HC Deb 17 March 1911 vol 22 cc2640-5

Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Pay and Expenses of Officers of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lord BALCARRES

On the Committee stage of this Vote the Home Secretary made an important statement about the sum which is asked from Parliament. He said he had expected that an Appropriation-in-Aid which will reduce this Vote would be forthcoming from the local authorities in questions, but that they had refused it. I take this opportunity of inviting the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement on that point. It is very important, not only to the London metropolitan taxpayer, but to the taxpayer at large, that we should know exactly how we stand with regard to what must be called an Appropriation-in-Aid for this Supplementary Vote. We should like to know how the agreement was arrived at that the local authorities should contribute, whether the agreement was in writing or not, whether it was made by and with the consent of a competent authority to guarantee the payment of money, and, m short, what prospects our taxpayers at large have of being relieved by a contribution from the Glamorganshire local authorities.

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

I do not think there is any prospect whatever of the taxpayer being relieved in this matter. On the contrary, the prospect is the other way. The amount in the Vote now under discussion—£15,000—was never expected to be reduced by any Appropriation-in-Aid from the source to which the Noble Lord has referred. It is the sum which must be paid, not for the ordinary costs of the Metropolitan Police while they were on duty in Wales, but for the extra allowances which were paid to them in consideration of their employment on duty so far from their own sphere. There never was any question of recovering any part of this £15,000 from the local authorities. There has, however, been a question of recovering from the local authority the ordinary pay of the police, apart from the special allowances, and an agreement to that effect was signed by the chief constable. Of course, we had to act in a great emergency, and there was not an opportunity for considering how far the chief constable was authorised or whether the acceptance of this aid by the chief constable was couched in due legal form. We had to accept such an undertaking as we could get in the crisis and emergency with which we were trying to deal, and I now understand that the Glamorganshire County Council Standing Joint Committee repudiate the signature of their officer, and, although they have profited by the Metropolitan Police during all these months, they propose to resist at law any attempt to impose upon them any portion whatever of the charge. The question of law is difficult and uncertain, and I am far from saying I am at all decided that we occupy a position of superior advantage in regard to the law. I have, however, laid the subject before the Law Officers of the Crown, and they have expressed an opinion upon it which is now being considered with a view to a decision whether action shall be taken or shall not be taken. Passing from the sphere of law to equity, I should think the case was a good deal clearer and I would very respectfully submit to the Committee that it is a subject which well deserves the future legislative attention of the House of Commons. It is a very unsatisfactory position of the law in which soldiers can be requisitioned to an almost unlimited extent without any reference to the central authorities, and that they cost nothing to the local authority, the whole cost being borne by the Imperial Exchequer, and yet that the charge for police, although they may be better suited to deal with an emergency than soldiers, can be repudiated.

Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE

Why the Metropolitan Police, which is partly paid for by the local authority in London?

Mr. CHURCHILL

The Noble Lord is surely aware that the Police Forces in all parts of the country are called to go to the aid of other police forces, and they frequently do, and the calls made on the Metropolitan Police have been much less than on other forces in other parts of the country.

Lord BALCARRES

Has this local authority refused to contribute to the cost of the police from half a dozen other districts who co-operated with the London police?

Mr. CHURCHILL

I do not know what they have done in respect of other authorities. It is only the Metropolitan Police, so far as I am advised, that they have refused to pay for. I daresay they have their own special reasons for that.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

At the Glamorgan County Council yesterday there was a statement made that a number of merchants in the Aberdare Valley who supplied provisions to the Metropolitan Police during their visit there are still without their account being paid, and the county council, owing to the refusal of liabilities, will not pay these accounts. Some of the merchants are on the verge of bankruptcy as a consequence. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not make an arrangement whereby, pending the decision of the legal point, the accounts of those merchants who supplied goods to the Metropolitan Police could not be paid?

Mr. CHURCHILL

I must consider that. The hon. Member might put down a question on the subject. I will certainly consider the point that the Central Government, whether it supplies military or police, ought to be in a position to recover, at any rate, a proportion of the cost. That appears to me to be the only check upon the altogether undesirable and unlimited use of these forces in local disputes. I am bound to say I can hold out no expectation of this sum being reduced. There never has been any expectation of that—but I can hold out a very considerable expectation that it will be increased if it should be decided not to press the case at law against the Glamorganshire County Council and that may well be decided in view of the opinions which the Law Officers have expressed.

Mr. ASHLEY

I think this is a very important point, and the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman is one of very great importance. Are we to understand that the present state of the law does not give power to the central authority to recover the ordinary expense from the local authority, and that it is the intention of the Government, as early as possible, to bring in a Bill to alter the law so that if a local authority does requisition police the ordinary cost of these police shall fall on the local authority and not on the taxpayers at large?

Mr. CHURCHILL

That was the view I was putting before the House, but I must not be understood to be specifically promising legislation on the subject. I think it is a desirable course. It is obvious that no part of the charge will fall on the ratepayers of London. If it is not paid by the Glamorganshire County Council it will be paid by the Imperial Exchequer.

Mr. PICKERSGILL

The action taken by the Home Secretary has an important effect with regard to the position of the Metropolitan Police as well as in regard to the Metropolitan ratepayers. So far as I know, there is only one authority under which police can be transferred from the districts in which they usually act into another district. That authority is Section 25 of the Police Act of 1890, which the right hon. Gentleman did not pursue. I think that has a most unfortunate effect on the position of the Metropolitan Police when they were sent down into Wales. As the House is probably aware, the law hedges round with special protection constables who are in the execution of their duty, but that protection is only given to them while acting within the district for which they are sworn. When, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman sent Metropolitan Police down into Wales he divested them of that protection which they would have had if performing their duty in London. The section to which I have referred meets the difficulty, because it specifically provides that police when they go into what I may call a foreign district shall have the same powers and privileges which are possessed by the local police. But the right hon. Gentleman did not pursue that section, and that special provision did not apply. Therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman put the Metropolitan Police in an unfortunate position. I should like to ask him whether, when he sent these police, he told them what their position would be. The more experienced Metropolitan police know the law, and they would naturally suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was pursuing Section (25) of the Act of 1890, which would give them the same protection in South Wales as they possessed here. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman further, whether the heads of the police informed the police who were sent down that they were not sent under Section (25) of the Act of 1890, and that when they got into South Wales they would be in the position of ordinary citizens and not in the position of police officers acting in the execution of their duty.

3.0 P.M.

I wish to say a word with regard to the position of the Metropolitan ratepayers and the claim which we have upon the County Joint Committee of the County of Glamorgan. The right hon. Gentleman the other night said that he intended to press his claim against the county of Glamorgan. When he said that, I ventured to make an interjection that he would fail in that claim. The right hon. Gentleman relies upon the signature of the chief constable of Glamorgan. That signature is not worth a snap of a finger. He has, I suppose, been advised by the legal gentleman at the Home Office that it is the chief constable of Glamorgan and the Joint Committee for the county which is the police authority within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. Although chief constables have undoubtedly very large powers, we have not yet come to the pass in which a chief constable can on his own initiative lay a heavy burden like this on the ratepayers of a county. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think it right to pursue this claim in the courts. It is only wasting time, and it is throwing good money after bad. He has referred to the Law Officers of the Crown. Until I see the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and not only the opinion, but the case on which it is given, I shall not believe that they advised the right hon. Gentleman that he has a leg to stand upon if he persists in pursuing the claim in the courts. The fact is that the law requires to be altered. What occurred in Glamorganshire might occur in any part of the country to-morrow. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to repeat the course he took as regards South Wales? If he does, he will again put the police in the unfortunate position I have described, and leave those responsible for the pay of the police without any claim against the authority of the district into which they go. It is clearly a case in which the law requires to be altered, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not waste time by pursuing a futile claim against the county of Glamorgan, but will at once proceed to ask this House to alter the law. I am perfectly certain that there will be no objection raised on any side to that course being taken.

Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."

Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage, and the Expenses of the Preparation of Medals, Dies for Postage and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals."

Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."

Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."

Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces."