§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Expenses of Pensions, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities awarded to retired and disbanded members and staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to widows and children of such members, including annuities to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of commutation of Compensation Allowances and certain extra-Statutory Payments.
§ 1.0 a.m.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI do not think the Committee will require much explanation of this Vote. It is not subject to any alteration, and the only reason why a Supplementary Vote is required is that there was very close budgeting in the last Estimate and that the deaths of pensioners and the re-employment of those who were entitled to compensation were somewhat different from what was anticipated. Under those circumstances, I do not think any further explanation on my part is required.
§ Major ROSSThis is a Vote which I would be the last man in this Committee to oppose, because the people with whom it is concerned aye a class of men who have done good work in serving their country bravely under very trying conditions. It will be seen that these are those men who served in the Royal Irish Constabulary and whose lot was probably more difficult than those of the later recruits who were recruited in other countries. I would not therefore grudge them any sum under this Vote but, in connection with the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary, there are one or two inquiries I would make of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote. There are two scales of pensions among the Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners, and I would like, first, to ask him what is the proportion of money which is given to the one scale and to the other. Secondly, I would like to ask as to the proportion of individuals who draw on those two scales. As to those pensioners who are under the scale which was established after the Treaty, I have no particular question to ask, except, as I have said, to inquire in what proportion their numbers and the money they draw compare with those who are not on that scale. The pensioners of the old Royal Irish Constabulary, the men who had retired before the Treaty, mostly very old men, of whom a very large number are still on pension, draw on the old scale of pension, which is about a quarter of the new scale of pension. There was no doubt a bonus added to it but it is a bonus which has one objectionable feature. As I understand—unless it has been altered in recent times—it is subject to a means test and—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am afraid the hon. and gallant Member cannot raise that point on this Supplementary Estimate.
§ Major ROSSI was endeavouring to divide the two classes as to which I wished to ask certain questions. There are these two classes of pensioners, those with very low pensions, who are only a fraction of the just pension scale enjoyed by those who got their pensions after the Treaty. I would like to know what is the proportion of this Vote which goes to the old class of pensioners, the men who were given pensions of about £50 a year after 30 years' service, and how much of it goes to the new class 217 and also how many men are concerned in the two classes, the old and the new. There is another subject which is germane to this question of the additional sum required for pensions, and that is the Constabulary Insurance Fund which is an insurance fund for—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member cannot discuss a question of that sort on this Estimate.
§ Major ROSSWith great respect, the Estimate deals, not only with pensions to disbanded members and staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary, but to the widows, and children of such members. The Constabulary Insurance Fund deals primarily with widows and children of such members, and it is, therefore, in my submission, a proper matter to raise on this Vote.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member cannot raise that question on this Vote unless money required here is for the purpose, and I find no trace of that.
§ Major ROSSSurely I can raise it properly in this way.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANUnless the money is included in this Supplementary Estimate for this particular purpose the hon. Member cannot raise it.
§ Major ROSSIf it were not for the compulsory contributions to this fund, the sum asked to be voted would be very different.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is another question entirely.
§ Major ROSSI was sure you would permit me to proceed when I had put my reasons more fully.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member has not understood my Ruling. Unless money in this Supplementary Estimate is being voted directly for this purpose, it cannot be raised. The hon. and gallant Member must find some other opportunity of raising it and not on this particular Supplementary Estimate.
§ Major ROSSMay I not point out that, owing to this compulsory contribution, the sum is less—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf I have to call the hon. and gallant Member to order again, I must ask him to resume his seat.
§ Major ROSSI bow with respect to your Ruling and cannot continue on those lines which, in my ignorance, had appeared to me to have a bearing on the Estimate. I would like to ask the hon. Member in charge of the Vote if he can give me some information generally on the questions that I have asked. He is apparently complaining that these pensioners are not dying quickly. I would like to know from which class these reluctant people come, whether they are dying from the old pre-treaty class or from the later class. There is a great distinction in the circumstances between them. I should not be surprised if I find in his answer that it is the later post-treaty pensioners who are properly provided for who are surviving and that it is the old class of the regular constabulary with long and regular service who are not dying off as fast as he would wish.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI should be sorry to use quite the terms in which the hon. and gallant Member has referred to these people. But the fact is that, so far as this Vote is concerned, it consists of two parts. Part one is pensions, and the other compensation allowances. So far as the pensions are concerned, the original Estimate assumed that there would be 300 deaths in the year. In fact, there were 280, and that means that the reductions were overestimated to the extent of £1,500. So far as the compensation allowances are concerned, there are three points. Whereas 60 deaths were estimated, there were 50. Then there was re-employment in other police forces. It was expected that a thousand pensioners would come under that head, whereas there were only 980, and that cost £2,000. With regard to computations, it was estimated that there would be a saving of 70 pensioners, but there were only 50, and that cost £400. That makes up the Estimate.