§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI beg to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he is yet in a position to make any communication to this House in respect of the case of the Irish Civil Servants?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the answer to the Question addressed to me by the noble Earl is in the affirmative. I have a, communication to make with regard to the present position. Your Lordships will remember that some few weeks ago there was a debate in your Lordships' House with regard to this problem on a Motion of my noble and learned friend Lord Carson, and in the course of that debate a statement was made by the Secretary of State for India to the effect that there seemed to be grave reason for believing that the decision given by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Wigg and Cochrane had contained a mistake as to fact which rendered the judgment exactly the opposite to what they had intended upon the principles therein laid down, and that it was proposed to introduce legislation to put right that mistake. Your Lordships will remember that in the course of the debate which ensued the point was taken that if we were to proceed by legislation the result must be that persons who would be affected by the legislation would never have an opportunity of putting their case and that that was not a right or desirable thing to do, however clear the mistake might appear to be.
The suggestion was thrown out by my noble and learned friend Lord Reading, that it might be found possible to arrange 623 for a re-hearing of the case in the Judicial Committee. In response to that suggestion, which I think will appeal to a great many of your Lordships, I undertook that I would look into the position and discuss it with my colleagues in the Government. In pursuance of that undertaking I have been in consultation with my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions. It appeared to me on consideration that the actual course suggested by Lord Reading of rehearing this particular case was not one which was practicable, but I have thought of a scheme which I think carries out his intention, and that is to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, not this particular case of Wigg and Cochrane but the point involved in the case as a matter for consideration and report under a section of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833. It is the same section of which use has been made several times in recent years, and notably in the case of the dispute as to the Ulster boundary in the year 1924. The effect of such a reference will be, as your Lordships will appreciate, that the point at issue will be fully argued just as in any ordinary case, and that the Judicial Committee, having heard arguments on both sides, will then make their Report to His Majesty in exactly the same way as if the case came in the form of an ordinary suit between two individuals.
Having reached that conclusion, which I hope and believe carries out the desire which has been expressed by several of your Lordships, my right hon. friend, the Secretary of State for the Dominions, addressed a Despatch to the Irish Free State, dated June 8, 1928. With your Lordships' permission, I shall read this Despatch and the answer, and the Order which it is proposed to make in accordance with the arrangement therein set out. The Despatch is in these terms:—
With reference to previous Despatches on the subject of the payment of compensaton to civil servants under Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement of December 6, 1921, I have the honour to state that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain have been giving further consideration to the steps to be taken with a view to carrying out the general police which has been agreed upon between the two Governments.2. It will be recalled that the matter was the subject of a debate in the House of Lords on April 25, 1928. In the course of that debate statements were made both 624 by members of the Judicial Committee who heard the case of Messrs. Wigg and Cochrane versus the Attorney-General of the Irish Free State and also on behalf of the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Cave, indicating that the advice tendered by the Committee had proceeded on certain incorrect assumptions of fact, thereby tending to deprive that advice of its authoritative character. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government in Great Britain think that it is desirable, in the first instance, for the matter to be referred to the Judicial Committee by a special reference under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833.3. His Majesty's Government in Great Britain hope that His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State will be prepared to assist in securing that all the relevant considerations are placed fully before the Judicial Committee. A draft reference, a copy of which is enclosed, has accordingly been prepared with a view to the matter being submitted to the Judicial Committee at the earliest date possible.To that Despatch a reply was received, dated June 10, in the following terms:—I have the honour to refer to your Despatch No. 178A of June 8 on the subject of the payment of compensation to civil servants under Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty signed on the 6th December, 1921.2. His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State note the proposal of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain to refer the matter mentioned in the second paragraph of your Despatch to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and in the special circumstances His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State will be prepared to assist in securing that all relevant considerations are placed fully before the Judicial Committee.3. His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State have no observations to make on the draft proposed reference to the Judicial Committee, which was transmitted with your Despatch under reply.Then the reference, which was approved by His Majesty in Council on the 15th of this month, is in these terms:—Whereas it is provided by Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, that it shall be lawful for His Majesty to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for hearing or consideration any such matters whatsoever as His Majesty shall think fit:And whereas there was this day read at the Board a letter from the Right Honourable Leopold Amery, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, referring to Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland signed on the 6th December, 1921, whereby the Government of the Irish Free State agreed to pay fair compensation on terms not favourable than 625 those accorded by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to Judges, officials, members of police forces, and other public servants who should be discharged by them or who should retire in consequence of the change of government effected in pursuance thereof (which Articles of Agreement were confirmed by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and by Act No. 1 of 1922 of Dail Eireann, respectively) and stating that the Government of the Irish Free State in determining the amount of compensation to be paid by them under the provisions of the said Article had followed the principles laid down in certain Minutes of the British Treasury regarding the assessment of superannuation allowances or gratuities and in particular a Minute of the 20th March, 1922, and that it had been contended that in respect of civil servants transferred to the service of the Provisional Government or of the Government of the Irish Free State after the date of the last mentioned Minute the amounts so determined were not fair compensation or alternatively were not fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, within the meaning and true intent of Article 10 of the said Articles of Agreement:Now, therefore, His Majesty is pleased, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, that the question whether the payment of compensation determined in manner aforesaid in respect of civil servants or other officials or public servants transferred to the service of the Provisional Government or of the Government of the Irish Free State after the 20th day of March, 1922, is a payment of compensation within the meaning and true intent of Article 10 of the said Articles of Agreement be and the same is hereby referred to the Judicial Committee for their hearing and consideration.The result of that will, I hope, be to meet the objection that has been taken to the proposed procedure by legislation. The matter to be determined is, I feel confident, accurately and fully stated in the terms of reference which I have just read to your Lordships. I cannot tell your Lordships' House the exact date of the hearing because that must depend to some extent, of course, on the time which the parties will take to prepare for the argument. But I have myself every hope that if there be good will on both sides, as I hope there will be, there is no reason why the matter should not be heard and determined within the next five or six weeks; that is to say, before this Session comes to an end. I hope to be able, in fact I shall make it my business to see that I am able, to arrange for a Board to be constituted to take the case, and, as I say, with reasonable good will there is no adequate 626 reason why the matter should not be discussed and decided within the next six weeks. I hope that will be a solution which will commend itself to your Lordships. In view of the fact that this matter is to be referred to the Judicial Committee your Lordships, I am sure, will not wish me to say anything about the merits of the dispute.I would only add that of course any decision of the Judcial Committee given under this reference will not affect the actual judgment obtained by the two individual claimants Mr. Wigg and Mr. Cochran, who have got their judgment, which judgment will stand unreversed whatever decision may be reached upon this reference. But the decision on the reference will determine all other cases and will enable the Irish Free State and His Majesty's Government in Great Britain to know exactly what the legal position is with regard to all these persons who claim that they have not had sufficient in the way of compensation.
§ LORD DANESFORTMy Lords, the House has heard with great interest the extremely important announcement made by the noble Lord on the Woolsack. Unfortunately the question of the noble Earl was not put upon the Paper, if I am right, until yesterday. Consequently, a great many noble Lords who are very deeply interested in this question; which has now been prolonged over a great period of time, are not present to-day and, like my noble friend Lord Carson, who is not able to be here, would doubtless like to consider the terms of the reference and to see whether they will meet the necessities of the case. That being so, I certainly have no intention or desire to make any comments at the moment. I have only heard the terms of reference read and I am not in a position to judge of them. But it is not improbable, I think, that those who have watched this question for some time may, when they see the terms of reference on paper, desire to make some comment upon, or some suggestions in regard to them. That, of course, will be the subject of a Motion which, if it became necessary, would be put down at once, I hope, because the matter does not brook delay.
Meanwhile, perhaps my noble friend on the Woolsack would be able to give me an answer on one or two points. I 627 gathered from him, and with great satisfaction, that whatever the decision of the Privy Council upon this new reference may be it will not affect the rights of the successful appellants in the case of Wigg and Cochrane, and that they will be entitled to receive the compensation to which the Privy Council in May last held them to be entitled. I also gathered that the persons for whom Mr. Wigg and Mr. Cochrane acted, who were in exactly the same position as themselves—namely, civil servants who had been transferrd or were alleged to have been transferred to the Irish Free State and had retired under Article 10 of the Treaty—would be affected. In other words, whereas it was thought that the decision of the Privy Council of May, 1927, would decide the rights not only of Mr. Wigg and Mr. Cochrane but of all other persons in the same position as they were (because Wigg and Cochrane was a representative action), I rather gather that the rights and interests of those persons will be subject to this new hearing before the Privy Council. If that be so, I would venture to suggest to my noble friend on the Woolsack that if that decision be adhered to, provision should in any case be made for the costs of those persons who might have to appear at the new hearing before the Privy Council and who were under the full impression—and, I think, rightly—that their rights had already been decided by the decision of the Privy Council of May, 1927. That is the first question—whether those persons will have to argue their case again before the Privy Council.
Another question I should like to ask is whether Messrs. Wigg & Cochrane, or those whom they represent, have been consulted either by the Government here or by the Irish Government before this new proposal was arrived at. There is one further question, if I am not unduly trespassing upon the patience of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should like to ask: Will this new hearing before the Privy Council affect the rights and interests of those Irish civil servants who were transferred to the Irish Government, but who have not yet actually retired? It is a vitally important question for them because there is considerable dispute going on as to what their position is. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will be 628 able to tell us whether the new proposed reference to the Privy Council will be wide enough to enable a decision upon the rights of those transferred men who have not already retired from the Service to be given.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I think I can answer the questions of my noble friend Lord Danesfort. First of all he desires to know whether or not the costs of the hearing will be provided for. Certainly; I have the authority of the Treasury for saying that the costs will be provided for. Secondly, he wishes to know whether the representatives of Messrs. Wigg & Cochrane or other civil servants were consulted by His Majesty's Government or by the Irish Free State. So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned we were dealing with the Irish Free State Government and with no one else, and no consultation with anybody except the Irish Free State Government took place so far as the Dominion Office is concerned. Whether or not the Irish Free State Government consulted the representatives of the various civil servants is a matter which I cannot answer, because I should have to find out from them.
The third question is whether the decision in the Privy Council will affect Irish civil servants who have not yet retired. I cannot answer that question categorically for the reason that I do not quite know what claim it is exactly to which the noble Lord is referring. The terms of reference are to decide the question whether the payment of compensation determined in manner aforesaid—that is to say, determined in accordance with the Treasury Minute of March, 1922, in respect of civil servants or other officials or public servants transferred to the service of the Provisional Government or of the Government of the Irish Free State after the 20th March, 1922—is a payment of compensation within the meaning and true intent of Article 10. If therefore the claims to which my noble friend refers are claims by civil servants or other public servants so transferred for the payment of compensation to them under Article 10, that is covered by the terms of reference, but if there is some other claim which they are to put forward outside Article 10 obviously it is not covered by the terms of reference. Quite frankly I had not known till this 629 moment they had any claims outside Article 10 with which His Majesty's Government of Great Britain had any concern. I have answered as far as I can the noble Lord's questions. I am anxious not to mislead my noble friend, and I cannot answer in regard to any claim of the nature and scope of which I know nothing at the present moment.
§ LORD DANESFORTMy Lords, might I, with permission, add one word? First I wish to thank the learned Lord Chancellor for his clear statement on most of the questions. As to the last question, with regard to transferred servants who have not actually retired, I know from many letters that very serious questions have arisen between them and His Majesty's Government as to, first of all, whether they are entitled to retire, and, secondly, as to what compensation they should have if they did retire. Might I suggest to the noble and learned Lord, 630 if I am right in that supposition—and I think I am—that it might be wise, possibly, to use this reference to the Privy Council to settle such outstanding questions as that. It is most undesirable, I think, that these transferred civil servants who have not yet retired should have to go through the whole course of litigation in the Irish Free State first, and finally, possibly, have to appeal to the Privy Council in order to determine their rights when here is a Tribunal which might settle all questions at issue between them and the Free State Government once and for all. Perhaps I might be allowed to communicate with the noble and learned Lord Chancellor in regard to that matter. I think the House will agree that it is desirable to avoid as much as possible future litigation between the Irish Free State Government and civil servants.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before four o'clock.