HC Deb 26 November 1963 vol 685 cc212-25

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Willis

As I was saying, owing to the method by which the Scottish Office sought to introduce the provisions applying to Scotland, it was not possible for Scottish Members to raise many questions about them. However, we will endeavour now to put a few questions and obtain some information either from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, or from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in whose name the Money Resolution appears on the Order Paper, but who is not now here. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may be able to answer the questions. Having heard his maiden speech from the Box, I shall be delighted to give him the opportunity of following it with an equally clear speech.

The Money Resolution seeks the authority of Parliament to pay out moneys in respect of salaries and allowances to assistant inspectors of constabulary and staff officers to inspectors of constabulary. In its Scottish context, this would be covered by Schedule 6(16) which adds a new Clause, Clause 33A, to the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956. What do the Government have in mind? How many assistant inspectors of constabulary are to be appointed, and how many staff officers, and how much are they to cost? What is the cost involved in paragraph A(a) of the Money Resolution?

Paragraph A(b) refers to expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in respect of the provision and maintenance of a police college, training centres and other organisations and services for promoting the efficiency of the police, and in respect of research into matters affecting the efficiency of the police. Once again, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman what the Scottish Office has in mind in respect of this paragraph.

The question of research, which evoked some comment during the hon. Gentleman's speech on Second Reading, is dealt with in paragraph 14 of Schedule 6. Incidentally, this proposes to add a new section, Section 29A, to the 1956 Act. It says that the Secretary of State may set up such bodies and take such other steps as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of undertaking research into matters affecting the efficiency of the police. Sir William, we are in a most difficult position because neither the Financial Secretary to the Treasury nor the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland are present to pay attention to the points that I am making. I do not know what we can do in the circumstances. I do not know whether you would accept a Motion to report Progress. It is very difficult to make points to people who are not present to hear them being made. This is an insult to the House, and is certainly an insult to Scotland, because we have not been able to discuss the Bill as it affects Scotland.

I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has now returned to the Chamber, so perhaps I might read the new Section which he seeks to put into the 1956 Act as Section 29A. It says that the Secretary of State for Scotland: may set up such bodies and take such other steps as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of undertaking research into matters affecting the efficiency of the police. How much does the Secretary of State expect to expend on this? How many bodies does he propose to set up to undertake research into matters concerning the police? What steps does he propose to take in addition to setting up these bodies? Where is the research to be done? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State could give us some information about this, because I am sure that my hon. Friends are anxious to hear what he has to say and would be pleased to receive this information. We are interested in the police in Scotland and we are anxious that their work should be assisted by the House.

Paragraph A(c) of the Money Resolution refers to any sums required by the Secretary of State for defraying expenses incurred by the Police Council for Great Britain. To what extent does this affect Scotland? What amount does the Secretary of State expect to be spent in connection with the discharge of his duties in Scotland in this respect?

There are a number of other things covered by this Money Resolution. For instance, paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 seeks to add a new Section I0A to the 1956 Act. It is difficult when one has to keep referring to these numbers, but it has to be done because of the manner in which the Secretary of State has chosen to deal with this subject.

Paragraph 7 of Schedule 6, which introduces a new Section 10A to the 1956 Act, deals with police cadets. It gives the Secretary of State authority to appoint persons as police cadets to undergo training with a view to becoming members of that police force. What has the Secretary of State in mind about this? How has this arisen? What does he expect to do, and what additional expenditure does he expect to incur as a result of his activities under this proposed new section? I am not sure, but I presume: that this would come under paragraph A(a) of the Money Resolution. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell me whether my supposition is correct.

Paragraph B of the Money Resolution authorises payment out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Police Pensions Act, 1948 which is attributable to any provision of the new Act with respect to inspectors and assistant inspectors of constabulary, staff officers to such inspectors and members of police forces in the temporary service of tie Crown;". I assume that this paragraph authorises the payment of moneys to meet the expenditure incurred under the new Clause 33B which is to be inserted in the 1956 Act. It may be that the hon. Gentleman can tell me if that is correct, and, if so, how much is involved in this new Clause 33B.

We come to paragraph C of the Money Resolution. This authorises … any increase attributable to the new Act in the sums payable of the moneys provided by Parliament by way of police grant or, under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland, by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman how much he expects to be paid under each of these respective elements: first, the police grant under the local enactments relating to local government in Scotland or by way of Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland. I am sure my hon. Friends are anxious to have information about this. We are always anxious to know what is happening to local authorities in Scotland. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) may wish to raise this point. I cannot quite follow it from his interjection, but I have no doubt that it will be worth following and we shall be delighted to learn about it from the Minister when he replies.

When we look at the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill we read: Certain new liabilities are placed on local funds, including those in respect of costs incurred for the purposes of inquiries under Clauses 28 and 31 …and those arising from Clause 47". We read in the following paragraph that the provisions of Clauses 28, 31 and 47 are dealt with in Schedule 6 to the Bill so far as they affect Scotland.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman—it may be that it is covered in the Money Resolution in a different form—I am not quite clear about this—whether he could relate the answer to these two paragraphs and to Clauses 28, 31 and 47 and tell us what, in fact, is the extra expenditure that is likely to be incurred.

I hope that he has the answers to these questions. As he will realise, we are very keen to know what they are. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will wish to obtain rather more information than I have sought. Meanwhile, if the hon. Member can give me the information for which I have asked I shall be very pleased.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I am sure that only his customary con- sideration for the feelings of the Committee and the lateness of the hour have led my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) to curtail his remarks and his inquiries. But he has asked a number of questions, which must be followed through.

The purpose of the Money Resolution is to authorise the payment of money, and once this Resolution is passed it will, as the Leader of the House realises, affect the conduct of the Committee stage. The Amendments which can be put down will be determined by the question whether or not what we seek to do is covered by the Money Resolution. We want to ensure that there is reasonable scope for Amendment and debate in Committee.

First, I want to refer to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). He quoted a point raised in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) concerning the question whether or not Scotland is to have a central organisation—a sort of Scottish Scotland Yard. This is a reasonable suggestion and something which could be dealt with in Committee—but will it be permissible under the Money Resolution?

As I read the Resolution, in paragraph A(b) there is a specific list of the items covered in relation to expenses incurred by the Secretary of State. The very fact that this is so specific leads us to worry about the freedom and scope of action that the Committee will have. I am sure that the Leader of the House is already seized of the point, but the subparagraph refers to expenses incurred…in respect of the provision and maintenance of a police college, training centres and other organisations and services for promoting the efficiency of the police, and in respect of research into matters affecting the efficiency of the police. There are no other words, such as "and other such related matters". This means that we shall be restricting the scope of the Committee adequately and reasonably to amend the Bill.

I sincerely hope that the Government have considered the matter from this point of view. I would hate to think that they have deliberately drawn the Money Resolution tightly in order to restrict not only the few Scottish Members who will be on this small Committee but English and Welsh Members on both sides. According to the Under-Secretary's speech, the Government want reasonable suggestions to be made in Committee, but there is no point in suggestions being made if, by reason of the Money Resolution, they cannot be legislated for. We do not want the Government belatedly to have to introduce a second Money Resolution. We may be told that that can be done, but to have to adopt.such a course is regarded as a loss of face. That is one of the reasons why we want to ensure that this matter is considered reasonably. We want to be sure that the Government have covered all increased expenditures, and have left themselves, by wide definition, scope to consider reasonable Amendments.

I am concerned about paragraph A(c) which refers to any sums required by the Secretary of State for defraying expenses incurred by the Police Council for Great Britain. This is a body to which there will be joint contributions. I do not object to it: it is reasonable. I should like to know what it will cost.

As one body is specifically mentioned, I am prompted to ask: what about the other two new institutions? There is no mention of the two Advisory Boards. Unless they are covered by some words, the Government have not the power to finance what are in their eyes, and in our eyes, two desirable new institutions. We want to protect the Government. Where in the Money Resolution is there authorisation for payment in respect of the Advisory Board for Scotland, for example, of which I dare say the Secretary of State for Scotland will be chairman? All I can hope is that he will turn up at the meetings of the Board. I understand that all the time that he has been chairman of the present Council he has never once turned up to chair a meeting. It is almost like his attendance at the Scottish Grand Committee.

We want to know whether this is provided for. It may well be that the words in lines 12 and 13— other organisations and services for promoting the efficiency of the police"— cover it. The powers and duties of the new Advisory Board are related to general matters, not specifically to efficiency.

There is provision for payment in respect of assistant inspectors and staff officers. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East, I am thirsty for knowledge. How many of these will there be? What will the cost be? I am also concerned about the reference to their pensions. There is no reference to the increased expenditure which is specifically legislated for by the new subsection (2A) to Section 11 of the 1956 Act in respect of special constables.

The new subsection is as follows: If regulations under this section provide for the calculation of any pension payable to or in respect of special constables by reference to a scale of notional remuneration specified in the regulations, regulations under this section increasing any such notional remuneration may be made with retrospective effect to any date specified in the regulations. It is expected that there will be an increase in their notional remuneration, which will affect their pension. Is this an omission? Should there be a reference to increased expenditure? Once again, I do not want the Government to have to come back and admit to a mistake. There is obviously the possibility of increased new expenditure.

Mr. Willis

Retrospective expenditure.

Mr. Ross

There is no evidence that it is specifically covered by the Money Resolution.

I turn now to the position of chief constables and—though the Under-Secretary of State did not make this clear—assistant chief constables and deputy chief constables who are compulsorily retired. Obviously, this will impose an unexpected increased demand upon the pensions scheme of 1948. Indeed, it may well be that there will be legislation effecting compensation because of such retirements. Have the Government satisfied themselves that this point is adequately covered in the Money Resolution?

I am concerned about our position in relation to the tabling of Amendments either in Committee or on Report. Chief constables, assistants or deputies are to be virtually appointed and retired by the central authority. In this way the central authority is becoming more and more responsible. I want to know whether, under the Money Resolution, it will be competent for me to table an Amendment at some time to ensure that the money necessary to pay these people will not be paid out of the police grant, but out of the funds of the Secretary of State.

As I understand the situation, I will not be allowed to move such an Amendment. One of my hon. Friends felt angry about this continued interference of the central authority. While he was prepared to accept it, he suggested that the central authority should be prepared to pay for its responsibility and not pass half of the financial responsibility on to the local authority. If I table an Amendment to this effect, would it be ruled out of order?

The question of inquiries crops up when one considers the compulsory retirement of these individuals. These inquiries will cost a lot of money—so much so that the Secretary of State has seen fit to cover this point in the Bill. I see the Leader of the House turning the pages of his copy of the Measure. He is probably as confused as we are about the Bill. He will, therefore, appreciate our difficulties. Schedule 6 states: The Secretary of State may direct a chief constable or deputy or assistant chief constable to pay the whole or any part of his own expenses in respect of an inquiry under this section but, subject to any such direction, those expenses shall be paid by the police authority. We can see from the Schedule that whoever will pay the cost of these inquiries, it will not be the Secretary of State, who is merely passing the cost on to the police authority. An Amendment strikes one as being necessary, so that the phrase "Secretary of State" is included in that of the Bill. According to the Money Resolution, as I read it, I will be able to table an Amendment, but the Chair is likely to say, "The Amendment is ruled out of order because it is out with the Money Resolution. "This is a hopelessly inadequate Money Resolution and we need an assurance from the Government to satisfy my fears. Have the Government, particularly the Scottish Department, deliberately stifled discussion and prevented amendment of the Bill? If so, this is a serious matter.

Another important part of the Bill to which I wish to draw attention—[Inter- ruption.] I have not lost my place, although if the Government do not watch out they will lose Dumfries next—is that dealing with liability for wrongful acts of constables. It may be that we will have retrospective legislation by Order some time in the future which will be applicable to the date of the passing of the Bill. Is this covered by the Money Resolution, and, if so, where? Is it covered with reference to the police grant, and, if so, is that not an unsatisfactory method? The Government should give 100 per cent, grant to the local authorities instead of leaving them to find 50 per cent, and the Government to meet the remaining 50 per cent.

10.30 p.m.

This is a question for the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland rather than for the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Incidentally, I gather that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland looks after agricultural matters. No wonder he got bogged down in the field today.

The only other point that I want to raise is the simple one about deputy chief constables. This is dealt with in Section 10 of the 1956 Act. There are only two new subsections replacing the existing subsections (1) and (2). The existing subsection (3) is omitted. Subsection (4) is amended. New subsections (6) and (7) are added. The new subsection (7) applies subsection (3), the new subsections (3A) and (3B) and the amended subsection (4) of Section 6 to deputy chief constables. That is perfectly clear.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

Is my hon. Friend aware that under Section 6(4) the Secretary of State may make the chief constable pay the expenses of any inquiry? Would this be one way of getting round the Money Resolution?

Mr. Ross

That is the very point that I was coming to. The Secretary of State passes the responsibility for the cost of an inquiry to the person concerned. It may be a chief constable, a deputy chief constable, or an assistant chief constable.

Mr. Willis

I wonder if my hon. Friend could enlighten the Committee? Would he tell us what the Clause now means after it has been amended in accordance with the provisions on page 39?

Mr. Ross

I would gladly undertake to do that, but I am perfectly sure that the Under-Secretary is anxious, eager and avid to undertake this work. I am concerned with the implications of these provisions in relation to the Money Resolution and the powers of amendment of the Money Resolution. I wonder whether I or an hon. Friend of mine would be in order in putting down an Amendment providing that this expenditure shall be borne by the Secretary of State. As I read the list of items which the Secretary of State shall be authorised to pay for, this does not appear to be one of them, and once again it appears that we shall be frustrated in our attempt to make this a better, more logical, more reasonable and fairer Bill.

I am sure the Leader of the House will support me. These inquiries may be lengthy and expensive, and this sort of "big stick", in the form of a financial obligation written into the Measure, may mean that chief constables, deputy chief constables and assistant chief constables will not be able to pursue their statutory rights of an inquiry. It is not fair of the Secretary of State to have written this provision into the Bill. I want it to be omitted. In doing so, we may find that we shall throw the cost on to another authority, and there is no authorisation in the Money Resolution for that authority to bear that expenditure. This point relates to human rights and reasonable justice for chief constables. I know what the chief constable in Kilmarnock had to put up with in respect of this kind of thing. [Interruption.] I do not think that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) will remember the debate, because it took place at 3 o'clock in the morning, but I will be here to use every opportunity there is. I object to hon. Members opposite passing this kind of Resolution in silence, and not being concerned whether, by their ignorance, they are denying his legal rights to an individual because of the expense involved. I hope that I will now have the support of the hon. Gentleman in Committee in pursuing this Money Resolution quite exhaustively.

Mr. Woodhouse

I have never before ventured to intervene in a Scottish debate, though I did take the risk—

Mr. Willis

This is a United Kingdom debate.

Mr. Woodhouse

The points made have been principally concerned with Scotland, aid I realise that in intruding on matters that are primarily Scottish, as I did briefly in the debate on the Report of the Royal Commission, I shall probably get myself into hot water, but I will do my best to set at rest the anxieties of the hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).

Perhaps the best way for me to approach this matter would be to explain the general provisions of the Money Resolution affecting the whole of Great Britain—not the United Kingdom, because in this Bill we are not legislating for Northern Ireland; I should get myself into even hotter water if it were a Northern Ireland Bill as well. I will explain the provisions relating to Great Britain generally. That will provide a background against which I shall be able to add some specific points relating to Scotland in the breakdown of the distribution of expenditure.

The Money Resolution is in three paragraphs, labelled A, B and C. and A is then broken down into (a), (b) and (c). Paragraphs A and B entail the expenditure of Exchequer money not previously specifically authorised by Statute. The provision in paragraph A gives permanent sanction for expenditure now already incurred under the authority of the Appropriation Act, and the Bill in itself will not lead to any increase in that expenditure. I can give the figures; of current annual expenditure under (a), (b) and (c) of A, and also an estimate of the Scottish figure within the totals. The Committee will appreciate that these can only be estimates, because we can only attempt an approximate figure, but the Committee will also see that the figures are not astronomical and, in the case of Scotland, are quite small.

Sub-paragraph (a), which covers assistant inspectors of constabulary and staff officers to inspectors of constabulary, involves a total for Great Britain of about £30,000, of which about £5,000 falls on Scotland. Sub-paragraph (b) relates to a police college, training centres and other central organisations and services for promoting efficiency. Scottish hon. Members will be glad to learn that this item does not touch Scotland at all, because the relevant institutions in Scotland are already embodied in the 1956 Act, and are not touched by this Bill. Research affects Scotland to a small extent. The figure for Great Britain as a whole is approximately £44,000, of which about £1,000 is attributable to Scotland. I think that the Scots are getting their research quite cheaply.

Mr. Ross

It may be cheap research.

Mr. Woodhouse

Under sub-paragraph (c) covering the Police Council for Great Britain, the cost is about £12,000 of which the Scottish element is about £3,500. Since the question of the Advisory Boards was raised, I might interpolate at this point that no expenditure for them falls on Scotland.

Mr. Willis

Could the hon. Gentleman kindly explain why only £1,000 out of £44,000 on research is to be spent in Scotland? Is not this sum very small?

Mr. Woodhouse

This is simply Scotland's contribution to the Home Office. I do not think that Scottish Members need find any ground for resentment, but if they would like to contribute a larger proportion I will convey their wishes to both Secretaries of State.

Mr. Ross

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this point—

Mr. Woodhouse

I have left it.

Mr. Ross

The hon. Gentleman was talking about research and he made the remark about the Advisory Boards. He said that no expenditure from that fell on central funds and therefore it was not in the Resolution. Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that I, for one, would like it to fall on central funds and that the fact that there are no words in the Resolution to cover it means that I shall not be able to put such an Amendment on the Notice Paper later? Is not that a reasonable argument? The Secretary of State is, after all, nominally chairman of the Board. Why, therefore, should not this fall on central funds?

Mr. Woodhouse

The hon. Member will find no difficulty in putting down any reasonable Amendment which he may be able to devise at a later stage of the Bill, but it is not for me to comment on his capacity for tabling reasonable Amendments.

Mr. Ross

rose—

Mr. Woodhouse

I have not much time to deal with the other remaining matters and I should like to get on to "B" and "C".—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East would like to interrupt perhaps he would do so on his feet.

Mr. Willis

I was pointing out to hon. Members opposite that Scottish Members had not said very much today and they ought to be more tolerant when Scottish Members try to raise points concerning Scotland.

Mr. Woodhouse

The point is well taken and for once I find myself strongly in sympathy with the hon. Member.

Paragraph B of the Memorandum gives cover for the provisions applying the police pensions code to inspectors of constabulary, assistant inspectors of constabulary and police officers temporarily on central service, because the Secretary of State may become the pension-paying authority for these officers.

As the Explanatory Memorandum indicates, the amount of increased expenditure, for obvious reasons, cannot be closely estimated, but it is not expected to exceed £10,000 a year when all the inspectors are affected. I hope that Scottish Members will not feel insulted when I say that the estimated Scottish element in that figure is about £1,000 a year.

Paragraph C is a little more complicated and is in general terms, because it relates to expenditure of police authorities. It is they, of course, who bear the bulk of direct expenditure on the police. This expenditure naturally qualifies for police grant and, like any other expenditure of local authorities, for rate deficiency or Exchequer equalisation grant. The Resolution must give cover for these grants. The estimated increase in grants to cover these new liabilities is at the highest £5,000 a year, of which the Scottish element would not probably be more than £500 to £1,000. I hope that these explanations will satisfy the House and will enable it to pass the Money Resolution.

Mr. Ross

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether expenditures which may fall on local authorities as a result of the new Clause 16A are covered by the Money Resolution and to what extent? In Schedule 6, on page 42 of the Bill—I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's confusion—he will find a reference to Clause 16A, with regard to collaboration arrangements, which is to be added to the 1956 Act.

Mr. Woodhouse

I think that the answer is negative.

Mr. Ross

But if the hon. Gentleman will look at the 1956 Act, he will find what is provided in respect of mutual aid between forces, and it was found necessary to make reference to that expenditure in the Money Resolution on that Bill.

Mr. Woodhouse

Nevertheless, in the particular context in which the hon. Gentleman raises the point, the answer is in the negative.

Mr. Ross

rose—

It being fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock, three-quarters of an hour after the House had resolved itself into the Committee, The Chairman put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.