men carrying on under exactly the same conditions. It was a very serious practical question, and it was considered that the old principle governing these matters must prevail, and that these policemen could not draw this double pay from the same source. They would not be in a worse position— in many cases they would be in a better position—than the comrades with whom they were serving, who had not previously been members of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Colonel ASHLEY

Why should they not draw it if they get it from the same source, when they are allowed to do so if they get it from a different source? So far as justice is concerned, I can see no difference in the two cases.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

If this House compensates a man for loss of his office, and he secures a similar office next day, he should not get both compensation for loss of office and the rate of pay that goes with the office that he has not lost but only changed. I am giving the House the principle underlying the payment of retired public servants, whether they be Irish policemen, civil servants, or whoever they may be.

Sir J. BUTCHER

The circumstances are very different here.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

Certainly, the circumstances here are very different, and that is why the compensation allowance is the largest ever granted by this House.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

In those circumstances where the Government has found a man in North Ireland a job at once, I suppose you give him no compensation because he has got an equivalent job, but you compensate him where a man is put out and has to look for a job himself, and does not the right hon. Gentleman see that he is putting a premium on a man not finding a job?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I have done my best to show the House the grounds on which the Government must resist this Amendment of the Lords. One's natural sympathy would be to do, not only what is generous with these men, but more than generous, but in this case I think hon. Members are pressing the Government too hard. I do not think it is unfair to a policeman to say that, as he has been compensated by adding 12 years to his pension rights, and as he secures compensation for loss of office, if he secures a similar office paid by the taxpayers of this country or of Ireland, his compensation allowance for loss of office should be to some extent abated. I regret that the House is not in agreement with me on this point.

Sir J. REMNANT

What happens in the case of a man going abroad on leaving the Royal Irish Constabulary? If he comes home and then joins a police force, is a claim made against him for any part of the compensation already paid him?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

Such a case has not yet arisen.

Sir J. REMNANT

But it will.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I am not so sure. I made it clear that if a man joined a force like the Canadian, or Australian, or South African Police Forces, in the self-governing Dominions, who receive no grants or subsidies from this House or from the Irish Parliament, his compensation allowance would not be affected.

Sir J. REMNANT

I should like to ask whether it was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when he decided, in the case of the £5 a week man, that if he joined the Metropolitan Police, where they start with 70s. a week, he should only get the proportion of his compensation to bring it up to £5, that that was to be part of the policy of the Government in dealing with the police; whether they are not trying to get old and experienced policemen to join or remain in forces, in certain Departments, for instance, in this House at nighttime; whether experienced policemen are turned off and inexperienced men brought in because they can get them at a lower wage; and whether this is an attempt on the part of the Government to put men out of work in order to get the work done cheaper?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I must reply to that. There is no such sinister design or such foolish purpose in the mind of the Government.

Sir J. REMNANT

You have done it in this House.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

No such thought ever occurred to my mind or the mind of the Government either.

Sir J. REMNANT

You make it worth a man's while to remain idle by this method of dealing with the disbanded men.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

That is not accurate. May I read the terms of disbandment circulated to all the men? I will give a practical case of how this works out: If a constable of 10 years' service who at the date of disbandment was in receipt of £4 10s. a week and is awarded a compensation allowance of 38s. a week, takes service in another police force at £3 10s. a week, his allowance will be suspended to the extent of 18s. a week. That is to say, his taking service in a new police force will not be to his disadvantage, but he will get the pay of the new force, plus his compensation allowance, so that he will get the pay he received on the date of his disbandment from the old force.

Sir J. BUTCHER

The Sub-section which the Lords propose to leave out says that his pension may be suspended "in whole or in part." The right hon. Gentleman is talking of an administrative Order.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I have given an example of the application of the Statute.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Really, with the best intentions in the world in listening to my right hon. Friend, I do not think he has made out a case, and it is clear, as the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) has said, that it may be that by administrative Order he is only going to take away a part of the pension, but he has power to take away the whole of it. If he takes service in another police force, the allowance may be suspended in whole or in part, so long as he remains in such force. Therefore, it seems to me that in the case of a tried constable who knows his work, the only business he is prevented from going into is the one he knows best, namely, that of a police constable. He may go into any other Government service, he may become a soldier and take his full soldier's pay, or he may become a postman and take his full postman's pay, although the pay of the soldier and postman are equally provided out of public funds. My right hon. Friend said there was a distinction between public funds and private businesses, that if, for instance, a man started a fried fish shop, he could take the whole of the profits, but that if his new salary came out of public funds, a deduction would be made from his pension, but that is not properly the case. It applies only to one very limited form of public employ- ment, namely, the police force. I take it that if one of these men were so lucky as to get some sinecure office, like that of Chief Secretary, he would still be allowed to retain the Chief Secretary's salary, and also his full pension for his previous office. Yet the Chief Secretary's salary is paid out of public funds, just the same as if he became a constable. There is no rhyme or reason in this matter. My right hon. Friend tried to make out an argument in favour of the Clause as originally drawn, and I submit that he has failed completely on his own argument to convince the House that the Clause as originally drawn was just to these men. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to come here and to claim that the terms were too generous.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I do not say that.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

But it comes to that. There is very little difference between complaining that they are generous and complaining that they are too generous. Why should he say anything about generosity? These pensions were earned, and were given to these

men, because Parliament thought that, under the particular circumstances, they ought to have them. Therefore, it is not right to say that they are to have something less good if they take service in a police force. If the terms exceed the bounds of fairness and justice, then the Chief Secretary has done wrong in asking us to grant them. He has no right to ask us to give a generous pension out of public money, but only to give what is fair and right, and he has no right to come down here and Prevent these men from earning their living in the way they can best do it in their own interests, and in the interests of the country, by penalising them if they attempt to do it. The House of Lords in this case has shown, as it occasionally does show, really stronger sense than the Government itself, and I hope the House will support the House of Lords in their Amendment if a Division takes plane.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 122.

Division No. 270.]	AYES.	[5.50 p. m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.	Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk, George
Atkey, A. R.	Faruuharson, Major A. C.	Kidd, James
Balrd, Sir John Lawrence	Fell, Sir Arthur	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Fildes, Henry	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)	Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.	Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.	Flannery, Sir James Fortescue	Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Barlow, Sir Montague	Ford, Patrick Johnston	Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Barnett, Major Richard W.	Forrest, Walter	Lloyd, George Butler
Barnston, Major Harry	Fraser, Major Sir Keith	Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Barrand, A. R.	Ganzoni, Sir John	Lorden, John William
Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert	Gee, Captain Robert	Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Birchall, J. Dearman	Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel Sir John	McMicking Major Gilbert
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Goff, Sir R. Park	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.	Grant, James Augustus	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.	Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)	Mallalieu, Frederick William
Brassey, H. L. C.	Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)	Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Breese, Major Charles E.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar	Martin, A E.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Mason, Robert
Briggs, Harold	Guthrie, Thomas Maule	Mitchell, sir William Lane
Broad, Thomas Tucker	Hallwood, Augustine	Molson, Major John Elsdale
Brown, Major D. C.	Hall, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Hamilton, Sir George C.	Morrison, Hugh
Carew, Charles Robert S.	Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)	Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Casey, T. W.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Murchison, C. K.
Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin	Hllder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank	Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill	Holmes, J. Stanley	Neal, Arthur
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender	Hood, Sir Joseph	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Clough, Sir Robert	Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)	Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Hopkins, John W. W.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Cope, Major William	Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)	Parker, James
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.	Houfton, John Plowright	Parkinson, Sir Albert L. (Blackpool)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)	Hudson, R. M.	Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry	Jameson, John Gordon	Pearce, Sir William
Ednam, Viscount	Jephcott, A. R.	Perkins, Walter Frank
Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)	Jesson, C.	Perring, William George
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)	Johnstone, Joseph	Pilditch Sir Philip
Evans, Ernest	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray	Smithers, Sir Alfred W.	Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)	Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Pratt, John William	Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Col. L. O. (R'ding)
Purchase, H. G.	Sugden, W. H.	Winterton, Earl
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.	Sutherland, Sir William	Wise, Frederick
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)	Taylor, J.	Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)	Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)	Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)	Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)	Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)	Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)	Tickler, Thomas George	Worsfold, T. Cato
Rose, Frank H.	Tryon, Major George Clement	Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Roundell, Colonel R. F.	Wallace, J.	Young, E. H. (Norwich)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor	Younger, Sir George
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur	Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)	Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.	Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr.
Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)	Warren, Sir Alfred H.	McCurdy.
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)	Watson, Captain John Bertrand
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D	Gwynne, Rupert S.	Remnant, Sir James
Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Amnion, Charles George	Halls, Walter	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Royce, William Stapleton
Armitage, Robert	Hartshorn, Vernon	Seddon, J. A.
Armstrong, Henry Bruce	Hayward, Evan	Sexton, James
Banton, George	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)	Sbarman-Crawford, Robert G.
Betterton, Henry B.	Hills, Major John Waller	Shaw, Thomas (Preston]
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hirst, G. H.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas	Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.	Sitch, Charles H.
Brittain, Sir Harry	Hodge, Rt. Hon. John	Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Bromfield, William	Hogge, James Myles	Spoor, B. G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)	Hurd, Percy A,	Stanton, Charles Butt
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Inskip, Thomas Walker H.	Stewart, Gershom
Cairns, John	Irving, Dan	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Cape, Thomas	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Swan, J. E.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Joynson-Hicks, Sir William	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale	Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)	Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)	Kennedy, Thomas	Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Kenyon, Barnet	Waterson, A. E.
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)	Kiley, James Daniel	Watts-Morgan, Lieut-Col. D.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Larmor, Sir Joseph	Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)	Lawson, John James	White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Lunn, William	White. Col. G. D. (Southport)
Dawson, Sir Philip	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)	Whitla, Sir William
Doyle, N. Grattan	Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm	Wignall, James
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Macquisten, F. A.	Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)	Marriott, John Arthur Ransome	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)
Elvedon, Viscount	Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)	Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey	Myers, Thomas	Windsor, Viscount
Foot, Isaac	Nail, Major Joseph	Wintringham, Margaret
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot	Nicholson, Brig.-Gen J. (Westminster)	Wolmer, Viscount
Gaibraith, Samuel	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Glyn, Major Ralph	Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket	Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Greer, Sir Harry	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, T. W.	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Sir J. Butcher and Colonel
Guinness, Lieut-Col. Hon. W. E.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Ashley.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment made, in lieu of the Lords Amendment disagreed with, in Subsection (3), after the word "force" ["in any police force"], insert "to which this Sub-section applies."—[Sir H. Greenwood.]

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words This Sub-section applies to any police force the expenses of which are defrayed in whole or in part out of moneys provided by Parliament, or by any Parliament in Ireland, or out of funds assisted by the Exchequer or by any Exchequer in Ireland. This Amendment is an alternative to the Lords Amendment which has just been defeated. It is a form of words which was brought up to the House of Lords by the Select Committee which originally considered this Bill. The effect of this compromise would be to leave men free to carry on their work as policemen in any of the great Dominion or Colonial forces to which they might be tempted to go.

Sir S. HOARE

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out Sub-section (4).

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I ought to point out that this Amendment also involves a breach of privilege.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

6.0 p.m.

This Amendment involves a breach of the privileges of this House, but I suggest it should also be rejected on its merits. This Amendment is a continuation of the Amendment decided on the last occasion. Their Lordships moved into the Bill that compensation allowances should not be taken into consideration by disbanded members of the Royal Irish Constabulary or the fact of securing an appointment in another police force affect the case. The phase we are dealing with now is a continuation of that principle. The previous Clause dealt with the double pay of the police in the circumstances specified, and this deals with double pensions. I must ask the House to support the Government in this action. Where a man receives compensation allowance on disbandment from the Royal Irish Constabulary, joins another police force, and ultimately retires from that police force, the question of his final pension must be considered in relation to his compensation allowance plus the pensionable period he has served in the second or other police force. It is exactly the same principle in regard to pensions as was involved previously in reference to pay. It is a principle that is universally carried out in the public service of this country. It is a principle that is considered most material in the equitable interests of the taxpayer, and it is not considered to be to the disadvantage of the policeman in so far as the securing of an appointment is concerned. We had the whole principle debated in the last Division, and I do not think it is necessary now to go into further details.

Sir J. BUTCHER

I agree with the Chief Secretary that the question involved is very much the same as the House rejected recently on the last Amendment and, personally, I hardly think it is worth while dividing the House again.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (7), leave out the words twenty-fifth day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-two" and insert sixteenth day of December nineteen hundred and twenty-one.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I beg to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Thin is not only a privilege Amendment, but it is also outside the scope of the Financial Resolution passed by this House. Therefore it would not be possible for the House to accept the Amendment. The short point is this: The disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary commenced on the 25th day of January, that is the date in the Bill. Lord Carson in another place moved the date to be put back to 16th December, 1921. In my opinion there is no possible ground for that. The plain fact is that the disbandment commenced on 25th January and that must be the date incorporated in the Bill. I agree that Lord Carson fixed the 16th December as the date on which the Treaty was approved by both Houses of Parliament, but it was not approved by the Parliament. of Southern Ireland till 14th January. The disbandment did not commence till after 14th January. The 25th January was the first day on which this disbandment became operative.

Mr. SPEAKER

This also is a privileged Amendment, and it likewise goes beyond the Financial Resolution.

Lord HUGH CECIL

The question of whether this is or is not outside the Financial Resolution does not appear to me for the moment to come into this particular stage. It has been repeatedly ruled from the Chair that Amendments which are outside the scope of the Bill altogether, according to our rules, may be agreed to here because each House is bound by its own procedure and we are bound as part of the comity of the two houses to consider each Amendment which the Lords sent to us. Therefore I submit the Financial Resolution makes no difference.

But I am anxious to ascertain from the Chief Secretary exactly what is the point involved. I do not quite understand what difference it makes either from the point of view of this House or the point of view of the other House whether we have the date in January or December. They are not very far apart. Were a large number of constables disbanded in the interval As a matter of fact, it may make a great difference to a great number of people, and, if so, I think the argument of generosity which the Chief Secretary has already put should have great weight. If there are a large number of people, not perhaps exactly in the same position as the people to whom this Bill is intended to give help, who retired between the two dates, panic-stricken or driven out owing to the state of the country, it would be very hard, merely on a point of law as to whether one date is in point of form the right date, to deprive these people of that compensation which others enjoy who are in substance exactly in the same position: Perhaps the Chief Secretary can tell us as to the number of people? If there are a considerable number in the same position as the others, the mere difference of date should not be allowed to work to their hurt.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

L can assure the Noble Lord that there were not a great number of persons retired. I take it it would be most irregular to put the date back. To put back the date because it was the date when the Treaty was approved, to my mind is not sound ground for a change of date on which so much depends. I am glad to assure the Noble Lord that so far as I know there is nothing at all in this matter except that 25th January was the date of the disbandment. I must remind the House that the disbandment began with the auxiliaries, and the English recruits, while the Irish members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were the last to be disbanded.

Sir J. BUTCHER

There are very obvious reasons why, apart from the technicalities, this Amendment of the Lords should be accepted. Let me tell the House some reasons within my own knowledge. Between the date suggested in Lord Carson's Amendment, namely, 19th December and 25th January, the date in the Bill, a very considerable number of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary retired for one reason or another. These men did not get anything like as good terms as if they had been kept on till 25th January. They got far less pensions. As a matter of fact, what Lord Carson asked in the House of Lords was: "Why should these men, because they retired before 25th January, be less well treated than men who retired after nth January?" Everyone knew that the Treaty had been signed on 16th December, and that the force would have to be disbanded, although not in language yet in fact not in words but in fact the disbandment had begun as from December, 1921. So it is a mere matter of language that these men who retired before 25th January, 1922, and after 16th December, 1921, should be treated as disbanded or retired men. We say they ought to be treated as disbanded men, because they would get much larger pensions. Therefore, there is substance in the matter.

It is not a mere question of one or two people who might be affected. Then my right hon. Friend says, "Oh, but it is outside the Financial Resolution." I think it is. I think he is right. But that makes it really possible for us to accept this Amendment of the Lords, and I submit that that is the law. Will my right hon. Friend do in this case what he has already done in another ease of proved hardship? Will he meet the. ease, not in this Bill, perhaps, but by an Amendment of the. Pensions Act of 1922? Will he say that the men who left the force after the Treaty had been sanctioned on the 16th December, 1921, should be treated in the same manner as the men who were disbanded after 25th January, 1922? It can quite easily be done by an Amendment of the Pensions Act. My right hon. Friend says, "Oh, but the disbandment in fact began on 95th January, 1922." In fact, it did, but it was illegal! May I urge that until this House sanctioned the disbandment by this Bill his administrative action of disbandment was absolutely illegal. It is no good talking about 25th January as if it were some sacred date. It was the first day possible on which my right hon. Friend began to do something quite illegal. If he did this illegality on 25th January, 1922, I would ask him to go a little further and put the date of the beginning of the illegality on a date which is consonant with justice and equity. If he must be illegal, let him, at any rate, instil some equity into it. Let him make amends for this undoubted illegality by doing a little justice and by embodying what I suggest in the Pensions Act. That will wipe out part of the illegality and do justice to a very deserving class. Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that he will try his persuasive- ness in another place to get an Amendment of this kind made in the Pensions Act of 1922.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I can only repeat what I have already said, namely, that I cannot accept this Amendment. I can assure the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) that the total number who left the force between 16th December and 25th January was not very large, and only numbered about 40, 20 of them owing to injuries on duty. I may point out that I am making provision for these men in a subsequent Amendment. Fourteen of these men retired on 25 years' service or upwards, and they have a right to retire on 25-60ths or 30-60ths of their pay in the way of pension. Four of these retired with a. gratuity. There was no flood of retirement in the interim period, as appears to be supposed. For these reasons I cannot go hack on the date, hut, as I have already stated, I am providing in a subsequent Amendment, at a considerable increase of cost, for those who retired during the earlier period owing to injuries received on duty. I hope the House will accept this explanation as satisfactory. I regret that my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) has tried to impeach me for illegality, but I assure him that I have done my best in this matter.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (9), after the word "by" ["exercised by the Treasury"], insert "a Secretary of State with the approval of."

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is to make the powers exercisable by the Lord-Lieutenant or Inspector-General also exercisable by a Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury. When the Bill went to the House of Lords their Lordships inserted these words which the Government have accepted.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of Sub-section (9) insert subject to right of appeal to the tribunal mentioned in Section two,

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. SPEAKER

This Amendment must be taken in connection with the next two new Clauses on the Paper. Taking them together, they are privileged Amendments.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I am sure the House will support me in disagreeing with this Amendment. It means after the Secretary of State Lind the Treasury have agreed to a certain decision in regard to pensions that that decision will be amenable to the trip anal set up under Section 2. Hon. Members will see that it is quite impossible for me to accept an Amendment of this kind. thus leaving the repealing of a decision of the Secretary of State and the Treasury to a tribunal of this kind. I think the House will agree that this is an Amendment which we cannot reasonably aecept.

Lord H. CECIL

I do not share the view of the right hon. Gentleman that a decision of the Secretary of State and the Treasury should not be reviewed by another impartial tribunal. The object of the Lords Amendment is to give security against unfair treatment prompted by political motives and if the Government are angry with the House of Lords for putting in such an Amendment they have only themselves to blame because of the profound mistrust the policy of the Government has inspired in the public mind in regard to decisions of this kind. The people feel that they cannot trust the Ministers of the State to be fair and therefore you want something more trustworthy than Ministers' decisions which do not always proceed upon any rule of honest dealing. I am sorry that owing to a question of privilege the Chief Secretary is allowed to disagree with this Amendment. I think we might have waived our privilege with a view of meeting the desire that there should be an impartial and trustworthy authority to deal with these matters which will not yield to political pressure, or the exigencies of a particular Ministerial necessity. I think we should secure for these men something better than Ministerial authority, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment,

Sir J. BUTCHER

I hardly think the Chief Secretary has given this important Amendment sufficient consideration. What the men want is some tribunal outside the Treasury official which will really decide their case according to what they think is justice. I am not saying a word against the Treasury on this point, and as a rule they do everything I ask them. In a case of this sort you want not only justice done, but you want to let the men feel that justice has been done to their case, and therefore it is important that we should have an impartial tribunal to review these decisions.

Let me call attention to a, particular case which happened in the course of disbandment. There was the case of a man who had served 14 years, 5 months, and 25 days in the Royal Irish Constabulary and he was discharged on a certain day. If he had been allowed to serve 15 days longer he would have got £10 a year more pension. Why was this man discharged? He was turned out because in another 15 days the Government would have to provide him with another £10 on his pension. The facts of this case have been gone into and Lord Carson suggested that the reason for turning him out was in order to save £10 a year. Lord Peel in another place never ventured to suggest that Lord Carson's facts were inaccurate and here we have a very gross injustice done by a Treasury official. If there had been a tribunal of the sort we desire to set up then this mistake could have been corrected, and why should it not be put right?

The Chief Secretary says, "How could you have a tribunal overriding the Treasury official, especially when that official has the assistance of the Secretary of State behind him." If you deal with that question in the abstract I see no reason why you should not have this tribunal. We all know how these decisions are arrived at. The actual facts of the case. do not come before the Secretary of State. What happens is that some subordinate official goes into the matter, probably inadequately, and he says, "Here is my decision," and the Secretary of State says, "All right." Therefore you do not have the Chancellor of the Exchequer bringing his mind to bear on these questions, and it is done by a subordinate official of the Treasury. Therefore, we are not really overriding the Under-Secretary of State or the First Lord of the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but only some inadequate decision of a subordinate.

I think we have a precedent fur this tribunal in the case of the Pensions Committee, which is a tribunal that can override the Pensions Minister, and from which there is no appeal. If such a tribunal is necessary in the ease of Navy and Army pensions, why is it not necessary for police pensions? What is the difference between the tribunal set up to deal with the pensions of disabled soldiers and that which is sought to be set up by this Amendment? I hope the Chief Secretary will give more attention to this point, and will agree to the setting up of this tribunal which will remedy those undoubted cases of injustice.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause I insert