IRISH FREE STATE (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL. (Hansard, 4 December 1922)

§ LORD ARMAGHDALE
My Lords, I beg to ask a Question on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Long—who, I am sorry to say, is prevented by indisposition from attending the House—of which he has given the noble and learned Viscount private notice. It is: Whether the Government will be good enough to consider any special cases that may arise of public servants, other than civil servants, for compensation. I understand from my noble friend that he has explained to the noble and learned Viscount the full particulars to which his Question refers.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I had notice from my noble friend, Lord Long, that this point would be raised 237 to-day. The persons to whom my noble friend refers are, of course, not civil servants. They are not servants of the Crown, they are servants of local authorities who alone are liable—I am talking, for the moment, of the legal responsibility—for their pay, and no change is made by this Statute in their employment, which goes on exactly as it is to-day. That, therefore, is the legal position. At the same time, I am glad to say that the Government have always recognised that in certain cases where these servants have been discharged for some political reason, hardships may arise; and that has been recognised also by the Provisional Government in Ireland.
The Provisional Government have given assurances that fair treatment will be accorded to these persons. They have gone further. They have actually secured the payment of compensation or the payment of pensions by the local authorities in all but a few cases. In regard to those few remaining cases in which, I am told, there is a dispute between the complainant and the local authority as to the amount of pension or gratuity which is claimed, the Provisional Government have offered that those few cases shall be submitted to the Committee to which I referred last week, presided over by Mr. justice Wylie, for decision by that Committee. His Majesty's Government proposes to accept that offer, and I think one may, at all events, expect that the matter will be judicially and fairly considered.

§ LORD GLENAVY
Might I ask the noble and learned Viscount if he has had time to consider the matter which I mentioned last week, with regard to the four individuals who have been exercising judicial duties and are left without special provision? I mention this only because the noble and learned Viscount said that he would let Inc know during the debate to-day what course it was proposed to adopt.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I will, if I may, answer that question at once. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Glenavy, referred last week to the special provisions made for the pensioning and compensating of Judges in Ireland who might lose their offices on account of this Bill, and desired that we should make exactly the same provision for four persons, of whom three, I think, were Dublin Divisional Justices, and the fourth the Master of the King's Bench. I have considered those cases, and I still feel 238 the difficulties which I felt last week as to dealing with them in the same way as the Judges. I assure the noble Lord that they are real difficulties. His Amendment would have had the effect of providing for these persons compensation not provided by the Bill, and would, therefore, have increased the charge upon the Revenue. That, of course, is a thing which this House cannot do on account of privilege; but, apart from that, I am told that, if his Amendment were adopted, it would carry the Bill even beyond the Financial Resolution passed in another place, so that, even if privilege were waived, it could not be done under the existing Financial Resolution. There would have to be a new Financial Resolution, which, of course, we could hardly expect the other House to pass.
There are, therefore, very serious technical difficulties in the way. Apart from this consideration these persons, unlike the Judges, are not paid from the Consolidated Fund. It is only to those persons whose salaries impose a charge upon the Consolidated Fund that this special provision is applied, and, if once you break down that distinction, I am afraid you will let in, not only the four gentlemen specially referred to, but other people who would claim to be in the same position. I think one must retain the distinction drawn by the Bill, and not extend it beyond the limits already provided. I need hardly add that these four persons will come within the declaration which I made last week with regard to all civil servants.