HC Deb 01 August 1922 vol 157 cc1334-40

B.—(1) The provisions as to disturbance allowance, free railway warrant, and separation allowance contained in the Third Schedule to this Act shall apply with respect to any officer or man of the Royal Irish Constabulary to whom compensation is payable under Section one of this Act or who at the date fixed for the disbandment of the force is in receipt of a pension under the enactments relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary and is at that date resident in Ireland.

(2) This Section shall have effect until the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and no longer, unless before that date it is extended for a further period by His Majesty by Order in Council.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

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

This is also a privilege Amendment. I will explain my position. As I understand it, the desire is that there should be incorporated in the Bill the terms of disbandment which were printed in a White Paper laid on the Table of this House many months ago and which were also distributed to the force. We object to incorporating in the Bill these terms of disbandment mainly in the interests of the force itself. May I explain what I mean by that? If you put the terms into the Bill, then they become statutory and fixed. The terms of disbandment, however, are administrative terms. We can alter them, and have altered them, on several occasions, every time to the advantage of the police. In the terms of disbandment as originally framed there were no separate allowances for the wives of officers and men who were compelled to leave Ireland. We provided for them under an administrative order, and I am now negotiating with the Treasury to extend the allowances month by month. If we put it in the Bill, the matter would he fixed for a period of three months only. I think myself it would be a disadvantage to include the terms in the Bill, and, therefore, on the merits of the case quite independently of the fact that it is a privilege Amendment outside the scope of the Financial Resolution, I object to the terms being incorporated in the Bill.

Sir J. BUTCHER

Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on this point? Under the terms of disbandment, a disbanded policeman who goes to his home in Ireland and is driven away by threats, gets certain advantages in the shape of allowances. But supposing, instead of being a disbanded man under the terms of this Bill, he is a pensioner who had been pensioned a month, a year, or more. Supposing this unfortunate man—and this has occurred in a great many cases—when at his home in Ireland is visited by a band of armed ruffians and told to turn out of his home and to fly the country. He has to come to England. Neither under this Bill, nor ander any other provision, does that man get a farthing for being driven away from his home. I know the Chief Secretary has a case of that sort in his mind. I believe he realises that provision should be made for such cases. I should be very glad if he will make a statement to the effect that be will. either by an Amendment of the Pensions Order, or by some other methods, deal with these cases of gross hardship—.he cases of men not disbanded under the Act but pensioned some time before, who do not get a farthing when forced to come to England. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy the House on this point.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I am very glad to make a statement. I can only speak, of course, by permission of the House. My point is that this proposal is quite outside the scope of the Bill. The argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir j Butcher) was, that while the Bill deals with disbanded men, nothing is done for pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary who took their pensions before January. There are 7,000 or 8,000 of these men, most. of whom have passed middle age, and many of whom are very old. The great majority have had nothing to do with recent troubles in Ireland, and, I believe, are living in quiet and comfort in different parts of the country. Oat of the 7,000 or 8,000 pensioned men, there have been some 40 who have had to come over to this country As far as we know, every Irish policeman in trouble comes to the Irish Office or to some other office connected with the force here. I may add incidentally that the whole of the pensions of the force and the disbandment and compensation allowances are now paid from the London Office, and are administered by the Paymaster-General's Department in Whitehall. Reverting to these pensioners, we do not believe there is going to be any great rush of them from Ireland owing to molestation; but if any pensioner finds himself in distress, we are willing to give him free railway warrants for himself and his wife and family from any part of Ireland to England, and to advance him money when he gets to this country if he has to come by reason of molestation. Then he goes before the Committee presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), and that body deals with him as an Irish refugee, and is in a position to deal with him according to his needs. I think that is the better way of meeting such cases. To my mind, it is the only way of doing so. These pen- sioners obviously cannot be dealt with in this Bill. I repeat I do not believe there will be any great rush of them to this country, but in case any number, however small, should come, I think what I have said meets their case.

Lord H. CECIL

We are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his interesting explanation. It is obvious if we reject the Lords Amendment we put these people in the position that they are not entitled to receive anything except as a matter of grace and favour, and not as a statutory right. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, the difference between accepting and rejecting the Lords Amendment is this: Acceptance will give these people a statutory right to receive that which already they can receive by administrative order, the administrative order I presume being eventually made good by Parliament under the Appropriation Act. It will be observed that, the point of privilege is extremely technical. The Lords do not really impose any fresh charge on the people. They are putting into this Bill what naturally the House of Commons would put into it. They are not really adding to the burdens of the people.

Mr. SPEAKER

I must take exception to that statement. This House must uphold its own authority, and cannot permit the other House to impose a charge.

Lord H. CECIL

It would, no doubt, be a breach of privilege to do that, but I submit that this Amendment would not have that effect. It would he a serious breach of privilege for the Lords to interfere with our control of finance, but if, as I understand, it is the policy and intention of the majority of this House that these people should receive this money, then, so far as the privilege of this House is concerned, it is only a matter of form. It is only a question whether it shall be done in one way or another. The Chief Secretary, in arguing on the merits of the question, said the police would be really better off, because his system would be more elastic. Elasticity is, of course, a good thing if it works favourably to the person who is supposed to benefit, but it has its disadvantages, because it gives the man a sense of insecurity. He has not the sanction of a definite and settled thing on which he can rely. He has to rely on what the Government may do for him in the course of the financial year. I confess the case of these men is very hard. Confessedly, they can have no compensation under this Bill. They are deserving of the sympathy of the House; they are deserving of justice for the great public services they have rendered, for the good work they have done, and for the suffering they have borne inconsequence. It is very hard indeed that we should, on a very narrow question of privilege and on a technicality, which to us is interesting because it is bound up with the great history of this House, it is very hard, I say, to people whose livelihood depends on our decision that they should have this compensation withheld. I think we ought to put them in a favourable position, and on the grounds of humanity I urge that u e should not disagree with the Lords Amendment in this case. This is an occasion on which the Government might very well move the House to waive its privilege and to agree with the Lords and thus put the people with whom we are dealing in the position they are entitled to be of having statutory security. They have suffered, some, of them have been wounded, they have been driven from their homes, and it is up to us to help them. We ought not, therefore, to stand on the letter of our privilege. We ought to give them that statutory security which everybody should have, and not leave it to the grace and favour of an administrative order I hope the Government will treat these men in the generous spirit which they profess to desire to show.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

May I again intervene. I am not opposing this Amendment entirely on the ground of privilege. I say it is outside the Financial Resolution, and, as I understand it, it would necessitate the introduction of another Financial Resolution if this is agreed to. That is my view. I may be wrong, I repeat that the Lords Amendment is outside the Financial Resolution, and that precludes the House accepting it.

Lord H. CECIL

I submit that the Financial Resolution does not hind the House at this stage. The Financial Resolution only really determines the scope of the Bill, and it has been repeatedly ruled that Amendments outside the scope of the Bill, which cannot be put in in this House, can, if they are put in in the other House, be agreed to by this House when they come down as Lords Amendments. I believe that has been repeatedly ruled, and I submit that this case comes under that ruling. It is only necessary for us to make an entry in the journal of the House that the Amendment does carry out the intention of the House, and, if that were done, we should not he breaking down the position of this House.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER

The Noble Lord has put his point in a very intricate manner. If it be true that it would be to the benefit of these men that they should have a statutory claim, then it certainly amounts to a charge on the public, and, therefore, it is absolutely a breach of privilege.

Lord H. CECIL

It is a question of waiving the privilege.

Sir C. WARNER

But the Noble Lord said it could be brought in in another place. It is not a sound proposition that the Lords in another place should be able to put charges into the Bill. The point is distinctly this. If it is to be of any benefit at all, whether a benefit in money or by claiming a thing as a right instead of by grace, then I submit it is a breach of privilege to put it in in this way.

Lord H. CECIL

I agree with that. I was not contending that that would not be a breach of privilege.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE

This ease does not differ very much from the other. As the right hon. Gentleman has just said, there are a good many things to be considered, in regard to what would be effected by adopting the same procedure with reference to the men who left the force before its disbandment took place as to those actually disbanded. He told us there were not a great number of men who would be likely to be affected, hut surely that weakened his argument for refusing to agree with the Lords Amendment. He has said that these men who retired or were pensioned before the date of disbandment, if they are driven out of Ireland now and brought over to this country, will get a free railway warrant, and will also be referred to the Committee presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). That, however, is not nearly as good as the provision which it is sought to insert in the Bill under the Lords Amendment, for under that they would get separation allowance and the disturbance allowance Which is given to these other men. I think the House has already shown that it wants to he absolutely fair to these ex-constables. Take the case of those men who retired just before the date of disbandment. Many of them are marked men, and it is quite possible that. several—perhaps hundreds—of them will he driven out of Ireland, especially if things get worse than they are at present. In that case the right hon. Gentleman says the only thing he is going to offer them is a railway warrant, and then they will be passed on to the Committee of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. Everyone knows that that. Committee is short of funds. It has any number of other refugees to deal with, and will not have the necessary money to deal equitably and fairly with these ex-constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this Amendment, just as he has accepted the others, and I think it is only fair and just to these men to put it in the Bill now.

Mr. SPEAKER

The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) put a point to me, just now with regard to this Amendment, not on the question of privilege, but on the, question of its being outside the Money Resolution. I have looked up the matter, and I find that there are two cases on record in which the House agreed with the Lords in an Amendment like this. But in each case the House preceded that, by going into Committee, and passing a new Financial Resolution, in order to make it competent for them to agree with the Amendment.

Lord H. CECIL

I beg pardon.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 2, insert: