CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) COMPENSA- TION. (Hansard, 22 February 1922)

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill)
This Vote is not the only one on the Paper. There are others. I do not know what the wishes of the Committee may be, but I think perhaps it would be most convenient if we had such a general discussion as you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, will permit and as is possible on one or other of these Votes. I would make a general statement explaining, for the convenience of the Committee, what actually it is we are proposing to do, and for what we want the money. I do not know, Sir Edwin, whether you think that would be the most convenient course?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
There is a Vote for £1,130,000, but that is not now before the Committee. The Vote I have just read out is for £215,000. Then there are Votes for £14,000 for payments under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, etc; for £13,900 criminal prosecutions and other law charges; £10 for the Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Ireland; £19,837 for the salary and expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Northern Ireland; and Local Government Board, Ireland, £10. Of course if any one of these Votes opened up the whole policy then it would be in order to allow a general discussion, but I am not sure that I can read the general policy into the first or any of these Votes.

Mr. THOMAS
On that same point, Sir Edwin. This question of compensation for injuries raises the question of Mallow. Compensation of varying amounts was awarded to the wives and children of a number of railwaymen. I do not, for obvious reasons, desire to rake up the Mallow inquiry, but I should like to know whether what I want to say on the matter can be raised on this Vote, or what Vote it can be raised on. If, as I gather, the Government are going to accept responsibility for the circumstances connected with Mallow, the only opportunity of raising that issue would be on this particular Vote. I should like your ruling.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I can, of course, move this Vote, and just make one or two brief words in explanation; but I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I shall be very glad to assist the Committee, but I do not know at present how far the Committee would desire to carry a discussion. It seems to me it must be somewhat limited, necessarily, if we take these Votes as they are. If, for instance, we have a general discussion on this Vote, then a general discussion might be claimed on a later Vote. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had better proceed and let me see how far we can go.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I shall confine myself strictly to the Vote before the Committee.

§ Major-General SEELY
Would it not be much more convenient if the right hon. Gentleman said what his policy was 'with regard to compensation before we discuss the details, because we cannot discuss them adequately until we know what the Government propose to do?

The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN
I have only this Vote of £215,000 for compensation for criminal injuries and medical and nursing expenses of Crown employés before me at the present moment, and I think it will be better to keep to that Vote.

Mr. THOMAS
Would it not be better if I moved a formal reduction of this Vote, in order to raise the whole issue as to how far this compensation is to be applied?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
There is no necessity to do that.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The Vote which we are now considering is for £215,000 compensation for criminal injuries and medical and nursing expenses of Crown employés who have been maliciously injured. It is a perfectly simple Vote. It provides the sum needed for the purpose of dealing with the more pressing cases of personal injury to our own people, for which the British Government has made itself liable. We require this sum to meet these distressing cases of widows left entirely unprovided for through their husbands being murdered, and individuals who have suffered grievous injury and are now requiring medical attendance. The principle which we intend to pursue in dealing with personal injuries is that we have agreed with the Provisional Government that each country shall look after its own casualties. The compensation to the British personnel who have been injured, or the relations of those who have been killed, will be defrayed by this Vote, and the Irish who were injured or killed on the other side in the fighting, will be looked after by the Irish Free State. Under this arrangement each Government has an equal interest in looking after its own people and preventing undue claims. That seems to us to be the best arrangement, and this £215,000 is needed for dealing with the more pressing of those cases, and I hope the Committee will pass this Vote.

§ Mr. MOSLEY
Who are the "law-abiding persons in necessitous circumstances?" They are not widows of our own people.

Mr. THOMAS
I much prefer on this Vote to raise the general question. Shortly, the Colonial Secretary says this: the Irish Provisional Government has accepted responsibility for what I would prefer to call the victims on their side. The British Government say: "We accept responsibility for the victims on our side." The difficulty in connection with the Mallow case is that it looks as if neither side is going to accept the railwaymen's widows as victims. In this case, there was a body of men including a number of railwaymen, some of whom were killed whilst performing their duty as railwaymen. One side said that these railwaymen were killed by the Black and 2017 Tans, and the other side say they were killed by the Republican Army. This is not the time to enter into the merits of the case as to whether the Black and Tans or the other side were responsible, but on the statement made by my right hon. Friend, now, clearly it is obvious that these people are going to be left in the cold, because the Provisional Government can turn round and say: "We only accept the responsibility for our own people engaged in the struggle." On the other hand, the British Government can say, "We only accept responsibility for the wives or widows or dependants of the soldiers."
In this particular case the railwaymen were the victims. The result was that we went to Court and got a verdict for something like £7,000 or £8,000, based upon the children left where the fathers were killed, and so much for the widows. Seeing that we are now discussing the whole issue of the particular victims of the late War, I ask whether the right thing to do would not be to say that if there is a verdict in a Court of Law and damages awarded, then the British Government ought to accept the responsibility. I do not think this is the right time to raise the merits of the dispute, and I will merely limit myself to pointing out that there is a judgment in a court of law awarding these widows and dependants certain sums of money, but that money has never been paid. If the right hon. Gentleman will say that in this vote provision is being taken to meet these cases, that will satisfy me. On the other hand, if he says it will be met, that will satisfy me. For the moment the statement is that both sides should be responsible for their particular victims, but these railwaymen's dependants appear to he left out in the cold.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Why should the railwaymen not be included among "law-abiding persons" who were injured?

Mr. THOMAS
My right hon. Friend has got it exactly. If he will say that their case will be covered, then I waive my opposition.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I cannot say that they are necessarily included in this actual amount, but our intention is that persons injured by the other side, who were law-abiding persons injured by the Sinn Fein forces or the rebel forces in the war, are our responsibility, and where 2018 those persons have got judgment in their favour, and nobody is going to be responsible, then we are going to accept the responsibility for personal injuries. When the other Vote is taken, I shall make a fuller statement and show how we are going to deal with property. As far as personal injuries to Crown forces, who were law-abiding persons, are concerned, we are going to be responsible, and I should have thought that the railwaymen were certainly included in that. If they are law-abiding persons, and come within that scope, and they were on our side, and not on the other side, we shall be responsible, and accept the verdict of the Court given in their favour, and either in part or in whole that will be defrayed out of the Vote on account which we are now asking the House to give us.

Mr. THOMAS
A general statement is not sufficient for my purpose. We want to know exactly what this means. In this particular case, as I understand it, the agreement with the Provisional Government was this: Any loyal subjects injured or killed on our side we will be responsible for, and the same thing applies to the other side. In the, case I have brought forward, we have had two reports. First there was a Government inquiry and that finished by justifying the military, and that was the substance of the Report. We were then faced with this difficulty. These are members of our union and, apart from the political aspect, there are certain moral responsibilities attached to us as a union with regard to people who are our members. We afterwards went to an Irish Court and got a verdict for certain specified sums allocated to the widows and the children in different amounts. We have made repeated efforts before the Irish Law Courts to get those amounts, hut up to now we have not had a copper.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I cannot see how the hon. Member connects the argument he is putting forward with this Vote, which is for the payment of compensation for criminal injuries and medical and nursing expenses of Crown employés who have been maliciously injured. The railwaymen do not seem to me to come under this Vote.

Mr. THOMAS
We have had a discussion as to what this Vote is, and the Colonial Secretary has defined it as being 2019 in conformity with an agreement with the Provisional Government in Ireland who will provide for their own victims and the British Government will provide for theirs, and we want to clearly understand who are the victims. The people I am dealing with could be left out under the definition which is put forward unless it is cleared up. It was generally agreed that this Vote was the one on which I could raise this question.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Naturally I find a difficulty in reference to a particular case. I understand that these men have got a verdict from a Court and that fact is presumptive evidence that they belong to us and it is our business to defray the expense.

§ Mr. O'NEILL
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the agreement with the Provisional Government. I suppose we may take it that any arrangement as regards compensation for law-abiding persons will apply equally to Northern Ireland and to Southern Ireland.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
When I make my statement on the question of damage to property, I shall be able to tell the House exactly what we have arranged with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland for the treatment of this subject in Northern Ireland. The conditions are not exactly the same. With regard to damage done in Southern Ireland, there are two opposing forces. We pay our share and the other side pay their share. But in Ulster the damage was done entirely through lawless violence, and we take a different attitude, the main burden falling on us. The arrangement has been discussed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and when I make my general statement on the subject of compensation I will deal with that point.

§ Major-General SEELY
When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make his statement which is awaited with very much interest? I suggest it would never be more in order than it is now. There is no specific Vote on which it can be made except by a rather wide interpretation of the Rules of the Committee. Can we have any indication from the right hon. Gentleman when it is proposed to make the statement?

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I am anxious to make it in the near future. I do not think this would be a convenient opportunity. It would certainly be out of order on this Vote. I do not propose to trespass on the Committee to-night.

§ Sir D. MACLEAN
I think it would be as well to have as clear an understanding as possible on this matter. The Vote now before the Committee is very comprehensive in its scope and if hon. Members will look at the bottom of page 49 (a) they will see the words Advances on account of compensation in respect of injuries to the person or property of Crown employés and of law abiding citizens in necessitous circumstances. That, of course, does limit the Debate in that respect, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a convenient opportunity to make the general statement which I am sure the House wishes to hear, and which might be raised op another Vote for Miscellaneous Services to be administered by the Provisional Government which quite obviously brings the whole range of this question into the ambit of legitimate discussion. What I suggest is that we should take this Vote and, of course, debate it within its proper limits which are clearly defined in the note attached to it. We can then take other smaller Votes, and I am quite certain there is sufficient to keep the Committee engaged in the interests of economy and administration until 11 o'clock. The officers of the Treasury and the Chief Whip will then seek a proper opportunity of putting as the first Order on another day a Vote which will cover the whole ground. It should be a day convenient to the House as a whole and an early day as well.

§ Sir W. DAVISON
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the compensation which has actually been awarded, especially to women for the loss of their husbands in the recent Irish fighting, will be paid? I drew the Chief Secretary's attention a few days ago to the case of an unfortunate lady who lost her husband—an officer in the Royal Irish Constabulary—last year, and who obtained judgment for £9,500 compensation in the courts. So far she has only received £3,000. As the House is aware, investment stocks have recently been rising very considerably, and therefore the income which this lady would have derived, had she been able to get her money at the time it was 2021 awarded her, will now be very considerably less because of the rise in values of stocks since April last. I want to know when these compensation awards will be paid. I presume interest will be paid as from the date of the award until the day of payment.

§ Captain ELLIOT
I want to say a word as to the definition of "law abiding." I take it that the Irish Free State accepts responsibility for those of its actual belligerent force who were killed or injured in the recent fighting, and we take responsibility for our belligerent forces. In addition to that the British taxpayer is to shoulder the burden for injuries to non-combatant, whether they arose from the action of the forces of Sinn Fein or of the forces of the Crown. We are to shoulder this very large expenditure. It seems to me that that is the point made by the right hon. Member or Derby (Mr. Thomas). As far as I can understand his point—on which he received satisfaction—it was that the people who were injured as a result of fighting between the forces of Sinn Fein and the forces of the Crown, and who got from the Court of Inquiry a verdict exonerating the forces of the Crown, are reckoned as law-abiding persons, and according to the definition given by the Colonial Secretary the compensation to be paid to them is to come out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, although the verdict was against Sinn Fein.

§ Mr. MOSLEY
I confess that the question just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) remains a very ambiguous point in my mind. The right hon. Gentleman said that we are each to bear our own casualties, and therefor we will pay for the casualties to loyalists. How is the term "loyalist" defined in Ireland? Who is a loyalist? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that anyone who obtained a verdict in the Courts would be compensated by the English Crown. But a great many people who brought actions in the Court did not, I imagine, belong to the class of persons who come within the strict definition of the term "loyalists."

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The term is "law-abiding."

§ Mr. MOSLEY
That is precisely what we are trying to get at. Does it mean that the English taxpayer is to pay for all damage through loss of life or injury 2022 to property sustained by any person in Ireland against whom no definite proof rests of implication in guilty transactions, although the less of life may have been caused or the damage to property inflicted by the other side? We bear the losses of the whole of the law-abiding people, that is to say, the people against whom no definite proof rests of their implication in any guilty transaction. In other words, if my diagnosis be correct, the English Government pays for all casualties in Ireland, by whichever side they have been inflicted, except those casualties actually sustained by the Sinn Fein forces in the course of the various affrays. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that the original position in this matter under the Act that was passed, was that all compensation for such injuries was leviable upon the district concerned. In nearly every case the district refused to pay, and we then, in most instances, deducted the compensation from grants that we were making to the local council, getting it back in that way. I now understand from the right hon. Gentleman that, under this agreement with the Provisional Government into which our Government have entered, we undertake to pay compensation to anyone sustaining personal injury or loss of property in Ireland, against whom no definite proof rests that he was implicated in any guilty transaction. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to explain it, but certainly, if this rests on the definition of a law-abiding person, and any loss to a law-abiding person is sustained by the British Government, I cannot see how we can refuse to pay for any injury, provided that the person injured is without the ambit of the criminal law. I shall be interested to hear what other definition the right hon. Gentleman can read into this agreement, and still more interested to hear his description of our position in regard to specific cases. May I ask him definitely, for instance, whether the English taxpayer will pay for the burning of Cork?

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
That has nothing to do with this Vote.

§ Mr. MOSLEY
This Vote refers to injuries to person or property of law-abiding persons in necessitous circumstances.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
There is no money for that in this Vote.

§ Mr. MOSLEY
Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me for what specific purposes the money in this Vote is to be applied? Presumably it is to be applied to analogous cases—cases in which widespread destruction of property or loss of life occured, and in which that loss cannot be ascribed to any definite person. Probably the matter rests in that anomalous atmosphere in which the utterances of the Chief Secretary left most of these occurrences in Ireland. There is probably no definite proof that casualties were inflicted by either side, and I gather from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that, whichever side inflicted the casualties, as long as they were inflicted on law-abiding persons, we are to pay whether we did the damage or not. I presume that this Vote refers to the destruction of property or the shooting of certain people under doubtful circumstances. I presume that compensation for these injuries was levied on the district, in accordance with the practice of the Government, that the district refused to pay, that we deducted the compensation from grants to the local council, and that now, under the agreement with the Provisional Government, the English Government has, after all decided to foot the Bill for all the damage, whoever inflicted it. If that be the case, and from the words of the right hon. Gentleman I can read no other meaning into the agreement, that which throughout the struggle was prophesied consistently from these benches has come to pass. England is to pay for all the damage inflicted in Ireland during the troublous period under discussion. It is a bill of failure and a bill of disgrace. We are now footing the bill for the blunders of the Government during a period when their administration in Ireland was resisted day and night from these benches. The Chief Secretary finds it a subject for amusement when, in the course of the year, he has lost this country 600 lives and some millions of money. It may entertain the right hon. Gentleman, but it does not entertain the widows—

§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood)
One can tolerate a good deal from the hon. Member, but it has never been a source of amusement to me that hundreds of gallant soldiers and police were assassinated, and I have never during the 2024 course of my career as Chief Secretary, and never shall, look upon the assassination of anybody in Ireland except with the greatest horror. The hon. Member has no right to drag in an irrelevant and insolent accusation of that kind against me.

§ Mr. MOSLEY
If the right hon. Gentleman can justify the charge of the dismal failure of his policy in Ireland—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is now getting far too wide in his remarks. He is going into the whole policy of the right hon. Gentleman in Ireland.

§ Mr. MOSLEY
Am I not entitled to submit that the money which we are now voting is entirely wasted, because the policy which it was designed to serve was reversed without one of the objects which it set out to secure being actually achieved?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is entitled to submit reasons whether or not this money should be voted, but he is not entitled to cast aspersions on the past policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary.

§ Mr. MOSLEY
I was going to submit that this money should not be voted without a reduction being moved, because it was purely wasted, owing to the maladministration of the right hon. Gentleman in pursuance of a policy which was reversed owing to its failure and defeat. If, however, I have traversed the Rules of Order, I of course bow to your ruling, and will not pursue the subject. I shall be grateful to the Chief Secretary if he will be so kind as to clear up this very dubious matter, and tell us whether, in fact, the English taxpayer is going to foot the bill after all for all the damage that was inflicted in Ireland, whether to life or to property, by whichever side it was inflicted and in whatever manner, and that the only loss borne by Sinn Fein is the compensation for the actual casualties which they incurred. Is it not the fact that all the rest of the damage during that troublous time through which we have passed, whether it was damage to life or to property, is paid for out of the pocket of the English taxpayer?

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
It is characteristic of the hon. Gentleman that he should wish to intercept these moneys and prevent them from reaching the widows—

§ Mr. MOSLEY
What right has the right hon. Gentleman to say that I wish to intercept them? Nothing of the kind. It is quite untrue—

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He made a most offensive speech, largely, I think, in order to acquire practice, which he sadly needs, and in the course of it he repeated several times that this money ought not to be paid, and that it was a shameful bill. What is the bill? It is to pay for men who have been shattered for standing up for their country, and who, no doubt, had their work at the time made much more difficult by the kind of obstruction in which the hon. Gentleman was engaged during that period, and the class of criticism which he was bringing to bear in a stream upon us. It is those men who are shattered and who are being nursed in the hospitals, and the widows of those who have been killed in the service of the Crown, that he wishes to prevent from receiving this aid, and I trust that this matter will be brought home to him in other places beside the House of Commons. I never heard of anything more callous and gratuitous than to stand between these people and the aid which it is our bounden duty to give them. The hon. Gentleman also made a great deal of difficulty about the form in which this arrangement had been come to. The principle is a perfectly clear, simple and sensible one. In 99 cases out of 100 it is quite well known which side the people were on. It is true there are a certain number of border line cases—a very small proportion—where quite harmless people, not engaged in the conflicts on one side or the other, came into the line of fire, and those eases must be dealt with individually. They must be the subjects of discussion between us and the Provisional Government. We are not in any way making ourselves responsible for all injuries which have been done in Ireland to persons other than members of the Irish Republican Army. We are the judges in the matter. We undertake the responsibility of looking after our own supporters and those who have suffered on our side, and we leave to the other side a similar task in regard to theirs. The border line cases must be dealt with by negotiation in each particular case. When I come to deal with the question of the division of the burden in respect to dam- 2026 age to property I shall show very clearly how the same principle is being applied, only in a somewhat different way. Each side in that case is paying for the damage it did. We believe it is possible to arrive at a very clear judgment on that point. I have been asked what can be done to hurry up these payments. The moment this money has been voted the advances will be made as rapidly as possible, and interest at 5 per cent. runs from the date of the injury. I hope in these circumstances that the Committee will permit us to get the Vote.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
The right hon. Gentleman has taken grave exception not only to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) but to the character of his speech. I think the House of Commons should take note of the two divergent views between my right hon. Friend opposite and my hon. Friend as to their policy in the past on this matter. My hon. Friend wanted this money intercepted. If the policy which he stood for in a hostile House had been adopted and carried into effect many months before the Government moved in the matter, not only would the right hon. Gentleman not be coming here this evening to ask the British taxpayer to find £215,000, but there would be a happier story and a happier position in Ireland to-night, and many of these people to whom we are granting compensation would not be suffering from damage to their lives and property through the policy of His Majesty's Government. I think my hon. Friend, having withstood hostile criticism in the House of Commons while the policy of reprisals was being carried out—

§ The CHAIRMAN
This is quite outside the scope of the discussion.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
I was only endeavouring to answer the debating point put by the Colonial Secretary in reply to my hon. Friend, but I will pass from that. In his opening statement the right hon. Gentleman stated that this sum of money was to meet the more pressing claims. Before we pass this Vote I think we are entitled to ask what is the total estimated liability which will fall on the State through granting compensation, not only to persons, but to property. I can quite understand that the Government cannot give a very 2027 accurate figure, but as this Vote is for a new service we are entitled to ask what will be the sum required next year. The Chief Secretary might be able to give some information on that point. It has been clearly shown by hon. Members on both sides of the House that compensation will be granted to law-abiding persons in a wide sense of the term, and by so doing the door is open wide to the total compensation which is to be paid by the British taxpayer. I think we are entitled to ask for a close Estimate. During the earlier days of the week the House of Commons has voted largely increased sums to the Government to clear up their past policy in Ireland, and I am anxious to find out what is the total liability which will fall on the British taxpayer through the policy of the past. There are certain other Estimates which may come on to-night or on some other day for large sums of money. What is the total liability?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in asking for an Estimate of the total liability under these sub-heads, but not for the total liability in Ireland.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
I realise that, but I was anxious to find out first of all what the total liability under this Vote will lead to, not only this year, but in the coming years, and by doing so we should be able to find out little by little the total cost of the policy of the past. But I will pass from that subject and ask the Chief Secretary if be will inform the Committee who will administer these sums. Who will settle whether they are to be paid or not? Can he give us some information as to the composition of the tribunal which will investigate these cases, for I can well understand that it will be a difficult matter, which will involve much detail, and I think the House of Commons is entitled to ask, when this large sum has been voted, what steps the Government intend to take to check the outpouring of public money in Ireland.

§ Mr. MOSLEY
If it had not been for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, in accordance with his customary practice when he has got no case, saw fit to level accusations against me which are entirely untrue, I should not stand for a moment between compensation and those victims 2028 of his policy whom I and those associated with me tried our hardest to save. Any charge more grossly untrue than that anyone on these Benches who has fought the policy of the Government throughout would be unwilling to give compensation to the victims of their iniquitous blunders and their grossly mistaken policy, I have never heard uttered in this House. The right. hon. Gentleman, with his accustomed command of casuistry, has failed to answer a plain question put to him. He was asked who pays for the casualties inflicted upon the great majority of those who have suffered in Ireland, namely, that class of people who come within a category somewhere between the two forces, winch cannot be accurately defined. If it is not apparent to which side these people belong, who then pays? Are we not to understand that any persons against whom no guilt can be proved, who has not been implicated in any outrage against the forces of the Crown, and, therefore, come within the category of "law-abiding," will have their compensation borne by the English Crown? If so, does it not follow that the lion's share of the bill, practically the whole bill in Ireland, with the exception of the few casualties actually suffered by Sinn Fein in the field, is to be borne by the English Crown? Does not the definition "law-abiding" cover any man or woman in Ireland who has been injured or whose property has been injured, and who has not been implicated in any outrage or against whom no proof of such implication exists. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman be able to give a definite answer to what is a very simple question, and I trust that in future, when he has no better case than he had to-night, he will abstain from levelling charges which be knows to be untrue.