§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that he required the local authority of the county of Flint to make an addition to the local police, in order to afford extraordinary protection to the First Lord of the Treasury, both during his residence in the county and during his visits out of the county; whether he refused on the part of the Government to entertain an application for the repayment of the cost; and, whether he will now consider the propriety of charging the Government instead of the ratepayers with the expense of protecting Cabinet Ministers?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTSir, this is a rather singular Question. In the first place, I have to answer to the first part of the Question that it is not true—indeed, it is entirely untrue—that I have made any such requisition as is stated in that part of the Question. In the early part of last year I caused such information to be supplied to the various towns of the country as had come within my knowledge, where it seemed to me necessary that local authorities should be warned against dangers menacing life and property. I do not think it would be either desirable or necessary for me to enter into details. It is sufficient to refer to the outrages at the Mansion House, London, and at the Town Hall, Liverpool, to show that such precautions at that time were not unnecessary. Having furnished such information as I thought desirable, I left it to the local authorities, on their own re- 1931 sponsibility, to take such measures for the protection of life and property as they thought fit. The local authorities of Flintshire in this matter acted on their own judgment and responsibility, and, as far as I can judge, acted very properly. In regard to the second part of the Question, I have to say that when special risks arise to life and property in any locality, the authority responsible for peace and order in that locality is bound to take such measures as may be necessary for the safety of person and property within its jurisdiction. Even in the case of visits of Royal and other distinguished persons, native or foreign, any extraordinary police expenditure is usually defrayed by the locality. The same rule naturally applies to all persons, whether in public or private stations, within the jurisdiction of the local authority. I have strictly adhered to the rule, which, as far as I know, is without exception. In regard to the third part of the Question, the hon. Member must excuse me if I differ from his opinion that Cabinet Ministers form a special exception to this rule. If the safety of the hon. Member were menaced, the duty of the authorities in the district in which he resided would be to take all measures at their own charge to protect him, and no doubt they would cheerfully perform that duty. I do not share the opinion apparently held by the hon. Member that a public servant exposed to any special risks in consequence of the fearless discharge of public duty, is to be treated on any different footing. I do not believe that the principle on which this Question is based represents the sentiments of the ratepayers of Flintshire, nor am I sure that the hon. Member has any mandate to represent those sentiments. [Cries of "Order!"] This Question is put as a complaint on behalf of—[Loud cries of "Order!"] I claim to answer the Question. The hon. Member asks me to state whether I will '' consider the propriety of charging the Government"—the Government do not pay charges; it is the people—"instead of charging the ratepayers with the cost of protecting Cabinet Ministers?" I am giving the reason why I do not propose this, and especially with reference to the protection given to the Prime Minister. I say that it is extremely proper, and I do not think that the ratepayers of Flint- 1932 shire complain. [Loud cries of "Order!"]
MR. GORSTrose to Order. He wanted to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman, under colour of answering a Question, was in Order in making a personal attack upon an hon. Member?
§ MR. SPEAKERAccording to the Rules of the House in regard to the putting and the answering of Questions, it is true that no opinion should be expressed either in putting or in answering Questions.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTOf course, I submit myself, Sir, to that ruling; but I was stating that as a complaint was made on behalf of the ratepayers of Flintshire, I may state that I have no reason to believe that the ratepayers—[Cries of "Order, Order!"] Sir, I think I am in Order in stating that I have no reason to believe, and I shall be corrected by you if I am wrong, in saying that I have no reason to believe, that the ratepayers of Flintshire complain of the course—[Cries of "Order, Order!"] The only interpretation I can put on it—[Renewed cries of "Order!"] Well, if I am out of Order, the Speaker will correct me. [Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I made no complaint.] Then if I understand that the hon. Member makes no complaint on behalf of the ratepayers of these charges, I do not see that I have anything else to answer.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONI ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer plainly the last part of the Question I put.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI think I have answered it. The ratepayers have made no complaint.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has put a Question, and has received an answer. He now desires that the Question should be answered plainly. I am bound to say that it appears to me that the Question was answered plainly.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONI beg to give Notice that in consequence of the singular answers of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and in view of the alarming increase of rates which has re-resulted from his decision, I shall move——
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is now entering into a matter of debate, and he is clearly out of Order.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONThen I give Notice that I will shortly call attention to the matter.
§ MR. O'DONNELLAnd I give Notice that on the discussion of the Rules of Procedure, I shall call attention to Ministerial answers to Questions.