HC Deb 21 April 1911 vol 24 cc1258-70

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Major STANLEY

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I wish to point out that it is in the nature of an Amending Bill to include the Police Acts of 1890 and 1909. It is a very short Bill. I think I may claim that there is nothing controversial in it, and that the measure is one which may be supported in all parts of the House. In Clause 1 of this Bill it is provided that one-half shall be substituted for one-third in Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Police Act of 1909. That Sub-section was an application of Part II. of the First Schedule of the Police Act of 1890. That Schedule provides for the pensions and allowances to widows and children of constables dying from the effects of injury if accidentally inflicted whilst on duty. In that particular Bill there was no provision whatever made for for the widow and children of constables who died from the effects of injuries that had not been accidentally inflicted. Subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Police Act of 1909, laid down:— That where a constable loses his life from the effects of injury which is accidental, the police authority shall increase the pension to the widow to a sum equal to one-third of the annual pay of the constable. I propose that "one-half" shall be substituted for "one-third" in that particular case. There is a fixed sum laid down which has to be granted to the widow and children of a constable who dies from injuries accidentally inflicted. It is only natural that in the case of a man who dies from any injuries not accidentally inflicted, his widow and children should receive an increased pension. I think one-third of the annual pay of the constable is not putting that pension very high. I submit that where a man has died from the effect of injuries which are not accidently inflicted, to obtain those injuries he must have risked his life in some very desperate way, and in that case it is not too much to ask that the police authorities should give to the widow and children of such a man a pension equal to one-half of the annual pay of the constable.

Clause 2 is intended to be substituted for Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Police Act, 1890. That Section orders that if a constable to whom a pension has been granted because he was incapacitated from the performance of his duty dies from the effect of the injury within twelve months of the granting of the pension, the police authority may, II they think fit, grant a pension to his widow either for a term of years or otherwise. The House will observe under that Section it is oft entirely to the discretion of the police authorities as to whether the pension shall be granted or not, and I think the House will agree it should not be left optional to the police authorities to say whether or not the pension shall be granted. The police constable is already granted a pension while he is incapacitated from duty, and, I think, if he dies within twelve months of the infliction of the injuries, and while he is enjoying the pension, that pension should be continued to his widow after his death. It is not fair that it should be left entirely to the choice of the police authorities as to whether such a pension should be granted or not. A man who has the pension while he is incapacitated should know that it will be continued to his widow after his death. I think it should be most carefully laid down that that should always obtain, and it should not be left to the discretion of the police authorities. It is in order to effect that that this Clause is proposed to be substituted for Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Police Act of 1890.

Mr. EYRES-MONSELL

I am sure all Members who ever came into contact with the police have the greatest admiration for them, and the whole country sympathises with the Police Force. The idea of the first part of this Bill is to substitute one-half for one-third, so that the widows and children should get more than they do at present. There is, however, one point which may want amending in Committee. Under the Act of 1909 the widow at present gets one-third and each child one-fifteenth, but there is a further proviso that the aggregate is not to exceed two-thirds of the wages. It will be easily seen, if there is a very large family, the children will still get their one-fifteenth each, but the half will not be so much for the widow because the aggregate will still only be two-thirds. The meaning of the Bill is perfectly clear. We want to give the widow more, but in some cases it may turn out there would be some hardship on a widow with many children. The second clause is perfectly straightforward. There are not many men, as a matter of fact, who will come under this clause, and it will not make a great deal of difference to the ratepayers of the country. At present it is entirely at the discretion of the police authorities, and I think it should be made compulsory on them. First of all, it would let police constables know exactly where they stood, and, secondly, we can easily imagine a case where the local authority might be so ungenerous, not having funds at their disposal, as to slip out of this Bill through the word "may." It is a very good thing, therefore, that "may" shall be turned into "shall."

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman)

I am sure we all appreciate the lucidity and brevity of the hon. Gentleman responsible for this Bill to-day. I have just one word of criticism to offer—one on method, and one on substance. It is unfortunate this Bill was not printed and available before yesterday, especially as it affects the finances of local authorities which are outside the control of this House. It may not be a very large sum involved, and with the object of the promoters of this Bill everyone in this House is in sympathy, but we ought to be very chary about being generous with other people's money; and when we are hearing, as we hear every day, of complaints about the new charges thrown carelessly by this House on the local authorities, I think the local authorities ought to have some opportunity of looking at the legislation proposed. They have had no opportunity ill the case of this particular Bill, and for what reason I do not know. I agree there is much to be made out for special treatment in the case of those fortunately comparatively few members of the police force who meet with death in the execution of their duty. The increase of the pension from one-third to half, though it may be of some great advantage to the widows will not materially affect the resources even of the local authorities. I was going to note the point which the hon. Member for Evesham noted, that probably some Amendment in Committee may be desired if the promoters of the Bill do not want to make it harder for the widow with a large family than for the widow with a small family. Subject to those criticisms, the Government have no objection to offer to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY

I quite agree when a police constable has been injured in the service of the country he should be pensioned, and, if he unfortunately succumbs to his injuries, his widow and children should not be put in a worse position be-cause he has lived for some time than if he had died at once. There is a great deal to be said for the Bill, but we ought not to be continually amending Acts of this description. There must be some finality about these matters, and I do not think it is wise to come down within a period of two years and amend an Act. I understand the Government do not intend to offer any opposition to the Bill, and of course I do not intend to oppose the Second Reading, but I would point out that the Government's Bill of 1909 must be very defective if within two years it is necessary to alter it, and if that alteration meets with the support of every Member on all sides of the House, because up to the present I have not seen any signs of any hon. Member preparing to get up and oppose the Bill. There is the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Booth), who made an emphatic protest a few moments ago against the question then before the House, and I think he is not wanting in the courage of his opinions nor in his desire to give support to the Government, Yet he has not got up to point out that a Government Bill passed only two years ago should not require amendment now. It shows in a very striking manner that in what is after all a not very important matter, what is not a question of political controversy but is merely a departmental question, the Government cannot introduce a Bill which does not require amendment within two years, and at the same time the House of Commons cannot put the Government right. It seems to me that that is an extraordinarily strong argument against constituting this House a Single Chamber by which the whole future legislation of this country is to be managed.

Mr. LANSBURY

But the House of Lords also passed the Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY

I thought it was one of the reasons for the Parliament Bill that the House of Lords interfered with the measures of this House. I cannot, of course, go into the merits or demerits of the Parliament Bill, but I would suggest to the hon. Member who interrupted me that from his point of view the House of Lords always makes mistakes, and never does anything right. It surely is not an argument he is entitled to use that the House of Lords committed the same error as his own Government. They do not often do so as they generally amend the acts of a Radical Government, but that is no reason for saying that when they do pass the Bill of a Radical Government they do wrong in not amending it. I do not intend to oppose this Bill because I think there are very strong reasons in favour of it. First of all, I think it is evident that in these days the police are subjected to much greater danger than they used to be—danger both to life and limb. We have seen that in the last year or two. We all remember the case of the policeman shot at Enfield, and we all have in mind the occasion on which the Home Secretary so distinguished himself in his efforts to assist justice and direct the operations of the police. I do not know what would have happened if the right hon. Gentleman had been shot, and I suppose it would not be in order to raise that point now.

But still it is evident that the police now are exposed to very grave dangers to which they were not originally subject. Of course, when anything happens, there is naturally a very great feeling of sympathy on the part of the public towards the suffering officer and his wife and children. There is always opened immediately a large public subscription for their benefit. I think, however, that that is wrong in principle: the duty of providing for the necessities of injured officers or for the dependents of those killed should be borne by the ratepayers and taxpayers as a whole: it is not a burden which should be shifted on to the shoulders of the generous and charitable section of the community. The public are always most anxious to show their appreciation of services rendered by the police, but those who are not generously inclined should not shift their share on to the charitably inclined.

The Under-Secretary for the Home Department seems slightly amused with these remarks. I do not know whether he is one of those who has not subscribed to these testimonials, but he certainly should not treat this as a matter to be laughed at. There ought to have been no necessity to introduce this Bill. It deals with an extremely important matter. It provides for the necessities of policemen who are injured in the execution of their duty, as well as for the necessities of the dependents of the constables killed on duty. Nothing could be more serious. I congratulate my hon. and gallant friend, who is, I believe, a new Member of this House, on having brought forward so excellent a Bill, and on his perspicacity in choosing a day on which it could be read a Second Time. He showed the intelligence of an old Member in choosing his opportunity, and I look forward to seeing him occupy a prominent position in this House later on. May I, in conclusion, respectfully warn the Government to be a little more careful in the future in their departmental business, and to take greater care to administer their departments well and economically.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS

I should like to join in the chorus of appreciation in all quarters of the House, irrespective of party considerations of the merits of this Bill. We are all of us ready to acknowledge the services rendered by the police. We all also agree that when a public servant is incapacitated through the performance of his public duties, the public should undertake the responsibility of seeing that those who are dependent on him do not suffer. I was interested in one observation made by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). He now acknowledges that these cases are best met as a public charge rather than that these poor unfortunate men who suffer in the performance of their duty should have to rely on the generosity of the public. I am glad that the Bill has been introduced. It does remedy a defect in the standing law. But I have a pathetic vision of the hon. Baronet straining every endeavour to pass a perfect law which shall meet all exigencies.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not want to be misrepresented. I never said I could bring in a perfect law. I believe most laws are bad, and the fewer we have of them the better.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS

I am sure the hon. Baronet will acquit me of any intention to misrepresent him. It may be I did not thoroughly follow what he said. Nevertheless, I do regret the necessity for an amending Bill to be introduced, although it does add to the list of measures the hon. Baronet regrets to see in force. I should like to associate myself with those who support the measure.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

In view of the absolutely unanimous approval of this Bill, may I ask the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Department if he cannot persuade the Cabinet to star it and thus ensure early consideration for it, so that it may have a chance of passing into law this Session?

Mr. GEORGE THORNE

This is a measure which so materially affects the interests of municipalities that those bodies ought to have had larger opportunities for considering it. As a matter of fact, there has been a very short time to do it. I am informed, however, that certain representatives of the municipalities discussed the matter yesterday, and on their behalf I have been communicated with and asked to oppose the Bill, but I am not prepared to take that course. I am so entirely sympathetic to the objects of the Bill that I should not feel justified in opposing it here this afternoon. My only object in rising is to draw-attention to the interests of municipalities in connection with these matters. We can quite understand, as the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading said, this Bill does not involve a large sum, but, whether large or small, it will come upon the municipalities in the form of liability in a matter in which they have no control, and I would like to point out what our position is at the present moment. I think it is recognised on all hands that the expenditure on the police is a matter that, at any rate to a considerable extent, ought to be provided for by national funds, and I am hoping, when we have this readjustment between Imperial and local finance, this is one of the matters that will receive very ample consideration. There has been some consideration of this matter before, and I think it is very important to the question before us that we should understand what the relationship is between the local and Imperial exchequers. I am told that by the Police Act of 1890 and the Local Customs and Excise Act of 1890 the contribution of the Government towards the pension fund was provided for, and that the contribution to-wards such fund outside the Metropolis was limited to £150,000. At that time the Government contribution amounted to 65 per cent of the amount of compensation, leaving 35 per cent. to be made up out of the rates. The pensions have been very largely increased, and the Exchequer contribution, being a fixed sum, amounts now to only 28 per cent., or less, so that the ratepayers have to find upwards of 70 per cent., or about three-quarters of the amount. That disproportion which has gone against the interests of the ratepayer in comparatively recent years is a matter of very great importance to the ratepayers of the country generally, and requires very great consideration. While, therefore, I do not feel justified in opposing this measure, because I am so sympathetic towards its objects, I agree with all that has been said as to the obligation we are under to the police for what they do on our behalf. Consequently I do not oppose the measure, but am only putting in a plea in regard to the interests of municipalities, which must I should think have the hearty sympathy of the promoters of the Bill, because I am sure they would not wish to impose too great a handicap upon the ratepayers who are already heavily handicapped and retarded in their development. If the Government do not oppose this measure when we come to the question of readjustment later on, I hope they will take this subject into consideration and see that this is a part of the services for which the nation pays and not municipalities.

1.0 P.M.

Mr. CHARLES BATHURST

I only rise to express my entire sympathy with the words which have just fallen from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, but I would remind him that there are other local authorities in this kingdom besides municipalities, and speaking on behalf of the local authorities of the rural districts in which the burden of rates is far more severely felt than in any other rateable areas, I should like to say that this is only another instance of throwing a charge upon local authorities and their ratepayers to which those local authorities have not assented. So far I entirely agree with the criticism of the Under-Secretary of the Home Office: but there is a very strong reason for stretching a point in this ease in the direction of what is undoubtedly a mere logical matter of justice to the families and widows of those who have done public service. On the face of it, if the widow and the children of a police constable are entitled to receive some compensation or some recognition of his public service if ho were to die immediately after the accident, surely it is logical and equitable that they should receive the same benefit if there is an interval between an accident and death, if death is the direct result of the accident. I think there are very special circumstances in this case in which an extension should be made of the Act of 1890, but I think it comes a little ill from the representatives of the Government to suggest that it is wrong to throw charges upon the localities to which they have not assented. I entirely agree with that expression of opinion, but I am bound to say that it does not truly describe the general attitude of the Government Bench towards these questions. Over and over again Government Departments have actually thrown charges upon local authorities to which they have not assented, particularly in the field of education and as regards the housing of the working classes The Housing Act is an instance of throwing a charge upon the local authorities to which they have not assented. I do not desire in any way to oppose this Bill, but I am bound to say that this is a trend of legislation which wants to be very carefully watched, and it is only another case in which you have a logical illustration of the necessity of so altering the existing law that nothing should be done to throw a charge upon the localities to which they have given no assent whatever.

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present,—

Lord A. THYNNE

I do not wish to take up the time of the House on this Bill. I simply wish to join in the plea which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. George Thorne) with regard to the position of the Government, and particularly of the Imperial Exchequer to the localities in this matter. I should like to say that although it is perhaps regrettable that the local authorities have not had an opportunity of considering this Bill, I do not think it would be fair to represent to the House, and I am sure the hon. Member did not wish to do so, that the representatives of the local authorities who met yesterday and considered this Bill were really opposed to the objects which this measure has in view. The objections taken by the representatives of the local authorities yesterday may, in the main, be grouped under two heads. In the first place local authorities all over the country, quite rightly and reasonably, object to what they term piecemeal legislation in a matter of this sort. The fact that it is necessary to bring in an Act in the present year in order to amend the original Act of 1909 is not due to any fault on the part of hon. Members on this side of the House. The complaint of local authorities, in so far as it refers to piecemeal legislation, is directed against those who were responsible for the Act of 1909, and not those who brought in the present Bill, because on all sides of the House, and I think outside the House, everyone is agreed that it is desirable to increase the amount of the pension received, under the circumstances stated in the Bill, from a third to a half. If it is desirable to do that in 1911 I submit under the same circumstances it was equally desirable to do so, and there would have been an equal measure of general consent on the point in 1909, when the Home Office introduced their Bill. The only conclusion that those who have gone into the matter at all from the point of view of the local authorities can arrive at is that in 1909, when the Bill was under the consideration of the Home Office, it did not receive adequate consideration.

The second group of objections which were taken, I understand, yesterday by the representatives of the local authorities, extend over a far wider field. There are financial objections which have already formed the subject of discussion on several occasions during the present Session. I will not enumerate the various subjects, such as education, on which the local authorities have a grievance against the Imperial Exchequer. There is undoubtedly a good deal of force in the contention which has been advanced by the hon. Member (Mr. George Thorne) with regard to the obligation of the National Exchequer on a matter of this sort. I entirely agree with his contention that the police are to a very large extent a national service, and that a very considerable proportion of their expenses should be met out of the National Exchequer. That is no new principle. It is a principle which was acknowledged in 1890. Since that principle was recognised, I believe by a Conservative Government, in 1890, the position has become aggravated. In those days the Government was paying 65 per cent. of the costs of police pensions; now they are paying less than 30 per cent. I advance that not as an argument against the Bill, but as a strong argument for the Government giving their careful consideration to the question of financial adjustments, especially in relation to these pensions. I do not think, on this matter in respect of not having been consulted, and also in respect of the additional charge which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) mentioned upon local authorities, in the present instance the local authorities will have any substantial ground of complaint, because the cases which come under the operation of this Bill are very few in number, and, happily, only occur at rare intervals. Therefore, we may assume that although the provisions of this Bill are highly important to the individual members of the police force, they do not in the aggregate form the ground of any substantial cause of complaint to local authorities. While, therefore, heartily agreeing with what the hon. Member (Mr. G. Thorne) has advanced in regard to financial considerations involved in the Bill I shall certainly support the Second Reading.

Mr. BOOTH

I do not know that I should have risen but for the observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans). He suggested that this Bill was important enough and non-controversial enough to have an asterisk put to it. The matter was brought to the notice of the Government last night, and it was made plain that if this was made a Government measure they would be charged by hon. Members opposite with filching private Members' time. I cannot see any inconsistency whatever in such a suggestion as that being brought forward. For myself, looking at the Bill carefully, it seems to me another instance of what is becoming very frequent, namely, class legislation. I am not, generally speaking, enamoured of class legislation. I propose to make an exception in this case, and I will give what I think a very good and substantial reason. But I utter a warning to hon. Members that if they value Wednesdays and Fridays they should be a little better pro-pared when the opportunity comes. I protest, in my position as representing a constituency in the West Riding, that I have not had the slightest opportunity to consult them with regard to this Bill. It is printed at the last moment. I have a municipality in my constituency, an urban district council, a parish council, and a rural sanitary authority, and when I hear distinguished Members speaking about vast municipalities, it comes to me as a matter of great surprise. Large towns move quickly, but small towns and rural districts move slowly, and I ought to have had an opportunity of getting the views of the Pontefract Corporation, the district council and the parish council. Pontefract was more distinguished at one time than the constituency represented by the hon. Baronet.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not think so.

Mr. BOOTH

I think I could convince the hon. Baronet. The other places may seem a little strange, but they are very important to the people living in them. The members of these local authorities are giving their time for nothing. They are not looking forward to receiving £300 or £350 a year. They give their time and submit to petty persecutions. It is not the way to get good men on those bodies if they read their papers and find that Acts of Parliament are being passed which their members have no opportunity to peruse or to submit to their constituents. I would appeal to hon. Members, if they wish their measures to make any progress either after eleven o'clock, when everyone is tired, or on these special days, to give a little attention to the topics and see their Bills are presented in good time and properly presented. This Bill happens to be one upon which the House generally can agree, but I am pointing out the danger. Suppose a Bill like this were brought forward which might arouse serious controversy. I suppose that is the plea put in by the hon. Member who introduced the Bill, and we must accept it.

I now come to the reason why I can make an exception in this piece of class legislation. I am not at all sure that I shall make any more exceptions during the whole Session, and I give hon. Members full warning. There are certain rights still left to private Members which even the occupants of the Front Benches are unable to take away. I am usually in my place faithful to duty when hon. Members are hastening away to catch cars and trains. I warn hon. Members that they must not take this as a precedent, and I am sure the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) will agree with me that it is necessary to be vigilant at the usual times. An exception can be made in this case because it is more or less of a special kind. In the ordinary concerns of industry we can, if we like, give benefits or considerations to workmen beyond what the law requires. Good employers consult their workpeople with a view to that being done. In the case of the police, the State takes the chief responsibility, and therefore I admit it is the duty of the State to be a model employer. I do not at all agree with the doctrine that the State should lag behind private employers. That is the reason why I can make an exception in the case of the Police Force. They have exceptional responsibilities, and I would like to see the Bill passed into law with some suitable Amendments which I am sure the Home Secretary is perfectly capable of persuading the Committee to accept. I think what the Bill proposes will improve the status of policemen and enable them to set their minds at rest as to the position of the families after they have passed away.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.