Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 12 Feb 1924

Vol. 6 No. 12

R.I.C. (RESIGNED AND DISMISSED) PENSION ORDER, 1924.

I beg to move:—

Go gceaduíghidh an Dáil leis seo Ordú Pinsean Constáblaíocht Ríoga na hEireann (Fir d'Eirigh as agus Fir do Briseadh), 1924, a dhin an tAire Airgid an 10adh lá d'Eanair, 1924, fé alt 5 den Acht Aois-Liúntas agus Pinsean, 1923 (Uimh. 34 de 1923) agus a leagadh fé bhráid na Dála an 15adh lá d'Eanair, 1924.

That the Dáil hereby approve of the Royal Irish Constabulary (Resigned and Dismissed) Pension Order, 1924, made on the 10th day of January, 1924, by the Minister for Finance under Section 5 of the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923 (No. 34 of 1923), and laid before the Dáil on the 15th day of January, 1924.

In this Order we carry out substantially, and as far as we feel justified in doing in the present circumstances of the country, promises that were made to the R.I.C. who left the force or were discharged because of their national sympathies. Perhaps if the conditions of the country were the same as when the late General Collins made his promise to the men, the order in some details might be slightly different. However, it is an order that does treat them well. It gives to these men their completed years of actual service with the addition of any period between the date of their leaving the force and the 31st day of March, 1922. It adds twelve years to their actual completed service for the purpose of computing the pension.

There are certain conditions attached to the order. One is a proviso that no pension shall be payable to any man who, having been offered an appointment in any branch of the public service of the Saorstát which, in the opinion of the Minister for Home Affairs, is reasonably suitable for him, declines to accept such an appointment. We think it is only fair that as far as possible, use should be made of these men. They were promised by the people who were in charge of Sinn Féin and by representatives of the Dáil in the old days, that if they did resign they would be looked after. Definite specific promises were not, perhaps, given to them, but they were given very clear general promises. We are bound by those promises and by the later promises of the late General Collins to compensate these men, but we do not wish to have a large number of able-bodied and comparatively young men drawing pensions for which the State is not receiving any value. Our intention is, as far as possible, to employ these men, as far as they are found suitable, on any suitable police or other work, that can be found for them. If any of them is offered employment and he refuses to accept it, then no pension will be paid to him. I think that there is no injustice to the men and no harshness in that provision. Pensions will be retrospective only to the 8th August, the date on which the Act was passed. We are advised that there is no power under the Act to calculate the pension from any earlier date. Complaint has been made that no provision is made for the widows of men who have died since they left the R.I.C. There is no power to give pensions to widows under this Act and, as a matter of fact, when the matter was being debated in the Dáil on the 30th July last, the President specifically stated that pensions would not be given except to the men themselves. No exception was taken to that in the Dáil at the time.

The Order will involve a fairly considerable expense to the State. I do not know exactly how many men will receive the pension. A large number of cases were reviewed by a Committee set up by the Minister for Home Affairs, and some 600 odd cases were passed by that Committee. In the case of some men, however, additional information has come to light since, and it may be that a number of names, possibly even a substantial number, may be struck off that list. However carefully we may scrutinise the list, there is no doubt whatever that under this Order men will get the pension who have no real right or claim to it. Men may have resigned for reasons of their own. They may have resigned without any national sympathy, but simply because they had cold feet. They may have resigned because they were tired of the police force. They may have resigned for a whole variety of reasons. Now of course they allege, and they have alleged, that they resigned because of their national sympathies. In justice to those who really did come out at a time when it was difficult and a sacrifice for them to come out, we cannot make the door so narrow or demand such absolute proof as would exclude those who are really entitled. We are making every possible enquiry, and before a pension is given every enquiry that can possibly be made will be made in each case. Some who are not entitled perhaps will get through, but there seems to be no way of avoiding that. If such men do get through, perhaps under the provisions of the Order as it stands we will be able to make them do some work if they are young men who can suitably be put to work. In that case the pension will quite possibly be suspended and the State will be getting value for a considerable number of years ahead.

I desire to move the following amendment:—

"To delete the words `approve of' and insert the words `refer back for further consideration.' "

I must express my regret at being compelled to move an amendment which postpones for a further period the coming into operation of Regulations which would give to the men concerned some part of what they were promised on several occasions. The Minister really amazed me by many of the statements he has made. Promises were made on many occasions, in the first instance by the Sinn Fein organisation, which included the Minister for Finance, and every other member of the Ministry, on behalf of the Irish nation, when they appealed to the men concerned to give up jobs worth £4 or £5 a week in the R.I.C. so as to assist as far as they could to drive the British army out of this country. Anyone who has followed the course of political events in this country for many years past must realise that it was the R.I.C., and the assistance it gave to the British Forces that enabled them, their spies, and secret agents to remain here so long. If the R.I.C. as a body had responded to the call that the Sinn Fein organisation made to it in 1918, and resigned in a body, I cannot see that there would have been any necessity for all the bloodshed of the succeeding years. However, I contend that as well as dishonouring the many promises made, the regulations as drafted, are not consistent with some of the Acts that have been passed. I have referred to the promise made in 1918 by the then Sinn Fein organisation, acting on behalf of the Irish nation. I may say that it is within my personal knowledge that many of the Deputies, now sitting behind Ministers, during the recent general election, gave undertakings, both in writing and verbally, that they would see that the promises made were carried out. Some of the Deputies are here now, and I hope they will stand up and tell the Minister where these Regulations fall short of these promises. The late General Collins, on the 9th February, 1922, wrote the following letter to the representatives of these men:—

"Your suggestion that the resigned and dismissed men should be dealt with no less generously than the members of the R.I.C. who have continued to serve has my very strong support. At the present moment it is not possible for me to say how the details can be worked out, but I do say that my advice would be always in favour of proper treatment for the men who showed by their action that they were on the side of Ireland. I think you, personally, are aware that I have always cherished the deepest feelings of regard for these men, and my desire is to translate these feelings into action, when I am in a position to do so."

That was subsequent to the signing of the Treaty. On the 10th October, 1922, when we were in no doubt as to what the state of the country was, the Minister for Home Affairs, in reply to a question, stated:

"It is the intention of the Government to grant compensation to certain Royal Irish Constabulary men who resigned or were dismissed in recent years because of their national sympathies. It is intended that such men will receive as generous terms as if they had remained in the force until the date of their disbandment. Legislation will be required to cover such compensation, and it is proposed to introduce the appropriate measure as soon after the enactment of the Constitution as is practicable. An inquiry into each individual case will, of course, be necessary, and prior to the introduction of the proposed legislative measure, an investigating committee will be appointed. I have no doubt that some of these men and their families have suffered great hardships since their resignation, but in this connection it should be remembered that there are many other people who have suffered acutely and for whom no compensation is available. It is, however, hoped to set up the investigating committee at an early date to deal with this specific case of ex-Royal Irish Constabulary men."

These are the two promises made by the two men who were in charge of the Sinn Féin organisation in 1918, and I am sure there is no desire whatever to repudiate the promises, made not alone on their own behalf, but on behalf of the Irish nation. I hope every Deputy has read the Regulations. Let us come to examine how they are being translated into action. In the first case, Clause 3 of the Regulations states:

"Subject to the provisions of this Order the Minister for Finance may grant to any person to whom this Order applies a pension commencing as from the 8th August, 1923, and calculated in accordance with the rules contained in Part I. of the Schedule to this Order."

I was surprised to hear the Minister state that there is anything in the Act which would prevent him from making the Order retrospective in regard to pensions. I consulted some people who may not be of the same high legal standing as those whom the Minister consulted, and they have expressed the opinion that there is nothing in the Act to prevent the Government, if they so desire, from giving these men pensions from the date on which they were received by those who were serving up to the 1st April, 1922. It is, however, within the power of the Minister to amend the Act in a direction which would give these men what they were entitled to and what they were promised. I contend there is nothing in the Act to prevent him doing so.

Coming to the most important part of the Regulations, it appears to me that they are absolutely and deliberately worded so as to deprive every one of these men of what they would be entitled to. I refer to Clause 4 of the Regulations, and I think that if Sir Hamar Greenwood were asked to come back to draft regulations to deny to these men what the Irish people would like to give them for what they have done he could not do it with any greater advantage. I cannot help thinking that somebody who was closely associated with him, or with his recent administration, had something to do with the drafting of this clause. I would be glad to hear that that is not the case, and that the Minister accepts responsibility for it.

I accept responsibility for everything I do, and for all orders issued by me.

I hope, however, that after having studied the regulations more closely he will agree to accept the amendment and to take these regulations back for further consideration. They say: "No pension shall be payable under this order to any person who shall have been offered an appointment in any branch of the public service of Saorstát Eireann which in the opinion of the Minister for Home Affairs is reasonably suitable for him and shall have declined to accept such appointment." It is news to me, especially when I study the Civil Service regulations, to know that the Minister for Home Affairs is empowered to give any position in the established service to any person.

On a point of order, that is not suggested in the Order at all. It is really suggested in the Order that the Minister for Home Affairs shall judge whether the appointment offered is one that is reasonably suitable for the person.

If it means anything it means that the Minister for Home Affairs is not in a position, at any rate according to Clause 3 of the Civil Service Regulation Act, to offer any appointment to any of these men on the established service. Clause 3 of the Civil Service Regulation Act reads as follows:—

The Commissioners shall inquire into the qualifications of every person proposed to be appointed to any permanent situation in the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann to which this Act applies, and no person shall be so appointed unless and until a certificate of his qualification for such situation has been issued by the Commissioners.

It is quite true, I presume, that the Minister for Home Affairs is entitled to offer these men who resigned from positions worth £5 or £6 a week positions as porters, messengers, night-watchmen, cleaners, and all other persons hired to perform only subordinate duties or ordinary labour, as it is required. I am sorry that he would not offer them what is provided in Clause 5 of the Schedule:—"Artisans or other skilled labourers employed in an unestablished capacity." I believe he is also open, under this Schedule, to appoint them to the position of Governor-General, but there is only one appointment of that kind and it is not possible so to provide for them under these regulations. If Clause 4 of the regulations is interpreted in the way that it can and is likely to be interpreted by any Minister or official—and it is the officials who do these things, not the Minister—it will mean that any man who resigned from the Royal Irish Constabulary, and who is now in the fortunate position of having some other work, if offered a position in the public service of Saorstát Eireann as night-watchman or doorkeeper, and if he refuses to leave the position in which he happens to be, then the Minister can deprive him of the pension. Was that the position taken up by the British Government? No. The Minister for Finance and every other Minister knows that full well. That clause also means that if an individual who is in a position, or even one who is not in a position, to-day, and who is entitled to a pension, and whose case has been passed for a pension, accepts a position such as could be offered to him, and if on the following day he is dismissed, or resigns because he is unsuitable or unfit for the job, the pension is also withdrawn. I ask Deputies to consider seriously whether that clause should be inserted in any regulations brought before a body of an intelligent kind.

It has been stated by the Minister for Finance that the number of applicants for pensions under this Act, or the number of people who applied for pensions thinking that they were entitled to them, having resigned from the R.I.C. owing to their national sympathies, was 1,136, and he stated that 631 cases had been approved of as having resigned for that reason. Now, and only now, we are informed that it is quite possible that this number may be substantially reduced for reasons which we will never hear of, and which we will never be asked to give an opinion upon. Out of the number of cases rejected there were 190 who, it was stated, could not receive pensions because of their short service. By that I believe is meant they had only two or three or four years' service when they resigned. The Committee, or the Minister, or somebody who had some responsibility, decided that they were not entitled under the previous promises to any gratuity or to any compensation. What do we find in the case of the men who were disbanded on the 1st April, 1922? A constable with two years' service who served up to the time of disbandment, getting twelve years' added service, who was drawing a salary of £234 at the time, was entitled to and has received a pension, not at the expense of Britain, whom he served, but at the expense of the Irish taxpayer, of £52 10s. a year. A constable with three years' service received a pension of £58 10s., and with four years' service £62 8s., and so on, according to the number of years served. I contend, therefore, that so far as that clause is concerned, it does not fulfil the promise made to these men, and that the 190 or 200 men who are deprived of their pensions under the terms of these Regulations should have their cases reconsidered by the Minister.

The Minister also referred to the case of pensions to widows, and stated that when this matter was being discussed in the Dáil on a previous occasion no exception was taken to the statement then made by the President. I think it is only now, after having heard the statement of the Minister, and especially after reading the Regulations, that one can really come, or is forced, to the conclusion that the Ministry had no intention, or, at least, have not at present, at any rate, of carrying out the promises which they made and repeated on so many occasions. I could not, for instance, assume on that particular occasion that the Regulations, as drafted, subsequent to the passing or the Act, would not mean that the men who resigned, or who were considered as having resigned for reasons of national sympathy, would get the same treatment as the men who served up to the time of disbandment. The President, about a quarter of an hour ago, asked us—I think he was speaking to this side of the Dáil— did we wish him to break the promise made to England when they accepted responsibility for between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000 in pensions to the men who were disbanded. It is not for me to say whether he should or not, but it is for him and for the Government to justify to the Irish people their responsibility, in approving of the Treaty, for accepting and imposing that burden upon the Irish people for 10,000 men who served England, and at the same time coming before the Dáil with Regulations and asking us, and those who made a promise, to break their work to the few hundred men who resigned their positions to serve Ireland. That is the case we make from these benches, and that is a case good enough for the Minister to take these Regulations back and reconsider the whole matter in the light of things said and the promises that have been broken, and to bring up Regulations that will more honestly interpret the feelings and the wishes of the late General Collins, who originally made these promises.

In the case of the widows, I should have said that the conditions governing pensions which have been given to the disbanded men are laid down in the Constabulary Act of 1922. Clause 4 of the Schedule says: "In the event of an officer or a constable dying after an annual allowance has been awarded to him under this Act the Treasury shall grant a pension or gratuity to the widow or children of the officer or constable, in like manner as if the allowance were a pension granted to the officer or constable on retirement, and as if his years of service had been years on which the allowance was calculated."

I understand since these men resigned four or five of them have died. I think two of them have died in the Cork workhouse. I have a letter I received from Cork a few days ago, in which it is stated that a person who had resigned from the Constabulary had his expenses while ill, burial, etc., undertaken by a friend, and they amounted to £100. I think, seeing the amount is so small, especially when compared with what is being given to the disbanded men, that that part of the regulations might also be considered. I believe I have said enough, if anything could convince the Minister, to show that the regulations are quite unfair and out of all proportion to the promises made. If there is to be any honesty in public life or purity of administration in the service of the country, then, promises that have been made by the Minister or by the Government, no matter what they meant, should be carried out, or a very good reason given to the people to whom these promises have been made for not carrying them out. My main argument is, if you have taken the responsibility of imposing a burden of £1,500,000 a year on the Irish taxpayers for 10,000 men who served England—and I am not asking you to break that agreement, as the President suggested—I say that in all honour you should fulfil the promises made to these men who resigned.

I have to oppose this motion also, and principally for the reason that I think with regard to the date on which this Order will commence, that it is quite unfair that these men who resigned at the call of men who are now members of the Government, and the call of the old Sinn Fein party, should now be placed in a worse position than those that remained in the service to the date of their disbandment. With the ethics of the question of resigning or not resigning I do not propose to deal. Opinions may differ on that considerably, but I do think that the honour of the State and the Government, and, perhaps, the honour of certain Ministers, is at stake in this matter. Certain definite promises were made and repeated several times that those men would not be treated worse than those who continued to serve in the Force and were disbanded in the ordinary course of events. I am strongly of opinion that in the making of the Treaty the original terms granted to the men who were disbanded were too generous, with the result that the country was saddled with an enormous debt on that account. That, however, is no excuse for treating the men who resigned on worse terms than those who were disbanded. It is an obligation of honour on the State, and I think the State should carry out its obligation. Another matter I would like to refer to is the question of offering these men alternative employment in place of the pension.

The pension may be suspended.

I think that is an excellent idea in itself, but I do not think the regulations which govern that idea are quite as sound as they might be. I think these men might be treated in a more generous manner. I do not think that the Minister for Home Affairs should have the right to take exclusive power to decide what is a suitable position for a resigned man. That man himself should have something to say to it. I think that the Order should contain some provision by which the men would be represented and have some say in the matter before they would lose their pension. Although we all have the greatest possible respect for the integrity of the Minister for Home Affairs, still I do not think it is right he should have the exclusive power to state what position is right and what position is not right for those men. I would also like to say that the matter of offering alternative employment is one that should be endorsed to its fullest extent by the Dáil. I think the number of pensioners we have from the different services is becoming a scandal, and I wish the Minister for Local Government would take notice of it, and see that these men who resigned their positions under Local Government services would also have alternative employment offered them. The men who resigned from the R.I.C., or others, should be given a voice in this matter, I think, and also regulations should be laid down which should govern the actual salary they should get in these services. It stands to reason that when a young, intelligent, physically fit man gets a pension, in the course of time he will get employment which will enable him to add considerably to that pension, and I think some method should be devised, I do not know that Deputy Davin's is the best, by which changes could be made in these regulations to provide for these cases. For that reason I support the amendment.

I have no prejudice whatever in this matter, but I intend to vote for Deputy Davin's amendment for one reason, and one reason only, and that is because the motion of the Minister proposes to set up the Minister for Home Affairs as the judge as to whether employment offered to men dismissed or resigned is suitable or not. I am inflexibly opposed to this tendency of putting Ministers in a judicial position, which they cannot possibly fulfil if they are doing their duty. The Minister has a duty to his colleagues, and particularly to the Minister for Finance, and in discharging that duty he cannot be impartial between a claimant to the bounty of the State and the State itself. Yet it is suggested that there can be no appeal from the Minister's decision, no appeal to the Courts, no appeal to the Dáil, and no appeal anywhere. The Minister for Home Affairs is to be the only and the ultimate authority to settle this matter. I will never consent to that. I would suggest, if the amendment of Deputy Davin is carried, that the Civil Service Commissioners would be the suitable body for this purpose. The Minister shakes his head. Then a judge to be appointed by the Chief Justice.

The Minister for Finance.

The Minister for Finance is a party to the case, and he cannot be a judge as well. The Minister does not realise the seriousness of this to the ordinary individual. I have no particular sympathy with these men, but on the general principle I take my stand that no Minister should place himself in a judicial position, because he is a party to the case—he or his colleagues must be. Get a judge, get the Chief Justice, or the Attorney-General to nominate a judge if you like; get anybody who is removed from the actual burden of administration. The Civil Service Commissioners would be suitable if they were further removed from the administration than they are at present, or anybody, but not the Minister, because, as I say, he is one of the parties to the case.

The Minister for Home Affairs was put in here as the alternative to the Minister for Finance. Perhaps in the ordinary way the Minister for Finance would have been the Minister whose name would be put into the Section. It was thought desirable that another Minister, whose interest in keeping down expenditure might not be so immediate, should be included. As a matter of fact, the whole thing rests on the discretion of the Ministers. No person, for instance, can get a pension unless the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Finance are satisfied that he resigned on national grounds. It would be quite easy for the Minister, if he wanted to strain the Act, or do an injustice, to exclude anybody or the whole lot. There is really no point in this. The Minister for Home Affairs will not be asked or expected to decide individual cases, but he will decide certain classes of employment are such as would be suitable and as could be offered to those resigned and dismissed R.I.C.

Suppose, for instance, it was proposed to appoint some of them as prison warders, the Minister would be asked to say whether he thought that was a class of employment that they might reasonably be expected to take. There is no question of appointing them to any of the offices that Deputy Davin talked about, and I am not sure but that he knew that very well when he was occupying the time of the Dáil on this particular paragraph.

How does the Minister know that? He can only speak of his present office.

I would like the Minister to understand that Ministers of the future, as well as Ministers of the present, will have to interpret those things.

I have taken the view always in all these matters, that when we are defeated and when Deputy Johnson comes to these benches, he will do the right thing. I think there is no other point of view that can well be taken. I dissent from the point of view of Deputy Cooper, not only on this matter, but on all matters in regard to the discretion that should be allowed to Ministers. I believe that any Ministers that a majority of the Dáil will elect, will do everything that is reasonable in the circumstances, and that there will be no attempt on their part to do injustice to anybody. The discretion of the Ministers in all matters is far greater than Deputies realise. For instance, they can, if they so desire, dismiss the whole Civil Service; yet nobody suggests that the power of dismissal should not be allowed, because that may be done. I suggest that the Dáil will pay no attention to suggestions that we are going to have no fair play or no guarantee of fair play from Ministers, or that we should be tied up in such a way that the interests of the State and the interests of national finance cannot be looked after because of the distrust with which every Minister must be regarded.

The thing I think that should be pointed out was that there was no specific promise given to these men in the sense that there were promises contained in the Treaty. The Treaty was a definite bargain. So far as these men were involved in a bargain it was with the old Sinn Fein organisation and with perhaps the old Dáil. It was when they were resigning and promised that something would be done for them that there was a bargain, but there was no bargain when General Collins made his very carefully worded statement. They were out then. He was only asked for the intentions of the Government in regard to them, and his intentions in regard to them, and he took the very greatest care possible not to go into any details so that the proper consideration of the whole matter might not be prejudiced. In the same way, anything anybody has said is merely by way of a statement of the intentions of the Government in regard to them.

There were not promises made to them when they resigned that they were going to be treated exactly as well as the men who stayed on. Nobody knew what was going to happen at that time. These promises that were made afterwards were not promises in the sense of being bargains, but were statements of the intentions of the Government. If the State and the Exchequer demanded it, and if we were only able to give them half the terms, we would be entitled to reduce their pensions to half what would be given the men who stayed on. We are giving them what we think can be afforded in view of the heavy burden on the country. I dissent from the view that because in certain circumstances we were forced to do a certain thing, we should now, of our own volition, give extravagant compensation to these men.

I think we cannot afford a luxury of that sort. It would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face, and we ought not to assent to the doctrine that because we were forced to do a certain thing in a particular case in order to gain the victory and the advantages that we have got by the Treaty, we should now throw away the money of the nation. There is no reason why these men should be given a very big lump sum now because they resigned some years ago. They have been living in the interval, and probably some have been earning more or less, and there should be no justification, in view of the state of the Exchequer, and the finances of the country, for handing out to them very considerable sums of money. When we go back to the date of the Act, I think we are not doing very badly by them at all, and those who have had any service will have substantial sums given to them and they will have the future before them.

I do not think this Order should be referred back. There is no injustice being done in it to these men. They are being fairly well treated, and I do not think we can afford the luxury of extravagant treatment. I think we are under an obligation to many of them. I believe many of them did make very real sacrifices when they came out at the time they did. They did a thing that certainly was as good in its own way as other men did who got a great deal of praise for it; but there were many amongst them whose motives were not perhaps so altruistic. There were men who came out whose motives were selfish. We cannot separate them from the others, and we can hardly get out of our minds the fact that we are bound to be giving pensions to men who are unworthy.

I do not stand for that class of thing; therefore there is no necessity for the Minister to argue on those lines. I stand for those men whose cases have been considered and whose claims have been sanctioned for honest and genuine reasons.

I think there is no member of the Committee who would not say that of the cases passed by them there were men who undoubtedly did not resign through national reasons. But it cannot be proven, and you could not demand strict proof of a man's motives. Cases had to be let through or you had to risk cutting out nine-tenths of genuine cases. I think there is nobody who has examined it, when the matter has been sifted to the last, but will realise that we will be giving pensions to men who are not worthy of any consideration amongst the men who are deserving of the very utmost consideration.

The speech of the Minister is really most disheartening and disconcerting. It practically tells us, from the beginning to the end, that in all these matters you have to trust to the Minister for the time being. He almost goes so far as to say that the Regulations which ought to have the force of law are quite unnecessary— that you may trust to the Minister, and that it is better to trust to the Minister. I wonder whether he considers it necessary to have any Regulations of any kind or to publish any Order. If it is desirable to publish Orders, if it is necessary to have Orders or Acts of Parliament, surely it is desirable to lay down in those Acts and Orders what the Dáil intends, and not to leave these matters to the discretion of the Minister for the time being. The Minister practically suggests that it is far better to trust the Minister, and, in fact, his ruling principle is not to be bothered by Acts or Orders or limitations placed upon him by law or regulation, but to leave these matters to the discretion of the Minister. That may be very good for certain men.

On a point of personal explanation, I wish to say I used no such argument or made no such suggestion. I made reference to the carrying out of Regulations that will be laid down, and not to acting without Regulations or on discretion at large.

The Minister says he desires to act under Regulations laid down, but when it is suggested that under a particular Regulation certain things are possible that are not desirable he says: "Leave that to the discretion of the Minister." The very fact that it is possible that an undesirable thing may be done, strictly within the Order, surely warrants the argument that the Order should be referred back for reconsideration and amendment, so that these things which are undesirable should be prevented by the Order, and that the Ministers in the future will thereby be acting within the Order. The Minister for Finance had better discuss the ethics of this question with the President. The President, several times within the last eighteen months, made appeals to the Dáil on the strength of certain promises which were not part of the Treaty bargain, and which were not embodied in the Treaty, and asked the Dáil to agree to implement certain agreements that were come to outside the Treaty. He put it to the Dail that we were bound in honour to implement those obligations. The President, even in the early stages of to-day's proceedings, referred to undertakings that were given to the country by the Minister for Finance, and says "we are bound in honour to carry through those undertakings in regard to economy." The Minister for Finance speaks of the promises made by General Collins as not being in the nature of a bond, and not the price of a bargain. It is new doctrine to be told that you are only bound to keep those bonds which you were forced to enter, and that you were not bound to keep those obligations that you entered into voluntarily and freely. That is new doctrine and very sad doctrine to come from the Minister for Finance.

Deputy Johnson is misrepresenting me. I did not say that. I said that I had made no reference to bonds entered into voluntarily at all.

I think the Minister will recollect, and the Dáil will recollect, that the Minister referred to the Treaty bargain, which was extravagant, but a bargain. That is, undertakings were entered into by this country because the circumstance compelled it and at the price of the Treaty. I say that is an obligation that is entered into under pressure, but that bond must be kept, according to the Minister.

I do not dissent, but I say that the other obligation that was entered into on behalf of the country and on behalf of the Government by the active head of the Government—at the moment I do not know what his position was—was a free promise, and surely it is our duty to carry out that promise, which was freely entered into, as well as the one which was entered into under some sort of pressure. I think that the Minister at least, almost before anybody else, should remember that as the time these promises were entered into, they were entered into on behalf of the Government of this country. They were entered into on behalf of the Dáil and the Ministry of the Dáil even at the time that General Collins made his promise in February, 1922, after the Provisional Government had been set up.

Will the Deputy point out where we are departing from General Collins' promise?

I shall in a minute. Not only were the Provisional Government binding themselves, through General Collins, but the Ministry of which the Minister for Finance was a member, through the Minister for Home Affairs definitely in the Dáil entered into an undertaking not only on this occasion to the policemen who had resigned or been dismissed, but to the Dáil itself. Deputy Davin has pointed out—and I want to lay stress upon the words—that General Collins promised, though I admit that it was not a promise, in so many words, on behalf of the Government. It might well have been taken to be such by the recipients in view of the position of General Collins at the time. The words were— that the suggestion that these resigned and dismissed men should be dealt with no less generously than the members of the R.I.C. who had continued to serve had his very strong support. But very much more explicitly and in a very much more binding manner, the Minister for Home Affairs on the 10th October, 1922, said: "It is intended that such men will receive as generous terms as if they had remained in the force until the date of their disbandment; no less generous than if they had remained in the force." And then he goes on to promise that "legislation will be required to cover such compensation, and it is proposed to introduce an appropriate measure as soon after the enactment of the Constitution as is practicable." There was as specific a promise as it was possible to make to the Dáil—that the treatment would be no less generous than if they had remained in the Force. Now, I want to ask whether the proposed Order is treating these men as generously as they would have been treated had they remained in the Force? To me that is the only issue. If it is proved that that can be accomplished by this Order then I for one will have nothing to say. But I submit that, as far as one can read it, the Order goes very far from carrying out that undertaking.

To begin with, the date from which the pension is to be given is a very long time distant from the time it would have begun had they remained in the Force. Had they remained in the Force their pension would have begun on the 31st August, 1922. It is not proposed to begin their pension until August, 1923. On that account it is not as generous as it would have been, had they remained in the Force. The Minister says that the Act prevents it, and that he has not power under the Act to begin these pensions at the earlier date. May I take it that had he the power, he would be willing? Apparently it is not so, as the Minister indicates dissent. Then what is the purpose of his raising that objection? From his dissent it appears he does not desire to make these pensions retrospective, and this quoting of his disability under the Act is only for the purposes of debate, and is not his real mind in the matter. The men who remained in the Force and who are being paid under the terms of the Treaty, are being paid out of Irish funds. Had these other men remained in the Force they would have been paid equally out of Irish funds. Is it then contended that no difference would have taken place in the history of the last few years had these men remained in the Force, that though they were invited by representatives of the Government to resign to prove that they were not traitors to the Government that then existed, their resignation was of no value, and that they ought to be penalised for their actions? That seems to me to be the deduction that one must draw from the contention of the Minister. Had the men remained in the Force they would have obtained pensions in excess of the maximum fixed by the Order. Again there is a departure from the terms. They are not being treated as generously as they would have been, had they remained in the Force Again, on the question raised by Deputy Davin in paragraph 4 regarding the veto of the Minister for Home Affairs, there is of course a provision in regard to the men who were disbanded which is equally to apply to these men who were dismissed or resigned. If the disbanded men obtained appointments under the Government, as many of them have, their pensions would be treated according to a standard method. Surely, under the promise that was given to these men they should be treated in the same manner. There is a regular course that could be adopted and surely should be adopted in view of the promise made. Why, then, have a special provision made in this Order to apply to dismissed and resigned men which differs from the regulations applying to disbanded men when you promised to put them in the same position as they would have been in had they waited until disbandment? Again, I think there is a distinct breach of the promise. There is in existence a Committee, presided over by Judge Wylie, which might be considered quite competent to deal with the question of suitability of employment inasmuch as that Committee does in respect of Civil Servants adjudge the quality and the character of the employment that is being offered. If a civil servant is removed to a different class of work from that which he has been engaged in, prior to the Treaty, then this Committee, over which Judge Wylie presides, is, I understand, a court which will decide the question of suitability.

Again, you see, you have machinery in existence whereby the question of suitability may be decided, but if there is employment offered by any Department of the Government—and this I would ask the Dáil to bear in mind—"no pension shall be payable under this Order to any person who shall be offered an appointment in any branch of the public service of Saorstát Eireann which in the opinion of the Minister for Home Affairs is reasonably suitable for him, and shall have declined to accept such appointment." That may be a temporary postman's job, for instance. The pensioner declines that temporary post and the Postmaster reports the fact. The Minister for Home Affairs might save the Exchequer certain sums weekly under that Order, and there is no appeal, as Deputy Bryan Cooper pointed out. Any other Minister may offer a pensioned policeman a temporary or permanent post, and if it is refused on the ground of unsuitability, the Minister for Home Affairs may be appealed to, and if he says, even in a particular case, that it should not have been refused, and that the man is suitable, then the Minister for Finance finds his balance at the end of the year so much greater. The Minister for Finance, of course, waives all that aside, and says it was only intended that the class of employment should be decided by the Minister for Home Affairs. How does he know that? There may be successors to either of these Ministers, and there may be successors to the Minister's advisers, who will have quite a different view of this matter from that which they have, and under Clause 4 of the Order these things are not only possible but probable. I think that in all the circumstances, and especially in view of this specific undertaking to the Dáil in October, 1922, of the Minister for Home Affairs that the legislation which was to be introduced would provide that as generous terms would be given to the men as if they had remained in the force until the date of their disbandment—in view of that undertaking to the Dáil—I think the Minister should accept this amendment, take back the Order, and reconsider it with a view to implementing that undertaking and satisfying the obligation of honour at least.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Lest my silence should be misunderstood in any way, I wish to say that I approve of this Order. My state of mind with regard to it is something more positive than acquiescence. I think that the Order does substantial justice to the five or six hundred men whom it compensates, and I think that these five or six hundred men are five or six hundred particularly fortunate citizens of this State.

It is not possible after a period like that of the last four or five years, to adjust equities to a nicety, to say to this man: "You suffered so much," and to compensate him accordingly, and to that man: "You sacrificed so much and your compensation is blank pounds, shillings and pence." Here are 500 or 600 men who, beyond question, did make a certain sacrifice and are receiving from the nation a definite compensation. The thing must be taken in its setting. It must be taken with some advertence to the fact that there are many hundreds and thousands in the State who made far greater sacrifices, for whom the State can do nothing now and will do nothing in the future. There is a saying that "the devil himself knows not the thought of man," but the task that was set to the Committee, which was set up under the auspices of my Department, was a task which, according to that dictum, would baffle the devil himself. It was to analyse the motives that led these men to tender their resignation to the police authorities of the time. I quite agree with the Minister for Defence that no sifting, however careful, painstaking and conscientious by the Committee, could ensure that all the men whom they certified were men whose resignation was due to national sympathy. 1,100 cases came before the Committee. 600 odd were passed by that Committee, and there is no member of the Committee who would put his hand on his heart and say: "I believe all those men resigned genuinely through sympathy with the national movement." A man's motives are subtle and complex. Even the person himself often is not clear as to the exact motive which led him to a particular act. It is often a combination of motives, light and shade. "On the one hand all those people are in favour of this movement. My mother and brothers are having a bad time at home because I am in the police force. Further, I may be shot in an ambush, and it might be a better thing to get out and work on the farm." Where is the motive? Self-preservation is the first law of nature. Affection for his mother and sisters, who are being cut by the neighbours at home because of the son's occupation, or idealistic national sentiment was so effervescing in the mind of a man as to make him run to the depot and put in his resignation. Here, five or six hundred men are more lucky than hundreds and thousands through the country who took genuine risks and for whom no compensation, through the Oireachtas, will be forthcoming. Young men all through the country sacrificed the most precious and pivotal years of their careers in and around the twenties and are neither asking nor expecting, and, if they did, would not get, compensation from the nation for those sacrifices. Men spent years in jail, years in internment. Men have had their health shattered, their careers ruined, their business destroyed. They got no compensation, but these five or six hundred men are getting compensation from the State for sacrifices which undoubtedly they made, but which in the setting were not abnormal and did not stand out as exceptional. Promises have been quoted and it has been put up to us that it is a matter of the personal honour of one dead Minister, and one living Minister, that the terms should be such and such and not otherwise. We are to be bound by the letter. The terms are to be identical with the terms that disbanded men were fortunate enough to secure.

Not less generous.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Not less generous. The disbanded men, no doubt, were fortunate. It was a bargain. The men who resigned are getting credit for their actual years of service, plus twelve. The complaint is that they are not getting any credit for the interval between their resignation and the total disbandment of the force. Now I think it is an excessive claim to say that they should get a pension for those years in which they were free to take up other employment, and in which there was no particular worry or anxiety put upon them whatever. They were to get the same terms as they would have got had they remained in the force. Had they remained in the force, God knows what they would have got, or might have got. They might have got six feet of Irish earth; they might have got many things. They are doing well. The Order brought before the Dáil to-day by the Minister for Finance is substantial justice to them, as I hold, in all the circumstances, and is a full and adequate fulfilment of any promises that were made. I just do not want to remain silent upon this question lest it be thought that my approval of the Order was more in the nature of a grudge of acquiescence to be only expressed by my "Tá" if, and when this Order goes to a division. I think the promise made has been kept, and I think, further, that these 600 men are 600 very fortunate young Irish citizens.

The Minister for Home Affairs is generally very convincing in this House, but I do not think on this occasion he has carried the same amount of conviction as he usually does. It has been suggested that he has not as good a case. I agree. Now, it is not a question whether these 600 men that a Government Commission approved of are deserving or not. To begin with, a Commission was set up, and it approved of 600 claims as deserving. It is not now a question whether they are deserving or not. There may be some exceptions—some who are not deserving—but that is not the question. This is a question of a promise; it is a question of honour, and to my mind it is a question of national honesty or dishonesty.

I say Deputy Johnson has not at all exaggerated the case. I think he put a reasonable and fair interpretation on the words used in the promise made by the old Sinn Fein Organisation, and the words contained in the statement or promise made by the late General Collins. I think he put the case reasonably and fair, and if there is any meaning in words at all, I think it is the meaning he has put upon them. This question of suitable employment has been referred to. Perhaps I do not voice the sentiments of many Deputies, but I believe that the most suitable employment for these men is the employment that they were brought up in, and the employment that they were trained to. With all due respect to the present Civic Guard, I think the inclusion of some of these men, whose credentials were above suspicion, and whose national sympathies were above suspicion, would do good. I think the present Civic Guard, creditable and all as they are, would benefit by the addition of some of these men. I was speaking to some of these men some time ago, and they said they would be delighted to go into the present Civic Guard and to perform the duties they were trained to perform. I think that is the most suitable employment they could be offered, and I believe that employment has been denied them. If that is so, I do not think there is very much use of using the words "suitable employment." It is not mentioned here in its proper sense. The employment they are to get is State employment, but there can be no difference between employment in the Civic Guard controlled by the State and employment in any other capacity controlled by the State.

, at this stage, took the Chair.

There is no use in these fine distinctions. A good many of the men who resigned took more risk than the ordinary men in the country. They went out of the Constabulary; their opinions were known everywhere, and the Black-and-Tans in the country knew them, and I honestly believe that those R.I.C. men who resigned took more risks than the average man in the movement. I do not think that the promise made by the Sinn Fein organisation ought to be gone back on. This is a small matter; it is not a question of much money, and I think the promise made ought to be kept, and it is not kept under this Order, or at any rate, it is not kept in the way it was made at the time, or in the way that those who heard thought it would be kept.

It is kept.

To my mind, if there is any honour in this State, it is bound up in the way the ex-R.I.C. men are to be dealt with in the Order now before the Dáil, and not only is the honour of the State bound up in that matter, but also the honour of the Ministers sitting on the benches opposite. Those of u who were associated with the Republican movement in those days up and down the country, went to the homes of these men and were responsible in a way for bringing a great many of them out of the service of the R.I.C. At that time, responsible Ministers in the Government to-day were members of the Sinn Fein organisation, and they directed that this work, to which I have referred, should be done and it was done. Those of us who were in the Republican movement at the time feel that we encouraged these men to give up the employment that they then held, on the promise that the State would stand by them, and would see full justice done to them. The Order which is now before the Dáil is not, in my opinion, doing justice to them. There are men to-day who served in the R.I.C. at that time, and who did not leave the service, and they are now able to walk about with a good pension for life.

About London.

A good many of them are living in Ireland, too. My point is that the men who gave up the employment they then held, and decided to stand in with the people of Ireland, are, many of them, in sore want and distress. A great many of them are married men with large families, and with very little means to support them. These men are now waiting to see if the pledges given to them by members of the Sinn Fein organisation at the time, and by men occupying seats on the Government benches to-day, are going to be redeemed or not. They are anxious to know if they are going to be as well treated as those who stood against the country in those trying days. I think it will be accepted that, as far as this Order is concerned at any rate, the men who left the R.I.C. and stood in with the people against the foreigners are not being as fairly or as generously treated as the others.

The Minister for Home Affairs in his speech used the word "substantial." He, I think, measured the justice that is to be done to these men by the ability of the State of the day to do justice, as he sees it now. But that was not considered when these men were asked to give up the positions they then held. It was felt at that time that, whatever did happen to the State, or whatever form of Government evolved out of the struggle that was then being waged, these men would be fairly treated, and that everyone in the State would be a party to seeing that they were fairly treated. I believe that if the Minister for Home Affairs were to inquire from the young men of the country who gave the best years of their life to serving the interests of the nation, he would find that the opinion of these men is that the ex-R.I.C. men dealt with under this Order should be as well treated at least as those who continued to serve until the police force was disbanded. On the question of the employment to be offered to these men, I am in agreement with Deputy Johnson that it should be suitable employment. If a man is offered a post that he is not suited for, either on account of his previous experience, his state of health, or things of that kind, and that he does not see his way to accept it, it is provided under this Order that he may not receive any pension at all. I think that is not fair. If that is the attitude that Ministers are going to take up against men who gave their services to Ireland when the call was made on them, I say that Ireland is not doing these men justice.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided; Tá, 24; Níl, 40.

Tá.

  • Pádraig F. Baxter.
  • Seán de Buitléir.
  • John Conlan.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • John Daly.
  • Darrell Figgis.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Patrick J. Mulvany.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Donchadh S. O Guaire.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Seán O Leadáin.
  • Domhnall O Mocháin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Nicholas Wall.

Níl.

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Séamus de Burca.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Louis J. D'Alton.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Henry J. Finlay.
  • Peadar Mac a' Bháird.
  • Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
  • Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
  • Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
  • Seán Mac Giolla an Ríogh.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Seosamh Mag Craith.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Próinsias O Cathail.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus N. O Dóláin. Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Thomas O'Mahony.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
  • Liam Thrift.
  • Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Amendment declared lost.
Motion put and declared carried.
Barr
Roinn