ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 4 July 1890)

§ (6.17.) MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)
I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the names of the Committee will be put down in time to enable Members from Scotland to propose additional names, if found necessary?

§ *(6.18.) MR. W. H. SMITH
The names will be put down in good time, and, when decided upon, communication will be made to the hon. Gentleman.

§ (6.19.) MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
All that has been said in opposition to the Motion on the English Bill is applicable with ten-fold more force in the case of the present Bill, because what the Government propose to do is to refer the measure not to a Grand Committee, but to a Select Committee. The consequence is that we shall not be able to take the Report of the Select 837 Committee on Report stage here, and it will have to go through the Committee stage of the Whole House, so that the Government will really gain no time by adopting this course. Speaking for myself, and hon. Members who think with me, I shall not be influenced in the slightest degree by the Report of the Select Committee, and I shall oppose this Bill at every possible stage.

§ MR. HUNTER
I now beg to move the following Instruction:— That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on the Police (Scotland) Bill that they shall have power to establish a Board consisting partly of representatives elected by the police and partly of one or more persons appointed by the Secretary for Scotland, and that such Board shall have, subject to the Secretary for Scotland, the management of all moneys provided by Parliament, or obtained from other sources, for the purpose of providing pensions, gratuities, and allowances for the police constables of Scotland and their widows and children. The reason why I think it necessary to move this Instruction lies in two facts In the first place I am opposed to the Bill because it imposes an indefinite but large liability on the ratepayers of Scotland, in order to find money for the pensions of the police. I warn the Lord Advocate that he will not carry this clause easily. I believe the feeling among the Scotch Members is totally opposed to this additional charge being placed upon the rates, for the maintenance or superannuation of the police. The proposal of the Government in this Bill is an interference with the Local Authorities, for it is just the same as saying to those authorities—"You shall not be at liberty to frame your own contracts, but must accept the provisions arranged by the Government." Now, that is a most objectionable feature of the scheme. On what ground do the Government justify that enormous inroad on the rights of the Local Authorities? I believe the bulk of the working men in Scotland will take a very strong view indeed of the gross injustice of taxing them for the purpose of providing pensions for the police, on such a scale as this Bill proposes. What docs the Lord Advocate say? That the tax is only going to be 1d. in the 838 £1. Why, that was the sum fixed for the Public Library Acts, and we all know what an amount of agitation and education it took before the working classes were induced to incur that additional charge, for an Act which was specially devised for their own benefit. There is another reason which makes it most unjust to impose this charge upon the ratepayers. Everybody knows that the Police Rate under the general Act was an occupier's rate. The Poor Rate and the School Board Rate are very fairly divided between the owners and occupiers, but this fair arrangement does not apply to the Police Rate. The consequence will be that the working men will have to pay twice as much for this 1d. in the £1 for the Police Rate as they would if it had been put upon the Poor Rate. The Government are giving to the police a sum the capitalised value of which is £1,750,000 for 4,042 men. That is a munificent sum; and I wish to point out that if this clause is lost in the Committee, where I believe it will meet with the most determined opposition, the Government will find extreme difficulty in carrying out the remainder of the Bill. I mention this in view of some alternative scheme being forthcoming. My main reason for proposing the Instruction is that it is only by a device of that kind we can effectually protect the ratepayers from any charge for the superannuation of the police. What has been the result of your Bill which affects the London police? Why, at this moment the police of London are engaged in secret and almost concealed agitation, with a view to bringing pressure to bear on the Government to make concessions which will be satisfactory to them. In regard to the Scotch police, I may point out that nearly the whole of them under the terms of their engagement have no right to a pension, and, therefore, the proposal of the Government is absolutely gratuitous.

§ *(6.30.) COLONEL MALCOLM (Argyllshire)
I regard this proposal as involving an inroad on the power of the Local Authority, and the taxing of the ratepayers without representation. I do not see how the Board the hon. Member proposes can in any way represent the ratepayers or carry on the principle he is anxious to establish. I am myself very much opposed to centralisation in Scotland, and I think that with a few alterations the provisions of this Bill would enable the object in view to be carried out by the Local Authorities very much better than would be possible in the case of any Central Board, however composed. Under this Instruction there is no provision for the proper representation of the ratepayers, whereas it is my opinion that all management of the sort proposed should be in the hands of the Local Authorities, which must be better acquainted with the needs and wants of their own districts than any central body. Beyond this the Local Authority would be able to use the power of granting pensions as a means of encouraging better discipline. I think that rib one who has listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton could want any further argument against this Instruction. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out very clearly the advantages of leaving, as far as possible, the management of the police to the Local Authorities, and for my part, having had considerable experience in the management of police affairs, I must object most strongly to the idea which under-runs this Instruction.

§ *(6.34.) MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)
As far as the argument just addressed to the Committee by the hon. Member for Argyllshire is concerned I think that the hon. Gentleman has entirely missed the point of the Instruction. I am one of those who believe that the £40,000 proposed to be given by the Government would be sufficient for the purpose proposed, and it is because I believe it will be inexpedient, under present circumstances, to revert to local funds, and that the Scottish people would not bear 840 any further tax for police superannuation purposes, that I think the Instruction moved by my hon. Friend might be accepted. I am not prepared to say that after it has been discussed by the Committee the Bill of the Government will not prevail. It says "may" and not "shall," and I would submit to the Lord Advocate that no harm can come from the adoption of the Instruction.

§ (6.37.) THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,) Bute
As I have been appealed to it may be convenient that I should say at once that the Government cannot accept this Instruction. I go very largely on the ground stated by the hon. Member for Argyllshire. The essence of the Bill is that pensions are to be in the hands of the Local Authorities, and that the same Authority which furnishes the pay shall also furnish the pensions for the Police Force. I cannot help thinking that the House would impose on the Committee—or rather, would authorise by the Committee—a line of inquiry which would turn out to be hopelessly irreconcilable with the rest of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman, by his Instruction, proposes to do things which, on the face of them, are sufficiently startling. For instance, he proposes to set up a Central Board, partly elected and partly nominated by the Government, for the administration of money voted by Parliament. That is a proposal of a somewhat novel kind. On one hand, the elected Members would represent neither the taxpayers nor the ratepayers, but merely the class who are to be the recipients of the Imperial Fund, and, on the other hand, the nominees of the Government would not represent neither the taxpayers or the ratepayers, or the Administrative Bodies whose duties would be affected by the proposal. Therefore, I say, the proposition is one which radically differs from the principle of the Bill, and I think it our duty frankly to say that we oppose it. I would point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is also a very important principle involved in placing in the hands of the Local Administrative Body the disposal of the pensions. In the first place, it is quite clear that if you are to have an effective and discriminative pension system, you must have an Administrative Body to regulate the amount of the pension given 841 by the Bill, with due regard to the age of the pensioner's retiremeut; and, in the second place, if you are to have discretionary pensions at all, it is perfectly manifest that you cannot hand the money over to a Central Body, which knows nothing about the individuals with regard to whom the discretion is to be exercised. The more the subject is examined, the more, I feel assured, will my hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire be held to be right on this point. The hon. Member for Aberdeen endeavoured to treat this as a question of whether there is to be a burden on the rates. When the time comes, hon. Gentlemen may, in Committee, challenge the clause which makes the rates a guarantee of the fund, but I do not think they will succeed. The hon. Gentleman said I had represented that the rate would not be Id. in the £;1 on the valuation roll of Scotland. What I did say was that according to certain actuarial calculations half a century hence, a rate of Id. in the £;1 might be needed, but that it would not be likely to be more. Further, I said there would not be any burden on the rates, according to the best information we could get, during nearly the present generation. I have thus stated the general grounds on which we are bound to oppose this Instruction, and I think it would be better to negative it than to add to the already wide field of inquiry which is open to the Committee.

§ (6.43.) MR. B. ROBERTSON
I agree that the observations made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen are not strictly applicable to the question before the Committee, although they would have been a valuable contribution to the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not find in the Instruction the point that was raised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire as to the discrimination between the contributions from the Imperial Exchequer and from the rates. From my point of view, which is one of entire hostility to the Bill, there is no difference between the two; but if there be any I should object more to the contribution from the Exchequer than to that from the rates. Well, Sir, my hon. Friend proposes, by his Instruction, to deal with all the money provided by Parliament, and from any other source, so as to put it into the hands of a special Board, 842 which he desires to create, and that Board is to consist mainly of the representatives of those who will be the beneficiares under the Bill. This is a proposal in which I hope the Committee will not concur, and, although it has been said that the Instruction will not do much harm, I do not think it can do any good, and if I do not vote against it I certainly shall not vote for it.