THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYhad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether it is yet possible to give any information as to the progress being made in the negotiations on the subject of the Southern Irish Volunteers and unemployment benefit, observing that it was stated on December 10, 1945, that it was honed a decision would be reached at a "fairly early date"; and move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a late hour to start a debate on another subject, but I am putting forward one of those cases which have always received sympathy and approval from your Lordships. I am speaking for a small and helpless minority who are unable to speak for themselves, having no representatives. They are the sort of people who have always looked to the House of Lords for assistance in matters of difficulty. The negotiations to which I allude in my Motion are those which were started, I believe in 1944, with the Government of Ireland with a view to coming to some agreement on the matter of dispensing the benefits for unemployment among not only the ex-Service men but also the civilians who came over to this country during the war to help in the war effort. Negotiations really started on this subject as long ago as 1924. Since then they have been carried on and dropped and carried on and dropped again. In my Motion I allude only to those which began in 1944, but the 1924 talks must have covered much of the same ground. Therefore I am entitled, I think, to use a cliche much favoured in Government circles, and say that every avenue has been thoroughly explored.
As long ago as October last year a similar question to the one which I am now putting was asked in your Lordships' House but at the request of the Government it was postponed until December as it was said that the matter was "under consideration." It was represented on that occasion that it was a matter of great importance to those concerned that a decision should be reached as soon as possible. Demobilization was going on rapidly and the men were en- 45 titled to know how they stood as regards the benefits. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, was good enough to say that "very sympathetic attention would be given by the Government to what had been urged." I am sure that he meant it, and I take this opportunity of saying that, so far as the noble Viscount is concerned, I am convinced that that undertaking has been implemented.
On December 10, in accordance with the Government's request, a further question was addressed about the progress which was being made, and'the Lord Chancellor answered that the matter was still under consideration, but he was glad to say that it was hoped to reach a decision at a fairly early date. Within a few days of that answer, the Prime Minister, answering a question in another place, promised to take the matter up. He also replied in similar terms to a memorial which was sent to him and which has been signed by many influential people including several members of your Lordships' House. That memorial appealed for action in order to mitigate the serious hardship of unemployment which was already beginning to affect Irish volunteers. The memorial pointed out that these men were entitled to full benefits as one of the conditions of their employment, for which their contributions had been fully paid up. Five more months have elapsed, and so far as my latest information goes, there is no sign of any arrangement having been arrived at. In any case, no payment has been made.
Those of your Lordships who are interested in this matter cannot be accused of undue impatience if you now press for some definite information after what has happened. Why has the "fairly early date" of December, 1945, not materialised by May, 1946, five months later? Is there no hope? VE-day was exactly a year ago. VJ-day was nine months ago'. Yet these men who voluntarily came over here in the face of much discouragement and difficulty are left without any knowledge as to how their just claims are to be met. Already many of them are on the verge of destitution. It was obvious that there would be a certain difficult period for these men and women when they went home under the circumstances of the case. It is not that there has been any discrimination against them. There has not been in most places. But, of course, those men and women have been out of their own 46 country for four, five or six years. Places they gave up have been filled, and those of them who had small businesses or worked on their own account have lost their connexion and goodwill. In most places, too, what stock they had and anything else of that sort has gone. To absorb them must take time. Normally speaking, unemployment benefit would have tided them over this difficult period if any arrangement had been arrived at. But no arrangement was arrived at, and so these men and women in their time of dire need are deprived of these benefits which are legally and morally theirs.
Naturally the Reinstatement Act does not help them, and I would remind your Lordships that there are other cases in which ex-Servicemen are at a disadvantage. For instance, they are not allowed to benefit under the Release and Resettlement Scheme, in so far as resettlement grants are concerned. Why this should be I cannot imagine. These grants, it will be remembered, were introduced for the purpose of giving assistance to ex-Servicemen—in the words of the booklet issued "to get the man going again." These were men who had one-man businesses, or who were working on their own and dropped it all to join the Colours. If a man in Eire can produce reliable evidence as to his need of such help, and is eligible for it, why should he not receive the same assistance is his English and Scottish comrades? He needs it a great deal more. The cumulative effect of all this is well illustrated in a letter I received last month from an ex-Serviceman in Cork City. The man wrote:
When England went to war I left Cork and went to Belfast, where I joined the Army. When I left Cork to join up I had a horse and cart, which my wife had to sell. I am a married man with six children, and I made an application for assistance under the Re-settlement grant scheme and was told I was not entitled to it as I was a resident in Eire. Here in Eire I am not entitled to the dole for twelve months because I was out of the country for five years.He adds a postscript, "I have six years unemployment and national health stamps which are useless to me here in Cork." My answer to that letter was to advise the man to seek advice from the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Help Society, represented in Cork by a Lieutenant-General on the retired list. He did so; the matter was promptly looked into, and within three weeks the man had been given a sum of money to help him carry 47 on until these benefits come. But he cannot go on in that way for ever.The Government attitude seems to be that if they cannot come to some agreement with the authorities in Dublin, or deal with the matter through the usual channels (the Post Office or Labour Exchanges or whatever it may be) they can do nothing. Instead they should be taking energetic steps to deal with what is fast becoming an emergency. It is not impossible to get at these men. On the contrary it is comparatively easy. The Government have arranged for the payment of pensions and disability allowances, which have to be distributed all over the country, and they have taken the necessary precautions against impositions. There are, also, certain voluntary societies, such as the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Society which I have referred to, working there. They have many agencies and give assistance to the limit of their powers after investigating each case. The British Legion, too, is very strong and has many branches in Ireland, of one of which I happen to be president. A great deal could be done through them and I believe they have volunteered to help. At least they have given good advice—which has not been taken! The Army benevolent fund works through the British Legion and large sums of money have been distributed. But that is all charity; and that is not the way to treat these men who came over here and to whom we owe a debt, certainly morally if not financially. These men and women hold British Government securities, in the shape of insurance stamps, and these are not being honoured.
It is difficult to find out the exact number of those from Eire who served in the British Forces. 165,000 seems at present to be the figure generally accepted. Questions about the number of men joining the British military forces have met with scant information, just about enough to show that either the records were abominably kept or that for some reason it is not wished to disclose what the numbers are. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, who answered the last question on this subject told your Lordships, quite frankly, that the figures he gave were unsatisfactory, although he had tried his best to get them. I am sure he had. The holding back of 48 this information, if it is held back, does not make much difference. If the figures show that large numbers came over then our debt is large and collective.
If the figures show that only a few men came over, in the face of general disapprobation, then our debt is small but doubly a debt of honour, and we should liquidate it. But whether the numbers are great or few they came over in face of Government disapproval, not as heroes, with bands playing, flags waving, and crowds cheering. They came and risked the penalties and possible disagreeable consequences. That is all that concerns us. We were glad enough to have them when they arrived. What would be said of a private individual who did not liquidate his debt of honour because he was too tired to ascertain the details of his liability, for that, I suggest, is what is meant by the Government expression, "A disproportionate amount of time and labour?" I do appeal to the Government to say to-day what they are going to do for these men and women, at any rate to tide them over until some agreement is reached. It affects not only the soldiers who fought for us, but also civilians who came over and were employed in munition factories or on the land, facing our privations and just the same perils as the people of this country. Our honour is concerned; in this matter, and I beg the Government not to go back on the fine declaration made by one of their number, that "it is against our religion to let down those who have fought for us, those who have stood by us." My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
§ 4.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I wish to support the noble Earl in the plea he has made this afternoon. I am not as conversant with the case as he is. I do not know all the details of which he has informed us, but I do know that there is a great principle involved in this. I cast my mind back twenty years or more, to the time when we were discussing the Irish question. At that time many Southern Irish Loyalists were either expelled or had to flee from Ireland to our shores—men who had supported us and fought for us during the first Great War. I remember the terrible and tragic conditions under which some of those people existed for many years, until they ended their lives in absolute impoverishment 49 and misery. A slur was cast on our honour at that time. The controversy about these unfortunate people went on for several years and, if I remember rightly, the whole of their claims were finally liquidated by the payment of a round sum of eight million pounds. In the meantime they had suffered tremendously. To-day we have another case.
These people, as the noble and gallant Earl has told us, have fought for us and have done so at great inconvenience to themselves. They have got into trouble with their own Government; they left their wives and children behind; they left their businesses. In spite of all this they came forward and associated themselves with us in this last great war, in which they earned a very great reputation and created a very fine record for themselves. It will be another stigma, another great slur on our honour, if we do not treat these men in a proper and satisfactory way—at once. I beg the Government in this case not to do what that Government did in those earlier days—when they went on negotiating and talking and writing and discussing whether this is right or how much they should give or how much they should allow them to have. This is a case, in my judgment, where we ought to act at once, to act quickly, and pay what to-day is a debt of honour. We ought not to allow these people to go on starving, selling up their possesions to enable them to keep their wives and children, and so on. We must meet this debt of honour, and it is the duty of the Government to do so as quickly as possible.
§ 5.2 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, speaking for myself, I would say that the noble Earl who raised this matter has a strong case. If I may say so, with the very greatest respect to him, he has such a very strong case that it was a pity to overstate it in the way in which he did. I find myself really in great difficulty to understand how it can possibly be thought that these men have any legal claim, as contended by the noble Earl in his speech. They have not—none whatever.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThey paid contributions as part of an insurance scheme, and they have to observe the 50 conditions of the scheme. We are discussing it on a legal basis. One condition is that if they choose to stay in this country unemployment benefit is available for them. If they choose to go out of the country, unemployment benefit is not available to them. That is the scheme, and when a man comes out of the Army, he is credited with the full number of insurance stamps as though he had insured, and he i; entitled to the full benefits of this scheme, such as they are. If he deprives himself of the benefits of the scheme by going to another country, it is idle to say, as he noble Earl did, that the insurance stamps are not being honoured, or that they have a legal claim.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYI am sorry to interrupt the Lord Chancellor. Does he really mean to tell the House that these men are not to go to their own homes?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORNothing of the sort. I am talking of the legal claim.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe noble Earl must listen to me. I started by Saying that I thought he had a strong case. I think he has a strong case on moral grounds. He has no case at all on legal grounds, and I (think it is not right to say that the insurance stamps are not being honoured. They are. The legal side of the contract is being honoured. I will come to the moral side in a moment. But when the noble Earl speaks of the civilians, I am bound to say that I do not sympathize with his case there. Some of these civilians came over from Southern Ireland and enjoyed good wages here. Now they have returned to Southern Ireland, and by going back to Southern Ireland they have put themselves outside the scheme. If they had stayed here they would have had the benefits of the scheme. They have not stayed here. I am sorry to have to say an unpopular thing, but I am bound to say that there does come a time when one must try to protect all these manifold claims which are made upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer here and the various funds we have set up.
51 It is idle to deny that when you have these people in Southern Ireland you have not the same measure of control over them as you have here. Here we make it a condition of the continued receipt of unemployment benefit that a person should sign a register, and the employment exchange manager offers a job here, or offers a job there, and if a person does not take the job, he is struck off. You cannot apply that sort of thing if these people are not here. It must at best be a very indifferent administration. Therefore while I say that legally neither volunteers nor civilians have any claim, and I do not accept on any ground the claim of civilians—I come to volunteers. The right way to put this case is that there is here to my mind a debt of honour which we should try to satisfy. I am with the noble Earl there. With regard to men who came over for the war, not to earn much money or anything of that sort, but to share with us the brunt of the fighting and the heat and burden of the day, and who have, naturally enough, as he says, now gone back to their homes in Ireland, while they have no sort of legal claim, and although there is not the slightest ground for saying that the stamps have not been honoured, I do feel we have a debt of honour to them.
It is a very difficult problem. We have been for a long time—I confess longer than I thought at all likely—endeavouring to work out our scheme. I am happy to tell you that we have now worked out our proposals. We have reduced them to writing, and, having seen them, I think that they are reasonable. I am not quite sure whether we have or not actually handed them to the High Commissioner for Eire, but that will be done in the course of the next few days. I think that they will be handed over by the Dominions Secretary. I think they will amply satisfy any moral obligation. The noble Earl will realise I am admitting that we have a moral obligation in the matter. We shall be perfectly prepared, of course, to discuss them with the Government of Eire, and to listen in a sympathetic way to their criticism. But let me make it plain, that applies and only applies to the volunteers. It does not apply to the civilians. It applies only to the volunteers who came over here.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy Lords, I thank the Lord Chancellor for his answer. I apologize if I displayed much heat in the matter, but I felt strongly, and I feel strongly now, on this matter. I confess I did not expect to be told that, if a man paid his contributions over here for six years, he is entitled to nothing if he goes to his own home again. I believe that we have an agreement with the Dominions, or some of them, which makes it reciprocal. I am sorry to have to say so—because I have the greatest respect for the Lord Chancellor—but I think it is a hard thing to say that these men only came over here to get high wages. I do not think that is a fair thing to say. If we consider the question of high wages, I think we could make a good deal out of it. Anyhow, the Irishmen did not strike for high wages in the middle of the war.
With regard to the question of control, I quite see that it might be more difficult to deal with these people when they are in Ireland than it would be if they were in this country. But it can be done. It might be done even by the appointment of a few more civil servants. What would they be amongst so many? There are people in Ireland who, after all, are competent to give certificates if a man is genuinely out of employment or it he is not. Surely they can be trusted. I mentioned the case myself—as a matter of fact I did not think "it would be necessary to have to cross "t's"—of a Lieutenant-General, a man with a distinguished record, who went back to live among his people, the particular people who had served this country in the war. Certainly the desire to earn large money is not confined to the Irish working men and women who came over here to help. I think it is an unfair thing to say that that was the only reason why they came over here. However, I am speaking to an empty House. I hope I shall get more sympathy in a fuller House another time. Two or three noble Lords who would have supported me are not here. I apologize to the Lord Chancellor if I addressed him with too much heat—and to the House generally—but I will reserve my judgment until I have seen what the arrangement is, and therefore to-night I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.