§ Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHI beg to ask the Home Secretary whether the rejection of the Metropolitan Police Rate Bill by the House of Lords will have any effect upon the Government's promise to give the police one day's rest in seven?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)The rejection of the Bill, which had passed all its stages in this House by general consent, will seriously affect the financial position of the Metropolitan Police Fund as it will now be impossible to pass the Bill again by the date in February when the Metropolitan Boroughs require to have notice of the rate which is to be levied during the ensuing financial year. In the course of the last six years, owing to excess of expenditure over income, the working balance of the Metropolitan Police Fund has been gradually reduced by a sum amounting in all to nearly £200,000; with the result that it is necessary twice every year to resort to loans up to £200,000 in order to meet from week to week the current expenses. During the present year, the existing rating powers have been exercised to the full, and it is estimated that the income will barely meet the expenditure. Next year the expenditure is necessarily increased by large sums not only for normal increase due to growing population, and for the issue of heavy clothing, but also to meet the charges for the weekly rest day sanctioned in accordance with the intention of Parliament, and for the increased pay recently granted to the force with universal approval. The total increase of charge is estimated at £180,000. On the other hand, there will be a large falling-away of revenue, due to the failure of the Exchequer Contribution Accounts of London and Middlesex to meet their statutory requirements. This failure amounted in 1910–11 to £38,000; is expected to amount to a larger sum this year; and next year may be a still larger amount. In these circumstances, it was clearly necessary that I should take steps to prevent the Metropolitan Police Fund from falling into a state of insolvency. While I cannot doubt that this House will again approve of steps being taken to secure the revenue required to make good the promise made to the police, I have at this moment no course open but to suspend all recruiting for the purpose of the augmentation of 2844 the Force, including the augmentation necessary to provide the instalments still due of the weekly rest day.
§ Mr. W. THORNEI should like to ask how it is that the Government could not secure a majority in the other House, seeing there were only 15 for and 22 votes against?
§ Mr. McKENNAMy hon. Friend knows the composition of that House as well as I do.
§ Mr. W. THORNEYes, but you ought to have been able to get a majority in this case.
§ Lord BALCARRESDid the Home Office receive the assent of the London County Council for the raising of the rate?
§ Mr. McKENNAParliament gave the authority to the Home Office and not to the County Council in this matter.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSIs it not the fact that the controlling authority for the Metropolitan Police is the Home Office and not the London County Council?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes, Sir.
§ Lord BALCARRESBut it is the ratepayer, is it not, who will have to pay the increased rate?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe Bill gave the Home Office power to increase the rate from 9d. to 11d., but as I explained to those who acted on behalf of the London County Council, there was no intention to raise the rate next year to lid. I undertook not to raise it more than 1d. until an opportunity had been given in this House for debating the subject, and for giving sanction to the proposed increase of the rate.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEECould not the right hon. Gentleman raise the necessary money by way of loan?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, Sir, it is most undesirable for a public authority to live on borrowed money.