§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, Birmingham, Bordesley) moved, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." He said it was practically the same Measure as was introduced by the late Government in 1895, and not proceeded with for want of time. It was introduced by the present Government last Session, and was again postponed, partly for want of time and partly because the London County Council wished for further time to consider it. One of the provisions of the Bill was to do away with the limit imposed on the salaries of clerks of the police courts by an Act of 1839. That limit had inflicted great injustice on those clerks, because: it had kept their salaries at an amount which by common consent was far too low. Departmental Committees had recommended that they should be raised, and the Treasury, though willing, was barred by the old Act. The Bill also proposed to transfer the whole charge of the police courts to the Metropolitan Police Fund. At present the Receiver had charge of the police stations, and the Office of Works of the police courts. This dual management of property and mixed 1501 jurisdiction gave rise to much confusion, and it was proposed by the Bill to place the whole of the property of courts and stations under the Receiver. The Bill also proposed to throw the whole charge of maintenance of the courts on the Police Fund, while under the fourth clause, borrowing powers were given in order to carry out certain works in connection with the courts. It was thought inadvisable to lay out much money on leasehold property, and therefore the borrowing powers were given in order that the Receiver in all cases might acquire the freehold of the courts. The expenses entailed by the Bill would be about £6,400, or nearly £200 more than was laid down by the London County Council in 1894, when it was proposed to transfer the police courts. The officials of the Home Office thought that £6,400 would amply repay the deficiency which would be thrown on the Police Fund by this portion of the Bill. The Government were most anxious that the ratepayers should not suffer in any way by this transaction, and had agreed to pay £7,000 per annum into the police fund in respect of the services rendered by the police to the House of Commons. The police employed in the parks, at museums, in dockyards, had always been similarly paid for, but hitherto there had only been a trilling payment of £400 for police services in connection with that House. The sum of £7,000 was not mentioned in the Bill, because it might have to be increased in extra, long sessions and slightly diminished in very short ones. There was also a debt of about £8,000 from the Police Fund of the Treasury on account of the Bow-street buildings, and this debt the Treasury had consented to cancel. Altogether the Treasury had been very liberal in regard to the Police Fund, and very careful that no extra burden should be imposed on the ratepayers. The London County Council had issued a memorandum saying that certain districts in the Metropolitan police area. 1502 but outside London, were, from their point of view, hardly dealt with by this Bill. But supposing that those districts had to pay the whole of the deficiency of £6,500, the burden upon them would come to just 1–25th of a penny in the pound, so that a man living in a £100 house would pay only 4d. a year on account of this alteration. But when the £7,000 was paid into the Police Fund it would stand in a better position than before, and there would be no financial burden on the ratepayers of any kind. The memorandum went on to speak about the undesirability of placing the administration of a sum of £30,000 in the hands of the Commissioners, the suggestion being that the change would lead to expense. Considering, however, that the Receiver had already the management of a turnover of £2,000,000 a year, it was difficult to understand what disadvantage could accrue from his administration of an additional sum of £30,000. Since 1868 there had been no increase in the police rate, and very few local authorities could say the same thing in regard to the cost of any work intrusted to them. In this memorandum a deficiency of £8,525 was shown, but charges were entered which never could be put on the Police Fund. For instance, an item of £3,500 was entered for pensions, including magistrates' pensions, which were charged on the Consolidated Fund. The memorandum also stated that the Receiver had an accumulation every year of revenue, and had a very large sum in hand. It was true that at certain seasons of the year the Receiver had a very large balance in hand, when the rates came in, but at other times he had hardly any balance at all. The reserve on March 31 was no less than £346,000. In December it was only £5,000, and at some periods of the year the Receiver actually had a deficiency, so that all the talk about his having a large sum permanently in hand fell to the ground. There was only one sum mentioned in 1503 the memorandum to which the Police Fund was entitled, and that was to payment for the use of Bow-street Police Court for Imperial purposes. As the Court was used for extradition cases and other purposes by the Government, he was inclined to think the Government should pay something for it, and he had no doubt that if the matter was represented to the Treasury they would make an addition to the £7,000 for that purpose. He understood the Bill was to be opposed on the ground that it would increase the rates, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, he believed, opposed it on the ground that London was treated too well. The hon. Member ought to support the Bill, because from his point of view it was a step in the right direction, seeing it took the expenses of the police courts from the Exchequer and placed them upon the rates. At any rate, the ratepayers in the County of London and in the Metropolitan police area would not lose by the bargain.
§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)rose to move the rejection of the Bill. He hoped the House would not be misled by the ingenious sophistries of the right hon. Gentleman. This was not a Party question, for indeed, in matters affecting the metropolis, London Members never held themselves bound by party considerations. [Ironical cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman used an expression which was distinctly misleading. He said this was a proposal to transfer a charge from the Police Fund. But what was the Police Fund? The fund was supplied by rates drawn from the pockets of the ratepayers, and therefore this was a proposal to transfer a charge from the Exchequer to the ratepayers, not of London alone, but of the great area which was called the Metropolitan Police District. Now, when they transferred a charge, it followed that they should also transfer the control, but in this case they were transferring a charge without giving the ratepayers any more control than they possessed now; indeed, they would 1504 have rather less control, because the First Commissioner of Works was in this House, whereas the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police was not. London Members contended that London was unfairly treated in regard to Imperial grants, and it was not just that before that question had been decided or considered by the Royal Commission an additional charge should be put upon the ratepayers. At all events this stood out very prominently in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that an additional charge was to be laid by the Bill upon the ratepayers of the Metropolitan Police District. It was impossible to estimate even approximately the additional charge which the Bill would lay upon those ratepayers. As the right hon. Gentleman said, at the present moment the charges were very materially restricted by statute, and the restrictions the Bill proposed to remove. There was a Statute which limited the salary of the chief clerk of each Metropolitan police court to £500, and that of the second clerk to £300. Those salaries were inadequate, but that fact only strengthened his argument that the additional charge which would be involved by removing the statutory bar would be a very large charge. He believed it would ultimately, if not immediately, be a charge of something between £10,000 and £15,000 a year. There was another statutory bar. At present the borrowing powers for buildings in respect of these courts was £500,000; this Bill proposed to give additional borrowing powers to the extent of £200,000, and the right hon. Gentleman himself clearly showed that the Government had in view a very large expenditure upon buildings and upon the enfranchisement of leaseholders. How was the money to be provided? The inequity would be very great as regarded the districts surrounding the metropolis—as regarded large parts of Surrey, Kent, and other metropolitan counties. The right hon. Gentleman made a merit of the fact that 1505 during the last few years the Metropolitan Police Rate had not been raised. It hid not been raised for the reason that at the beginning of the period to which the right hon. Gentleman referred it was at its statutory maximum. As a matter of fact the effect of a recent Act was practically to allow the rate to be raised. The old Acts limited it to 9d. in the pound, but the Metropolitan Police Act. of 1890 provided that even where, as in London, the police rate was fixed, an extra rate might be levied in order to supply the deficit in the Superannuation Act. The effect was that the 9d. limit no longer existed. The extra charge would be levied on all the people living within 15 miles of Charing Cross, so that a large number of persons would be called upon to pay towards an expenditure the benefit of which was enjoyed by only a portion of the inhabitants.
§ The HON. MEMBER was speaking at midnight, when the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.