Very well. In dealing with this Estimate I should remind the House that the amount charged against sub-head N has to be taken into consideration with the amount charged under sub-head LL, and also the amount voted under Vote 32, because they all more or less relate to the same thing. They relate to the true cost of maintaining the present police system in this country, because in order to arrive at that, we have not only to take into consideration the present cost of the police force, as it exists, but also the amount we have to pay for the steps which we took in order to bring that force into being. If we take these two sums together, we find that the present cost of the police system is something like £2,839,008. Having secured that figure we are able to institute a rather startling but illuminating comparison. The year 1919-20 was not at all a normal year from the point of view either of the jailor or the policeman; it was the year, as a matter of fact, in which the British Government threw away the last pretence that the Royal Irish Constabulary existed here as anything else but an army of repression. It was the last year in which the strength of that force in officers and men was disclosed to the public, and the strength of the force in that particular year marked a considerable increase over the strength of the force in 1918, and in 1917. Therefore, as I say, we may take it from the point of view of ordinary police work, that as the strength of that force was excessive so the cost of it was excessive also. I find in that year the cost of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the police magistracy for the area of the whole of the Twenty-six Counties, according to the British White Paper published in May, 1920, was £2,662,000, and if we deduct £100,000 from that as representing the cost of the police magistrates we find that the total cost of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the year 1919-20 was £2,562,000. As I said, that cost was altogether excessive.
But it is very much less if we take-into consideration the appreciation which has taken place in the value of money since then and what the present police system costs. In view of that fact I submit that every element in that cost should be carefully scrutinised. Unfortunately, we are not, because the House has already passed a Vote—£1,596,000, I think— in respect of the Gárda Síochána, able to deal with the largest factor in the costs, but the one which we are dealing with now is a very large factor, and we should not pass this unless we are satisfied that we are clearly bound to pay it.
Are we bound to pay the amount charged against sub-head N of this Vote, and if so, how does that obligation arise? The terms of the sub-head are as follow:—"Repayment to British Government in respect of ordinary pensions and disbandment pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary." You will note that there are two classes of pensions to be provided for—ordinary pensions and disbandment pensions. Now, whatever may be said in regard to disbandment pensions, how does the Minister justify his assumption of an obligation to repay to the British Government 75 per cent. of the cost of the ordinary pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary? There was not a word about those ordinary pensions in the Treaty, not a word about them in the Agreement dated the 3rd December, 1925, which amended the Treaty, and there was not a word about them until the Ultimate Financial Settlement which was signed on, I think, the 16th March, 1926, a settlement which the Minister kept secret from this House, and which, either from a sense of shame or a consciousness of utter inability, he had refused to justify or even to discuss in this House.
Under Head 11 of that Ultimate Financial Settlement, the Minister for Finance, of his own volition and in his own discretion, agreed to saddle the country with an obligation in respect of these ordinary pensions in the following words:—"The Irish Free State Government agree to repay to the British Government 75 per cent. of the pensions and compensation allowances payable to ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary under the Constabulary Acts (not under the Treaty), subject to the exception mentioned in Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland."
The first thing to note about this Agreement is that its terms differ substantially from the terms of Article 10 of the Treaty, the exact words of which are:—"The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of police forces and other public servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance thereof." Article 10 referred to, therefore, and was applicable only to such members of the police forces who might be actually serving at the moment when the forces were taken over by the Government of the Irish Free State. The 11th head of the Ultimate Financial Settlement was much more comprehensive, and covered not only the members of the police force retiring or discharged under the change of Government, but all ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, irrespective of the date of their retirement or discharge, and dealt with the pensions payable to them under the Constabulary Acts.
What justification has the Minister to offer for that change? Whatever burden Article 10 of the Treaty may be considered to impose on us, quite clearly, as any Deputy who considers the Article as I have quoted it will be constrained to admit, it did not impose any responsibility, obligation, or liability in respect of ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired prior to the date of the Treaty.
I ask the Minister to show me in the Treaty or in the amending agreement anything which compels him to accept any responsibility whatever, even to a farthing, for the pensions of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired prior to the Treaty. Yet the Minister for Finance, in the Ultimate Financial Settlement and in this Vote which he proposes to the House, accepts the responsibility for these pensions to the extent of 75 per cent. of them. Why? The Minister may have very good reasons to offer, though in view of his attitude upon this matter some years ago I very much doubt it. All I can say—and I think that every independent Deputy will agree with me—is that I can conceive no reasons which would justify the course which the Minister has taken in this matter.
In all the long years since its establishment, what services did the Royal Irish Constabulary Force render this country that its members should receive such signal recognition from the Minister? Sir Hamar Greenwood, Ian MacPherson, Lord Balfour when he was Mr. Balfour, Buckshot Forster—those gentlemen had a good deal to say for the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Royal Irish Constabulary served them faithfully and well. They were, as their English paymasters were often proud to state, faithful to their salt. They allowed no claim of country, no call of kin, to deter them from carrying out the orders of their paymasters. We know that homes were not inviolate; that altars were not sacred to these men, if a raid upon the one or a desecration upon the other would advance them a step in the Judas-like service which they had undertaken. And it is for the pensions of men like these that the Minister took responsibility in the very years when he was paring and scraping away the miserable pittance which the State allows the poorest and neediest of its citizens.
I say this action of the Minister in those circumstances cannot be justified; and that, upon that ground if upon no other, the House should refuse the amount asked for under this sub-head and should refuse the whole amount, because there was no allocation of the moneys as between ordinary pensions and the disbandment pensions.
So far I have confined myself to the question as to whether or not we should not make the payment in respect of ordinary pensions which this sub-head covers. I would like to ask the House now to consider its responsibility for the disbandment pensions in respect of which also a repayment is to be made. How do we become responsible for these disbandment pensions? Any responsibility we may have, that is, if we have any at all, arises from Article 10 of the Treaty, and to that Article I would again direct your attention. The Article reads: "The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of the police forces, and other public servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance thereof."
If we omit the qualifying words and the words which do not refer to the police force, that Article may be read concisely in this way: The Government agrees to pay fair compensation to members of the police force who are discharged by it, or who retire in consequence of the change of Government. Those words are very important. It is plain that they relate to the one set of persons, and that they contemplate or envisage those persons under one and the same condition, and that condition is, in the service, and in the service only, of the Government of the Irish Free State. It is obvious that the Treaty contemplated that the Government of the so-called United Kingdom, as one of the parties to the instrument, shall hand over as a going concern to the other party, that is, to the Government of the Irish Free State, the whole machinery of government in this country, lock, stock and barrel. That is a very important condition—that the whole machinery of government in this country is to be handed over to the Government of the Irish Free State absolutely without reservation. That is the primary, fundamental condition of the whole Treaty agreement, and it is a condition precedent to the operation of every other provision in that contract, for every other provision in that contract is secondary and, consequently, provisional only. If the primary condition be not fulfilled in respect of any department or service of government administration in this country, then such department or service could not come within the scope of the secondary and consequential provisions, and those provisions could not in any circumstances apply to it. That is quite clear from the words, "discharged by it, or who retire." Quite obviously the Government of the Irish Free State could not discharge any public servant unless the service in which he was engaged had come under its control by transfer or contract.
I am afraid I shall have to call attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present.
