HL Deb 20 March 1919 vol 33 cc868-70

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE rose to ask His Majesty's Government, in connection with the tragedy at Soloheadbeg last January—

  1. 1. What compensation the relations of the late Constables McDonnell and O'Connell are entitled to under the regulations applicable to the case.
  2. 2. Whether it is intended that any additional compensation should be given.
  3. 3. What compensation would be received by the bereaved relations of a sailor and a soldier in the case of families similarly circumstanced.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall detain you for only two minutes in asking these Questions. I do not desire to repeat the arguments that were used in some debates which your Lordships will remember took place upon this whole subject two years ago. I am merely anxious to ascertain the facts beyond those that are public knowledge. The Questions are concerned with two victims of a very brutal assassination, the perpetrators of which we are all very sorry to see no sign of finding. But the family circumstances are very hard. I understand that one of the murdered constables has left an old couple who were dependent upon him. The other leaves a family, I believe of seven, of whom one is able to support himself, the second is described as "a delicate girl earning a small wage hardly sufficient for herself," and the remaining five are left practically unprovided for. I say "practically unprovided for," though I know there is a scale, but that is quite insufficient. A rumour reaches me that the scale amounts, for children under fifteen, to a sum of about 11d a week, which is not a large sum on which to bring up a child—in fact, it is totally inadequate. I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government may see their way to deal generously with this case. The scales are, we know, being continually revised; they have been revised often in the last few years especially in the case of the Army and the Navy, and that is why I have put down my third Question. Whatever anxiety we may feel about other Police Forces, there is no question whatever that the spirit and loyalty to the public weal of the Royal Irish Constabulary is absolutely in contestible; and it is in that spirit that I ask the Questions which stand in my name.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)

My Lords, my answer consists of a number of statements with figures in them, which will be correctly printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning for reference. Two children of the late Constable McDonnell who are under fifteen years of age are entitled by Statute, to an allowance of £2 10s. per annum each until they reach the age of fifteen. No other compensation from Constabulary funds is provided for by the Regulations with respect to the family. Constable Patrick O'Connell was unmarried, and there is no provision under the Regulations for the payment of any compensation to his relations. Owing to the exceptional and unhappy circumstances of the case, the Treasury sanctioned the payment of a gratuity of £100 for the children who were actually dependent on the late Constable McDonnell, and the payment of a compassionate grant of £25 to the parents of the late Constable O'Connell. A further sum of £102 6s. 9d. has been paid from the Constabulary Force Fund (to which the late Constable McDonnell was a subscriber) in respect of five children who were within the conditions of benefit laid down in the rules of the Fund, but this amount would have been payable in any circumstances on the constable's death at the time. I may add that the question of making legislative provision for cases of this nature is under contemplation by the Government.

With regard to the third Question, comparing the Compensation received by these constables, with that of a sailor or a soldier, I am informed that if Constable McDonnell had been killed in the performance of military or naval duty in the present war no grant would have been made in respect of the three children who were over eighteen years of age and were not dependent on him. His two children under the age of sixteen would have been granted pensions of 10s. and 9s. 2d. a week respectively. His other two children, who are over sixteen years of age but are stated to have been dependent on him at the time of his death, might also have been granted pensions of 9s. 2d. a week each, provided that they are still being educated at some secondary school or are not earning more than nominal wages. Thus, the total maximum amount which might have been awarded to the family by way of pension would have been 37s. 6d. a week, a sum which would diminish as each child grew up.

In the case of Constable O'Connell, who was unmarried, it is more difficult to say what pension would have been paid to his parents if he had been killed as a soldier or sailor in the present war. The difficulty arises from the fact, that pensions to parents are largely discretionary and depend on the circumstances of the applicant. I understand that Constable O'Connell contributed to the support of his parents, and if this is the fact, and the support consisted of regular provision for a reasonable period, the parents could have been granted a pension based on the amount of that support, with a minimum of 3s. 6d. a week and a maximum of 15s. And even without any evidence of contribution the parents could have been granted a pension, up to a maximum of 15s. a week, if in need and incapable of self-support by reason of infirmity or age.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his full reply.