HC Deb 16 September 1909 vol 10 cc2455-62

Considered in Committee.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required for the payment of services rendered by the Metropolitan Police for Imperial and National purposes, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Metropolitan Police Acts, 1829 to 1899."—[Mr. Gladstone.]

Mr. J. S. HARMOOD-BANNER

I naturally have no objection to any allowance which would be for the benefit of the police in the way of paying expenses incurred in consequence of serious accident, but I am bound to say I object to this Resolution because it is so limited in its extent. The Resolution merely applies to the Metropolitan Police. There is nothing whatever in it regarding any other police in the United Kingdom. I think we must all admit that the Exchequer contributions to the Metropolitan Police are already very heavy in comparison with the contributions to the police in other districts. There is no doubt whatever that owing to our being saturated with finance many of us have neglected our duties in regard to some other transactions, among which I may mention this question as regards expenditure on the police. The Metropolitan authorities receive a large revenue from the rates in respect of all the public buildings, so that, if anything, the contribution from the Imperial Exchequer ought to be lighter than that given to other districts. But that is not so at all. The other districts receive at present contributions out of the grant of £150,000 which was fixed by Parliament in 1890. Under the distribution at that time the grant paid 65 per cent. of the police pensions, leaving 35 per cent. to be met by the rates. These pensions have gone up so much that the percentage which the Exchequer contributes is now only 28 per cent. Yet we are now asked to pass a Resolution to give a larger grant in aid of the Metropolitan Police, while not a penny additional of Exchequer contributions in aid of expenses of pensions in either counties or boroughs is being given. This is a very serious matter, because the Police Rates have risen and are much heavier in the counties and boroughs than in the Metropolis.

It has been a matter of constant request to the Government to increase the amount of the Exchequer contribution to the counties and boroughs, and I must express my great surprise that we should have submitted to us a Resolution to in- crease the Exchequer contribution in the Metropolis while giving nothing extra to the counties and boroughs, and, moreover, in the Bill which is to follow on this Resolution, there is not only no addition to the expenses of the Metropolitan Police, but also no addition to the expense of the police in England, Wales, and Scotland, under Clause 5. Yet so unfair is this division that the Government do not propose to add anything to the contribution to expenses except in the case of the Metropolis. Though the expenses have increased so greatly since 1890, nothing was added to the Exchequer contributions, but now, when there is something to be added, it is contrary to the principles of proper Municipal Government that that additional charge should be incurred without additional relief. I think that the Home Secretary must have let this slip his memory when bringing this Resolution before the House. I cannot really think he intended to commit this injustice. It is impossible for me, as a private Member, to move a Resolution to increase the grant, nor can I in Committee to-morrow put such a Clause in as would add in any way to the money to be received. So far as the fact of the money being contributed on behalf of the police is concerned, I should be the last person to say anything against that, because what is suggested in the Bill is right and proper. I hope we will get some assurance from the Home Secretary on the point. The Treasury are a very close-fisted lot, but when they provide money for the Development Grant we shall have to come upon that to get the money. I think that, one way or other, we have a right to ask the Home Secretary to look most closely into this case to see if he cannot, in addition to this Resolution, put down another Resolution to add to the Exchequer contribution in respect of the municipalities of the country.

Mr. CLAUDE HAY

In the Resolution appear the words that the "contribution is to be made from the Exchequer in respect of Imperial and National services." What is the difference between the words "Imperial" and "National?" Does "Imperial" mean that not only the Treasury but the ratepayers have to pay? Does it mean, further, that the duties of the police are in connection with foreign Sovereigns, or are they connected with the British Empire in respect of Colonial matters? What is the difference between "Imperial" and "National" in connec- tion with the police services? The Home Secretary made a statement last night on the Bill which has not yet appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT nor in the Press. The right hon. Gentleman's speech on the second reading of the Bill contained declarations and figures which are absolutely essential to a proper study of the Bill, and I would, therefore, ask him not to take the Committee stage until all the information is available. Without the Treasury calculations, which were not completed when the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, it will be obviously impossible to consider the financial aspect of this measure. I believe that if the information required is available everybody will desire to expedite the passage of this Bill, provided that the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to accept some Amendments, notice of which has already been given. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use the full pressure of his influence with the Treasury to increase the contribution in order to include local authorities.

12.0 P.M.

Mr. JOSEPH P. NANNETTI

I only rise as a Member of the Committee which dealt with this subject of the Metropolitan Police to congratulate the Home Secretary on having brought forward this Bill. I disagree with the hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Harmood-Banner) in raising an objection to the question of the Imperial grant with reference to other parts of the Empire. I think the police not only in London but all parts of the Empire are entitled to a day's rest, the same as working mien in all of other parts of the country are entitled to it. It is not the fault of the Committee, for since they did not make the case before that Committee we are not to blame. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing in the Bill and endeavouring to give the day's rest to a deserving body of public servants. Though I did not divide the Committee, I believe a case exists for the police all over the country.

Mr. N. W. HELME

In supporting this Resolution, and while recognising the splendid services of the Metropolitan Police, when the opportunity arises, and after the passing of the great Finance Bill, which will, we hope, place the Treasury in possession of ample funds, I hope the Government will from those funds deal with many of the wider issues concerning the municipalities, and give con- sideration to the claims that have been put forward by the hon. Member for Everton, with whom I beg to associate myself in what he said as to the municipalities.

Sir HENRY CRAIK

I am glad to see that there are several Scottish Members present, and I hope they wall join in representations to the Treasury on this subject. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been in communication with the Scottish Office, and it would be very convenient if a representative from the Office was here to explain why this advantage with regard to the Metropolitan Police is not held out to Scotland. Although the burden proposed by the Bill is laid on Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman knows that an arrangement was made with regard to the assistance given to the police in Scotland. Surely if the burdens become greater the addition should be made as well in the case of Scotland as in the case of the Metropolitan Police. I hope, after the clear case that has been made, that Scottish Members will not from a sense of party discipline fail to support the claim of Scotland.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone)

I have no doubt that if the hon. Member (Sir H. Craik) had intimated his intention of raising the question of Scotland, the Lord Advocate would have been present.

Sir H. CRAIK

But the Resolution was not on the Paper until this evening.

Mr. GLADSTONE

Further, if the hon. Gentleman had listened to the Debate last night he would have heard my statement. I am afraid I cannot repeat it at this late hour, but I would point out to the hon. Member for the Everton Division (Mr. Harmood-Banner) that, while I am not prejudging the case in respect of any claim which may be made by the country generally for increased Government subventions, what we are considering now is the case of the Metropolitan area. The charge which may fall in consequence of this Bill upon provincial bodies is perfectly immaterial. The only increase which could accrue is in respect of increased pensions to widows of constables killed under certain conditions in the execution of their duty. We are dealing with a Bill primarily and particularly concerning London, and while the broad fact remains that we are proposing a large additional expenditure because of the grant of one day's rest in seven to the Metropolitan Police, that cannot be dissociated from the general consideration of Metropolitan Police finance.

As I have already pointed out to the House, in consequence of the arrangements come to in 1889–90, the Pension Fund set up by the Act of 1890 is inadequate. The deficiency in that fund has far some years fallen on the Police Fund, which itself is now so depleted by that charge as to be in a bankrupt condition, the deficit last year amounting to over £100,000. That deficit, caused by the growth of police pensions, must be taken into consideration with the proposed increased charge in respect of the one day's rest in seven. Taking these circumstances together, it will be necessary to impose an increased rate. Under the present law the police rate falls in certain proportions— five to four—on the Metropolitan parishes and on the Exchequer Accounts of the counties connected with the Metropolitan Police area. Therefore it involves this injustice to those counties, that, while out of their general Exchequer Account they will be called upon to pay a certain proportion of the money required, that money, which is to be for the special purpose of the Metropolitan Police, will have to come out of a fund which ought to be devoted to general county purposes. In that sense there is an actual injustice. The result of the whole matter is that we have to deal now with the question of Metropolitan Police finance. This question of the Government contribution for the police has never been settled. It was under consideration about 20 years ago, but it has never been worked out in detail, and no exact figure has been arrived at as to what the charge should be. I have done my best with my advisers to arrive at a certain figure, and we have made to the Treasury certain proposals which are now under consideration.

Whatever sum may be ultimately determined to be the correct one, it is generally admitted that the contribution out of public funds in respect of the Metropolitan Police expenses is very considerably too low. There is, therefore, that standing injustice. As regards the provincial police, we are not proposing to put any heavy charge upon the rates. No extra rate will be entailed by the passage of this Bill. Therefore no case arises out of that. As a matter of fact, the State already pays to the Local Exchequer Fund half the cost of the pay and clothing of the provincial police; and, in addition, contributes directly £150,000 towards their pension fund. But that question is not affected by the Bill. As regards the points raised by the hon. Member for Hoxton (Mr. Claude Hay), I will do my best to meet him, but he knows the intricacies of this subject, and that it is a very difficult matter to arrive, from the Treasury point of view, at any exact calculation as to the total sum that will be involved. Therefore, while I shall do my best to get the information, the Treasury will probably insist on taking as much time as they consider necessary to consider it. And I cannot give any definite assurance that we will be able to name an exact sum. The hon. Member asked me the distinction between "Imperial" and "National." It is this: Certain duties of the London police may be entailed by the visits of foreign sovereigns, the visits of dignitaries from India, or representatives from our Colonies. Ceremonies are connected with these visits, and these ceremonies always entail extra charges on the Metropolitan Police. The word "Imperial" therefore is quite suitable for charges of that sort. "National," of course, applies to obvious charges at home.

Mr. HAY

The Imperial charges, seeing that they relate to distinguished foreigners or foreign monarchs, ought not, surely, to be charged upon the common ratepayer? This is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to favourably consider arrangements whereby all such charges in relation to the police should be charged on the Estimates which come before the House.

Mr. GLADSTONE

That is precisely what we are doing—trying to disentangle these charges, so that proper contributions may be made by the Government.

Major E. F. COATES

In supporting the Resolution before the House, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that many of these charges fall upon the counties near London, where the London police have to keep the peace. I know in Surrey that the Exchequer contribution received for many years has not increased, although the charges in the county have very considerably increased. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether the Treasury could not increase—as my hon. Friend below me suggested—the contributions to the counties. Another point that must be considered as far as the expenses in this Resolution are concerned is that while we are giving the police in the Metropolis what they ought to have, one day's rest in seven, the police in my own county of Surrey will possibly be forwarding their claims to their own Committee for a similar privilege of one day's rest in seven. I think that is a reason why the Government should take into consideration the necessity for an increase in the Exchequer contribution.

Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Friday).

Whereupon Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at Seventeen minutes after Twelve o'clock midnight.