§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Mr. McKENNAI beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill passed through all its stages sub silentio in the House last Session, but it failed to pass into law owing to its fate in another place. The urgency of the Bill is, I think, understood on both sides of the House, but perhaps two or three words may be usefully stated in explaining why it is that the present limitation of the power of rating imposed by Statutes on the Home Secretary should be removed. Under the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 and subsequent Statutes, the Home Secretary has within the limit of 9d. authority to impose a rate for the purposes of the police in the Metropolitan Police Area. The rate is imposed in London upon the borough councils, or, rather, is raised in London through the borough councils, and 1634 outside London through the parishes. Of that 9d., 4d. was in former years paid by the Treasury and 5d. was raised from the ratepayers. A rate of 5d. has been levied for very many years. It has been sufficient in the past, because the increase in the rateable value of London has been so rapid and continuous that the additional product of the rate year by year was sufficient to meet the increase in expenses on the police. Two circumstances, two evil influences, have recently affected the product of the 5d. rate. I speak of them as "evil influences," but only from the point of view of the Minister responsible for getting the money. In the first place, the rateable value of London has not been increasing of late, owing to a variety of causes, at anything like the same rapidity with which it increased in former years; and, secondly, what was the old Treasury 4d., and is now a contribution from the Exchequer contribution account, is no longer equivalent to a 4d. rate. For both those reasons the police revenue in the London Metropolitan area have been affected.
What is the actual condition to-day? What is the justification for the Bill which is now before the House? I will make a series of assumptions in order that the House may appreciate the exact financial position of the Police Fund at the present time. I will assume, in the first place, that in the coming year, and, of course, I am only giving assumptions, that there is no increase in the number of the police either to meet the growing requirements of the Metropolis or to meet the requirements for one day's rest in seven. I start with that as my first assumption. My second assumption is that there is no further decline in the contribution from the local taxation account due to the growth of expenditure on other services chargeable to the Exchequer contribution. My third assumption is that there are no special demands in the ensuing year upon the police for emergencies, such as labour troubles, and my fourth assumption is that no addition is made to the working balance, which has been depleted by the deficiency in previous years. I think the House will agree that I have there stated all the assumptions which, if accepted, would be the most favourable possible to the Police Fund, namely, that there should be no increase to meet the increasing demands of London, that there should be no additional recruiting in order to make good one day's rest in seven, that there should be no special demand on account of emergencies, and that there should be no 1635 making good of the already depleted working balance. I want the House to note the first figure which, upon these four assumptions, I have to name in regard to next year's revenue.
§ Mr. REMNANTYou do not refer to external demands?
§ Mr. McKENNAExternal demands are not paid for by London, and I am assuming no exceptional emergencies in London. On these assumptions the payments in 1912–13 are estimated to exceed the receipts by £82,500. With this deficiency staring me in the face, I have had no alternative except to stop all recruiting to meet either the additional requirements of the Metropolitan area or the requirements of the one day's rest in seven, because it is upon the assumption that there is no such recruiting that I am already faced with the deficiency of £82,500 for the coming year. Am I justified in acting upon these assumptions? If the Parliamentary pledges are to be made good—and hon. Members opposite will not mind my reminding them, as it is to their credit that they have been quite as insistent upon those pledges as other Members have—and the police are to get their one day's rest in seven, it will cost in the ensuing year £30,000. That amount has to be added to the deficit of £82,500. If I am to recruit on the lowest estimate I can make—and I would remind the House that it is a lower scale of recruiting than has been customary in past years—I must provide for an additional 200 men, whose cost would amount to £10,000. These three items together give a total of £122,500. The remaining item for which provision must be made is the deficit in the working balance. The working balance has been reduced to such a point that for many months in the year we have to live on borrowed money. It is estimated that the requirement to make good the working balance for 1912–13 is £108,000. Happily, that is not a recurring expense. But for that money we have been borrowing in the past. If we are to restore ourselves, not to as good a financial position as we had formerly, but to a sound financial position, we shall have to raise next year an additional £108,000.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERTo what figure is the right hon. Gentleman working when that sum of £108,000 is raised?
§ Mr. McKENNAIt varies at different periods of the year.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERCan the right hon. Gentleman give some comparison?
§ Mr. McKENNAI will tell the right hon. Gentleman roughly what it means. We still should not have enough money to finance ourselves the whole year through, but we should reduce our borrowing—I think I am right in my figures; if I am wrong I will correct them later—to two periods of about six weeks each in the year. In any case that is only a temporary matter. It is only for one year. But when I come to deal with the ensuing years hon. Members will see that the money will be wanted. Thus, making no allowance for special emergencies of any kind, and we ought to contemplate a requirement of that sort, the Police Fund will be short next year by no less than £230,500, which is roughly the equivalent of a penny rate. I have made no allowance for emergencies or for a decline in the local taxation account.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONBut you include the balance.
§ Mr. McKENNAI include the balance for 1912–13. It is obvious that in 1913–14 I should no longer have to raise that £108,000. That is for one year only. My working balance will be revised. Consequently, with the same penny rate, I start 1913–14 with £108,000. What additional expenditure have I to meet in 1913–14? I have to meet a further increase of £21,000, due to the cost of one day's rest in seven. I know that hon. Members opposite are experts on this subject, and they will remember that the cost of one day's rest in seven, which is very considerable, was not imposed all at once, but was spread over a period of four years, and 1913–14 is one of the years. I shall have to meet an additional expenditure of £30,000 in 1912–13, and a further £21,000 in 1913–14. I shall have to meet also for normal additions to the force a charge of £17,000, making a total of £38,000 additional, which leaves me with a balance in my favour, if the penny rate were raised, of £70,000. Consequently, I shall be able in 1913–14 to raise rather less than 1d. What happens in the year after? The one day's rest in seven will cost a further £3,000, and the ordinary increase of the police will add another £19,000, making an additional £22,000, and there are other heavy charges accruing in that year. Thus in 1914–15 almost the whole of the penny rate will once again be absorbed. When hon. Members remember that the penny that I have here named, 1637 though it is not the limit, allows me nothing for emergencies and nothing in respect of a decline, which we cannot fail to contemplate, in the local taxation account, I do not think it is unreasonable that I should ask the House to extend the existig limit from 9d. to 11d. Nobody recognises more clearly than I do that this is a somewhat exceptional power, given to the Home Secretary to impose a rate upon the Metropolitan Police district. It is a power many years old. It has never so far been quarrelled with. I quite recognise that it is a power which ought not to be exercised without an opportunity for criticism. When I came to the office which I now hold I found myself confronted with a deficiency. That deficiency had to be made good—there was no question about that. The Bill came on very late last Session. I had not been long in my present office at the time. I quite admit that it passed through this House on two evenings at a very late hour. [An HON. MEMBER: "In the morning."] Early in the morning. I am quite conscious of it. But no objection was raised. Had any objections been raised, no doubt better facilities for Debate would have been offered.
What happened subsequently? The Bill went up to the other place—I am speaking of matters which have been stated in the public Press and which are, therefore, matters of common knowledge. I am quite conscious that this power of rating should always be exercised by any Minister only subject to the opportunity of criticism by this House. I stated then, as I state now, that I cannot do without a penny, for reasons I have given. I undertook, as I undertake now, not to raise more than a penny without the House of Commons having an opportunity of criticising my proposal to raise any additional amount. But it would be unwise, very unwise, for the House to limit me to a penny. I might at any moment have a serious emergency occur—unhappily, we know that such emergencies can occur. I might have to raise more than a penny—and I might not have the opportunity of introducing a Bill again suddenly to raise a rate. With the assurance that I will not raise more than a penny, which is required now, without giving the House an opportunity of criticising an increased rate, I hope the House will be satisfied to give me the Bill, limiting an additional rate to 2d. I understand that it is common ground on both sides that this Police Rates Bill must be got through. I shall not now take up further the time 1638 of the House, but perhaps with the leave of the House afterwards I may be allowed to answer any points which hon. Members wish to raise.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERThe right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, has made one very valuable admission, and that is that this House of Commons ought to have the opportunity of criticising any considerable increase of police expenditure. [An HON. MEMBEB: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman did not give this House the opportunity last Session of criticising this very increase of expenditure which he is asking for to-night. That has been our great complaint. That was the great complaint of those who occupied similar positions to ours, or did, in another place; that there never had been any opportunity of criticising this demand on the part of the Government that the ratepayers of London should find another £460,000 a year for the police.
§ Mr. McKENNAI am not asking for that.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERThe Bill is to give you power.
§ Mr. McKENNAYes—power to the House.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERThe Bill is to give power to the Home Secretary to ask for it, and when Home Secretaries have power to ask for expenditure of this kind they are not very long before they use it. At all events we did not get an opportunity, and if there has been any delay in this matter of recruiting it is not the fault of the party of which I am a Member. No, and it is not the fault of another place either. The fault really was owing to mismanagement at the Home Office. Why did they introduce a Bill of this kind on 6th December? They must have known the situation months before that date. Yet they only introduced their Bill on 6th December, had it circulated on the 7th, and they rushed it through the House of Commons at three o'clock in the morning of 12th December, and two o'clock on the morning of 13th December. The only body that can speak on behalf of the ratepayers of London, the London County Council, were not cognisant of this Bill until 8th December. They never considered it before 12th December. It was absolutely impossible for me and other people to be here at that time to debate this question. There is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman says 1639 that it passed sub silentio through the House of Commons. We had no time whatever to get up the necessary information and the necessary figures to meet those figures which he would perhaps have givn if there had been debate, and which he has withheld from us till now. So I say if there has been any delay in this matter it is not our fault. Nobody wants to delay the passage of the Bill. We know that some Bill is necessary. We know that some demand is necessary. We know that the police require one day's rest in seven. That is the accepted policy on both sides of the House, and by nobody more than by my hon. Friend below me the Member for Holborn, who has always had this object so much at heart.
We all agree about that. None of us want to delay this measure for a moment. None of us want to put a single obstacle in the path of the right hon. Gentleman, in giving as soon as possible, the benefit of one day's rest in seven to the Metropolitan police. I say that the right hon. Gentleman must blame the mismanagement in his own office—very likely before he got there—for not having presented this Bill at a time last Session when it could have been discussed, and the questions which this Bill raises discussed. Even if defeated in another place it could not have been defeated by a mere handful, something like a score of those who assembled that night, had the Government supporters done their duty. The right hon. Gentleman should ask some of his colleagues on that! Three Members of the Cabinet at least who were there on that occasion thought so little about this Bill, or so little about the serious consequences of recruiting, that they went home to bed, and left the right hon. Gentleman to be defeated by a mere handful of those whom he was unable to conciliate because he could not come to terms with them. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues attached so much importance to this they might at least have ensured that highly-paid salaried Members of the Cabinet should have stayed up—it was not a late hour—and see that that Bill passed in another place, when the Bill did pass in this place where it was not discussed. The right hon. Gentleman, after all, has made a full and frank admission that the ratepayers, through the House of Commons, have a right to have a matter of this kind discussed. Surely they have cause for complaint.
1640 What does this Bill do? It imposes a new charge of £460,000 a year upon the police Metropolitan area. That is the first increase which has been made for forty years. For forty years the 9d. rate has found all the necessary expenditure for the police force in London, except for the police pension fund established by the Act of 1890. Up to the present the ratepayers have found that the limit of the 5d. rate is perfectly sufficient to find the whole of their charge, and the Government of the day, whatever be that Government, gave a Grant out of assigned revenues which was equivalent to the other 4d. That position went on very happily for a great number of years, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, whilst the increased expenditure on police was necessary through an increase in the population, there was a growth going on at the same time in the rateable value of London which made the increase in the income more than compensate for increase in expenditure. Then, as the right hon. Gentleman said, evil influences came in. Yes, Sir, they did! Nobody knows it better than I do. First of all, the increase in the rateable value of London did not continue at the same rate as it had been going on. Indeed, it has stopped altogether now, because, for the first time in the whole history of London, the result of the quinquennial valuation in London shows not an increase but an actual decrease.
Then another influence came in. The Exchequer contribution began to fall off. The Exchequer contributions are falling off, and I quite agree, unless we have some great change, there is likely, it appears tome, to be a still further falling off in the Exchequer contributions. This falling off is of the greatest importance to the ratepayers, because they have to find the deficit occasioned by the falling off in the Exchequer contribution. Therefore the ratepayers have to find not only their own 5d., but they have to find that 5d. plus any deficiency in the 4d. rate hitherto paid by the Government which the Grant from assigned revenues is not sufficient to produce. No wonder the poor ratepayers groan, and this position is getting worse every single year. The whole position is going in favour of the Government and against the ratepayers, and this Bill, for the first time for forty years, alters the relative proportions of the expenditure upon this great police force, which is borne by the Exchequer and the local ratepayers.
1641 9.0 P.M.
For forty years, up to now, the ratepayers have found five-ninths of the expenditure, and the Exchequer the other four-ninths. Now the right hon. Gentleman brings in his Bill, which, when carried into law, will alter the proportion to the detriment of the ratepayers, and the ratepayers, instead of paying five-ninths of the total cost of the Metropolitan Police Force, will pay, I think, seven-elevenths, and the Exchequer, instead of paying four-ninths, will pay four-elevenths. The proportion is for the first time altered to the detriment of the ratepayers, and to-day the ratepayer is beginning at last to wake up and to make a few calculations on his own account. He is beginning to see that everything is going against him now that this Government is in power. That is not the only case. I will not dwell upon other matters, but for a moment we must look upon the effect on the ratepayers as a whole. In education and other matters the Government proportion has become distinctly less and the ratepayers' proportion aggravatingly more. The ratepayer does desire to have some means, at all events, of discussing expenditure of this kind. I am one of the very last people in the world to even come within measurable distance of advocating that the London County Council, or any other body, should have control of the Metropolitan Police Force. I believe it is absolutely necessary to keep that body under the control of the Imperial Parliament, but because I believe that, and all the more because I believe it, I say the ratepayer, who has to find the increased burdens of the expenditure, ought to know that whenever these accounts are presented or new demands are made upon him that the House of Commons, at all events, will be able to give more care and heed to the demands made upon him for the very reason that he has no control over that force. He has no way except here, in the House of Commons, to criticise any expenditure which is made and which he has to pay. I could bring to my aid what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a speech I made in the House of Commons on an Amendment to the Address, said in the most emphatic way. He said those who were responsible for expenditure should be made to bear the burden. That is a point to which I will shortly address myself.
It is absolutely necessary that the ratepayers should be heard upon these matters. The ratepayer is not an unreasonable person, but he wants to be heard, and to 1642 know when expenditure of this kind is to be put upon him, after forty years, that there is a perfect justification for it. The line I have always taken since I have seen this Bill, and, indeed, since I have been able to go into figures and accounts—and these figures are very difficult for us to follow because they are not within our full cognisance—is that the right hon. Gentleman does not really want more than a penny. He would have done very well if he had only asked for a penny and not asked for power to impose twopence. I think he is going on almost dangerous grounds when he assumes that there will be no increase in the police force in the future. He is very cheerful if he assumes that. He told us there would be no more police required for labour disputes. I do not know whether he means labour disputes in London or elsewhere. Are there to be no more Tonypandys? We all hope so, but we do not feel at all certain about it, and we should certainly like to know whether he had in his mind that he will not require a large extra police force to be used for the purposes for which the police were used at Tonypandy and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that his predecessor took no less than 900 men of the Metropolitan Police force and sent them into Wales, and I think they were kept there three or four months. I have never been quite able to make out from any accounts I have seen where the money is going to come from to pay for that extra police force. The right hon. Gentleman assured me the other day, and I accept his assurance, that he is not going to put a farthing of that charge for extra police upon the London rates. I do not know where he is going to get it from.
§ Mr. McKENNAFrom the Estimates.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERThis is the first time we have heard that. As long as it is to come out of the Estimates the London ratepayers will pay their share in the share they pay of the Estimates. Are we to understand that the county of Glamorgan is not to be called upon to pay this money?
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is only primarily recovered from the Treasury, but it will not fall on London. It will appear on the Estimates, but that is entirely without prejudice to our claim against Glamorgan.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERIf it remains oh the Estimates and is never recovered London certainly will pay indirectly. I want 1643 to make it clear that London will not have to pay for the policemen sent to Tonypandy, either directly or indirectly. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Why should London keep a police force to suppress a riot in Tonypandy in regard to something which we cannot possibly control? Let those pay who cause the riot and the disturbance, and do not put it upon us. The right hon. Gentleman says that the London ratepayers will not have to pay any of the direct charges, but then there are indirect charges. I am quite certain that it is necessary to keep a reserve police force in London. It is just possible that that reserve is larger than is necessary, and that while the war expenditure on that police force may be met by those who live within the area of the war expenditure the peace expenditure may have to be met by the London ratepayers. I think we ought to be satisfied on that point. The right hon. Gentleman's fourth admission was that no further depletion of balances would take place. The right hon. Gentleman said, given all these assumptions, he made out that in 1912–13 he would want a sum of £30,000 in order to meet the demand for one day's rest in seven; £10,000 for 200 new men, and £108,000 to meet the deficit and provide a working balance, making £230,500 altogether, or just a tiny bit under a penny rate. That is the case of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is our case.
But why take a twopenny rate this year? Why not content yourselves with simply asking for what you know you want? I am not going to question those figures, but why is the right hon. Gentleman not content with asking for a penny rate? By doing that he would secure for himself all he can contemplate wanting for this year. I should like to see the figures of the balance, because I do not think it is necessary to have £108,000 for that purpose. The balance has been up and down for some time, and those who managed this fund had to borrow money frequently, and all the right hon. Gentleman can contemplate is that he might want a fraction more than a penny, and then he could do with a less balance until he could again come to the House of Commons and give reasons if he could, and probably as good reasons as he will give to-night. If he did that no doubt the House of Commons would vote the other 1d. rate. On his own admission it is necessary that the ratepayers should be protected by having some control. The ratepayers have practically 1644 no control over expenditure by this House, and the House of Commons is losing control over expenditure because of the enormous powers given to Government Departments to create expenditure and force it upon local bodies. I have already quoted the great power possessed by the Board of Education. The Home Secretary, too, has great powers, and I think in this case he is using them unnecessarily. The right hon. Gentleman scarcely contemplates that he wants more than a 1d. rate this year, and he says that next year he actually wants less than a 1d., and for 1913–14 and 1914–15 he says almost the whole of the 1d. will be absorbed. Why cannot he run the risk this year of slightly exceeding the 1d. rate because it would only affect his balance? I still say it would have been better in the interests of maintaining the control of the ratepayers if the right hon. Gentleman had asked for a 1d. until he was in a position to come down here and prove his case, and show the actual necessity for levying a 2d. rate.
We are face to face with an enormous increase in the Education Rate, and by a stroke of the pen we are going to have a 4d. rate. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes down with another 2d. rate, which makes an additional 6d. rate in the Metropolitan area. This affects very much the industries of London and our domestic life, and therefore we ought to be very careful what we do. I know money must be spent on necessary things, but we ought to be very careful about these rates, and this House ought not lightly to vote away the ratepayers' money. These matters are really national services to a large extent, and the incidence of a rate is not as fair as the incidence of a tax. Personalty does not come in, although it has to be protected by the police the same as realty, and I do not believe that that is equity or statesmanship. Look what the ratepayers have to bear besides this increase. The Police Rate is to be increased from 9d. to 11d., the ratepayers finding 7d. and the Government 4d. Look at the deficiency in the Police Pension Fund arising out of the Act of 1880. Consider for a moment what that is going to cost the ratepayers. I know we all voted for those pensions, but when they were first introduced there was a surplus of £2,000. In the second year there was a deficiency of £12,000; in the year 1910–11 the deficiency amounted to £282,814, and now the deficiency in 1911–12 will take the yield of 1¼d. rate to meet it. The estimate I have had given to me is 1645 that the deficiency will ultimately and very shortly amount to £500,000 per annum, or equal to another 2¼d. rate. That is a very serious thing for the ratepayers. On the London County Council we have always wanted to discuss police finance with the Home Secretary.
We do not in the least aim at taking away executive power from the Home Secretary, but where these huge sums have to be raised from the ratepayers' pocket we ought to be called in at a very early moment, and we should have the opportunity of looking at all these figures in order to see whether we could suggest any economy or any possible readjustment of the burdens placed upon the ratepayers. The report of the Local Taxation Commission recommended that half this expenditure should be borne by the Exchequer and half by the ratepayers, but the proportion should not be altered to the detriment of the ratepayers, and when the Government impose these new charges they ought to bear their fair share of the charges forced upon the ratepayers for these great national and Imperial services. We should like to discuss such questions as the high ratio of the police force in London—what it means and where it is going—so that we ourselves may be able to defend it at Election times, which come in London once a year. We should like to discuss the question of the financial position of the pension fund, the question of the inadequacy of the Government Grant of 1909, and most especially we should like to discuss the proportion the Exchequer contribution now bears to the burden which is thrown on the ratepayers in London. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for, at all events, inviting us to discuss these matters. The London County Council has sent him a letter—I think it only went to him yesterday—suggesting that we should at least meet, and that the figures should be agreed upon between us so that we need not go on everlastingly disputing about them. As we largely represent the ratepayers of London, those figures ought to be known to us, and I believe when they are we shall have a more satisfactory basis for any discussion to which the right hon. Gentleman may invite us. Without in the least desiring to encroach upon the powers of the Home Office or of the right hon. Gentleman, all we wish to do is to see that no more money is taken from the ratepayers' pockets than is absolutely necessary, and that the money is spent wisely and well in the interests 1646 of the ratepayers of London, who have to bear the majority of the expenditure.
§ Mr. W. THORNEThis matter is of the utmost importance to the people I represent. The last speaker only referred to London. I would like to point out that there are other people who come into the discussion.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERI spoke of the Metropolitan area, which is different from London proper.
§ Mr. W. THORNEI am glad to have that correction, because the people in West Ham and in Croydon are affected in exactly the same way as the people in London proper. It is not my intention to prevent in the slightest degree the police having one day's rest in seven. From the very first time I was elected to this House, I have made declarations to the electors that I would do all I possibly could to obtain for the policemen one day's rest in seven. I am sorry to say that up to the present that has not altogether been granted, the excuse given on one or two occasions being that there is not sufficient police. I am convinced in my own mind there are quite sufficient policemen now to give one day's rest in seven if there was a better distribution, because the information I have received from the police is that some divisions are overcrowded. I do not think therefore the extra police will be at all required. The Home Secretary stated that when he entered upon his present office there was a deficiency. I do not know whether that deficiency was caused by sending the police down to South Wales. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I take it it helped to swell the difficulty, because I presume the police that were sent away were paid from this particular fund, and we have had no indication from the Home Secretary as to whether the whole of that money is going to be refunded. If it is not, it simply means that London will have to bear a portion of the expenses, even if it comes out of the Exchequer Grants.
This House, by all kinds of legislation, is simply placing extra burdens upon the local authorities, and I think the Imperial Exchequer should bear a greater share of these local expenses. The Home Secretary is really in this Bill asking for a 2d. rate. The present contribution from the Imperial Exchequer is 4d., and 5d. is contributed from the local authorities. He is now asking for another 2d., 1647 which will mean that 7d. will be paid by the local authorities and 4d. by the Imperial Exchequer. That will make the rate for the Metropolitan Police higher than that of any other local authority in the country. In many municipalities where the local authorities have the control of the police, the wages and conditions are even better than they are for the Metropolitan Police, and yet we find that in Leicester the rate is 5.3d., in Newcastle 5.5d., in Derby 5d., in Sunderland 5.9d., and in Southampton 5.5d. As a matter of fact, in several other boroughs the rate is very much less than that. I admit, of course, there are one or two places, like Manchester and Liverpool and one or two other large towns, where the rate is over 5d. In some cases it works out at 6d. in the £.
This addition will make £11,000 difference to us. That means a 2d. rate. The rates are exceedingly heavy at the present time, chiefly because our education rate is one of the highest in the country, although we admit the Government have from time to time made handsome contributions to our local authorities, amounting, I believe, in some cases to between £50,000 and £60,000. We admit the Home Secretary wants this extra money, but to ask the local authorities—the Londoners and the people in places like West Ham, East Ham, Croydon, and the like—to bear the whole burden I think exceedingly unfair, because, as a matter of fact, the Metropolitan Police is semi-Imperial. They do many duties that other police authorities are not called upon to perform at all. The police, for instance, are sent from the Metropolitan area to Epsom and other races, when they are on. I will ask the Home Secretary if it is not possible to make a compromise on this matter, the Imperial Exchequer paying 5d. and the local authorities 6d. I believe if the Home Secretary would agree to that he would get the Bill through very much easier than perhaps he anticipates. I have been led to understand that when the Bill goes to Committee there is no possible chance of carrying out that suggestion. If that is so, one is placed in an awkward position. I do not want to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, because I shall be charged with trying to deprive the police of one day's rest in seven. I do, therefore, ask him to see if it is not possible to make a compromise, getting 5d. from the Imperial Exchequer and 6d. from the local authorities.
§ Mr. REMNANTI should like to supplement one or two things said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher). I think he clearly showed that if the Home Secretary had treated us at the end of last Session in the same way as he has treated us to-night much of the misunderstanding which arose would have been avoided and the Bill would have been passed into law. There is no doubt that at that time party feeling was considerably excited, due to the fact that the Bill was brought forward in the way it was in order to throw odium upon another place. The right hon. Gentleman has been a keen advocate of this all through. In fact, one may say that from the beginning all the sections of the House agreed—and have carried out that agreement with very few exceptions—to treat this as a non-party matter. It is one of the few questions on which we could have had the pleasure of acting on non-party lines. If that had been understood at the end of last year I think the right hon. Gentleman would have agreed that the contention of another place was right, and that if he had consented to take the penny, which is all that is justified, the Bill would have gone through. The right hon. Gentleman for the first time has given us a large number of figures, but they do not quite explain the situation. We are all agreed that we are going to pass the Bill, but we want to know more about this mysterious burden which is to be thrown on the Metropolitan ratepayers. It is only fair we should get fuller information than has been given to us to-night.
In 1907 the whole question of the cost of one day's rest in seven was very carefully gone into, and the Government, at that time, did not show any great keenness to incur the extra expense, which was put at £147,000 as the outside cost. Those who have studied this police question closely were convinced that it could be carried out for a very much less sum, and the discussions which have since taken place must have created in the mind of hon. Members an impression that the police force is not administered in as economical a way as it ought to be, and that much improvement in the administration could be carried out if the right hon. Gentleman had the time and his Department had the determination to undertake it. Now this expenditure of £147,000, or, with the pensions added, of £178,000, has, in great part, been already incurred. The police force are to-day in receipt of two days off every 1649 three weeks, and, deducting that from the original Estimate, I suggest the right hon. Gentleman cannot in any way justify the demand for £230,000—or a penny rate. He told us he wants £82,500 for the further expenses of the police. What are those expenses? Does he include the 1s. 6d. per week—the increase given by his predecessor just before he went out of office?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes.
§ Mr. REMNANTBut that was subsequent to this promise of one day's rest in seven, which was a pledge by the Government to redress a grievance that everybody admitted should have been redressed long ago. The one day's rest in seven arrangement should have been carried out before any subsequent agreement was given effect to, and for a very small sum it could have been done. The right hon. Gentleman the other day said, that if it had not been for the recruiting necessary for this one day's rest in seven he would have been able to make both ends meet. His words were that "it would not have required an additional penny to enable us to make both ends meet if we discontinued recruiting."
§ Mr. McKENNAThere was £82,500 short.
§ Mr. REMNANTThat is not what the right hon. Gentleman said.
§ Mr. McKENNAI think it is quite clear from the words I used.
§ Mr. REMNANTThe words were "making both ends meet if we left off recruiting." The right hon. Gentleman will agree that that does not lend itself to his suggestion.
§ Mr. McKENNAI did not say that.
§ Mr. REMNANT"It would not have required an additional penny to enable us to make both ends meet if we discontinued recruiting." Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words. I think he is right. But I think his figures go to show that the penny which he could have got last year, and which he will get to-night would be quite sufficient to carry out all the present day requirements or possible requirements without asking for the larger sum of 2d. Why should not the Government pay part of this? It may properly be put down as an Imperial charge.
§ Mr. REMNANTIt is an Imperial charge also, otherwise the hon. Gentleman does 1650 not agree with the present system, under which taxation is borne partly by the Imperial Exchequer and partly by the London ratepayer. Of course, I quite understand hon. Members who live outside the London area wishing to avoid any further burden in the shape of Imperial taxation. But the services rendered to the Imperial taxpayer by the London police are admitted. London already bears a much larger share of taxation than other places, and I submit that this share, which it is now proposed to put upon it, should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what part of the figures he gave us represents the deficiency on the Superannuation Fund, because, under the Bill we have before us to-day there is no question of repealing the Act of 1890, which does away with setting any limit on the rate to be raised for the purposes of the Superannuation Fund.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe deficiency in the Superannuation Fund is not included in the £82,500.
§ Mr. REMNANTMay I ask if the right hon. Gentleman contemplates making up that fund out of the 2d. which he asks for to-day?
§ Mr. McKENNAThere is an independent power of rating in order to make up any deficiency in the Superannuation Fund. It is an unlimited power. I can only charge that rate against the Superannuation Fund. I cannot impose it on this charge.
§ Mr. REMNANTAnd therefore the unfortunate ratepayers of the Metropolis, in addition to the 2d. we are asked for to-night, have the risk of several pennies being added, because in 1911, the deficiency amounted to £284,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the same in the provinces."] This is not a party question. I would sooner sit down than that it should be treated in that spirit.
§ Mr. McKENNAI am only quarrelling with the expression "several pennies." It is only a penny and one-eighth, and it will not go up.
§ Mr. REMNANTAt any rate, we have got considerably more than half way to 2¼d., and we have a huge burden thrown on the Metropolis. The hon. Gentleman opposite said quite truly that he had done his best to give the men this benefit, but that he objected to this huge extra tax 1651 thrown upon West Ham of £11,000, and I have a letter from Lambeth showing that it is another £16,000 there, and in Croydon it is a much larger sum. I believe the ratepayers of the Metropolis are perfectly willing to incur any large expenditure within reason if they get good value for it, but they feel that the Government have rushed this thing through in an unreasonable way, and they will be grateful to hon. Gentlemen who have given us this opportunity of seeing exactly where we are. We do see where we are; we are incurring this huge expenditure, and the Government will not do what all who understand the situation think they ought to do, and that is to bear a share of this huge expenditure. I am going to support the right hon. Gentleman in getting the penny, but I think he would be wise in his own interests and the interest of his Department if he would agree to take the penny to-night. He then might grant a Departmental inquiry into this whole question of local and Imperial taxation. An hon. Friend says "Split the difference." If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to do that I think he would gain the support of the whole House.
§ Sir ALBERT SPICERI want to raise my voice in support of some things which have been said by friends on the other side of the House. I am sure we London Members want to see these men get one day's rest each week as early as possible, but we have fair ground for protesting against London being called upon to pay the whole of the cost. Up to the present moment London has borne a certain proportion, and the Exchequer has borne a certain proportion, and it is surely fair when this extra charge is being incurred that the increased expenditure should be divided between London and the Exchequer in exactly the same proportion. I do not think it is right that London should be called upon to pay the whole of the extra charge, and as a London Member I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he could in some way or other meet us in this matter. We do not want to go back to our constituents and say that our own Government treats London differently to what it treats other parts of the country. All we ask for is fair play between London and the Exchequer, and I do trust he will consider our position.
§ Mr. CASSELI think this discussion, at all events will have convinced the right 1652 hon. Gentleman that this was not a Bill which could have been carried through all its stages so late in the year as the 12th or 13th December without any opportunity for discussion, and that it was not a Bill that ought, in the first instance, to have been brought in on the 6th December and circulated on the 7th December without one word of pre-communication with the local authorities. He has told us to-day that he thinks the local authorities should have an opportunity for discussion. I ask him whether it was fair or reasonable to introduce this Bill without giving some warning to the local authorities of what he was going to do. When he attempts to blame the action of another place let him remember that in another place they were ready to give him one penny if he would give them an opportunity for discussion on the other penny. In answer to that he said he would only give an opportunity for discussion on his own salary. He knows perfectly well that that is a matter which would have to be treated as a party question, and could not be treated otherwise. I wonder if the undertaking to-night that he would give the House an opportunity for discussion of the other penny meant that he would do so on his own salary. I would like to hear what he has to say on that when he comes to reply. Like other Members who have spoken, I am going to support the Second Reading. None of us want to stand in the way of the Metropolitan police having that one day's rest in seven. There are three points the right hon. Gentleman dealt with. First, why did he not make it only the penny? His own figures have only justified the penny. The precedents for eighty years are against increasing the rate by more than a penny at a time. The rate began in 1829 with a limit of 8d., and for forty years remained at 8d., and then was increased to 9d.
I ask him to say whether there is any record in the history of the Metropolitan Police of any occasion upon which the rates have been increased by more than a penny at a time. The figures he gave went to show that, until 1915 at least, not more than a penny would be required. In connection with these figures, when he was dealing with the £82,500 deficiency, was he taking account of what we were going to get back on account of the cost of the strike at Tonypandy, and if so, how much? He told me that at present London was bearing the burden of this expenditure, but I understood that he was going to give back to London an amount equal to that 1653 expenditure; therefore the deficiency would be diminished by that amount. It is almost, impossible for us to deal with these figures on the spur of the moment. I would like to ask him also whether it is right that the local authorities should not have been consulted before there was any increase in the rates and not kept until the last moment when the expenditure had been incurred, and the only question was the making of the rate. Should they not be consulted when it was a question of adding to the expenditure? Then there is this extraordinary position, in which this matter differs from the case of any other local authority. They bear the whole expenditure. Any increase in the expenditure falls upon the local authority, and the local authority has absolutely no control.
§ Mr. CASSELThe position in the provinces is vastly different, because there the county councils have control. There is no case in the provinces where the Home Office has control. In this case the Home Office has full control, and I agree that it ought to have control in the special circumstances of the Metropolitan Police; but whilst the Home Office has the whole control, the whole of the expenditure falls upon the locality. It does not matter to the Home Office in the least whether expenditure goes up or not; they have not got to pay a halfpenny of it. Whether it be 1½d. for the Pension Fund or 2d. for the General Police Fund, the Imperial funds do not bear a halfpenny of it. The whole control of that expenditure is with the Home Office, and the whole of the burden falls upon the local authorities. The third point is that at least the same proportions ought to be observed as before, and we ought not to be charged with more than5–9ths of the whole expenditure, which is the amount which was recognised as the proper proportion for the local authorities to bear. If it was the right proportion in the past why is it not the right proportion now, and why should the whole of any additional expenditure now fall entirely upon the local authorities and no part of it upon the Treasury at all? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1910 admitted that this question of the increase of the rates was so serious a matter that it was arresting the whole of local development, and was stopping the local authorities from being able to carry out their own 1654 duties in the matter of housing and sanitation, and he promised that whoever stood at that box in 1911 would deal with the question, and Lord Crewe in another place also promised categorically that whoever stood in that box would deal with the question. Since then a Committee has been appointed, the scope of whose reference is so wide that the probability of their reporting for a considerable time is remote. Why should London have to pay more than the share that it paid in the past because the Government have appointed a Committee which is inquiring into the question of the rating of site values? Why should London be fobbed off with this Committee on a question, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted to be so urgent that it had to be dealt with at once, until a Committee reports on an entirely different question, and not be entitled to receive the same proportion as they did in the past? They suffer in two ways. They suffer not only from the increased expenditure, but also from the diminishing Exchequer contributions.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEI hope the right hon. Gentleman has observed the general unanimity in all quarters of the House on this question, especially on the part of Members representing London constituencies. I am in the fortunate position of not representing a London constituency and yet, with my knowledge of London figures and the position of affairs as between the London Exchequer and the Imperial Exchequer, I cannot shut my eyes to the force of the contention advanced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fishes). I should like to join the general chorus of congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman on his change of tone in this matter. If he had adopted the same conciliatory attitude last December we should not now be engaged in discussing this question. I do not wish to rake up what occurred last December, but I feel that in this matter, after the amount of capital which was made by certain hon. Members opposite, it is impossible for us altogether to let bygones be bygones. We have two great complaints in regard to what occurred last December. In the first place, we complain of the manner in which the whole question was rushed through the House of Commons, and we complain, in the second place, that the London County Council, the only body that is entitled to speak collectively on behalf of the ratepayers of London, was 1655 given absolutely no opportunity even to form an opinion of the Bill before it was passed through its Second Reading stage.
I think we might also complain of the Bill being taken to-night at an unnecessarily early stage in the Session, because, while this is the 29th February, the Bill was only ordered to be printed on the 20th. Therefore the London County Council, the county of Middlesex, and the other authorities inside the Metropolitan Police area have only had nine days in which to discuss the Bill. I think the House ought to regard with a certain amount of jealousy the position of right hon. Gentlemen in this matter. There is no Minister of the Crown who enjoys to the same extent the power of taxing his fellow-subjects by an administrative act of his own without coming to the House for authority on each occasion. I am fully in agreement with the increase of pay which was recently accorded to the Metropolitan Police, but I take exception to the manner in which it is granted by an administrative act on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who is able for that purpose to expend funds which have to be raised by representative bodies who are not consulted in the matter at all. The right hon. Gentleman Las the power of increasing the number of the police within very wide limits indeed; also, by an administrative act and also without consultation with the authorities who have to pay for the increased numbers. In the third place, this increase in numbers and in pay must ultimately react upon the amount of the deficiency of the Pension Fund, and as to the amount of deficiency which the right hon. Gentleman is thus able to place upon the local rates, there is under the Act of 1890 absolutely no limit at all. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the present figure of 1½d. in the pound. I think the correct figure is 1¼d.
§ Mr. McKENNAVery likely.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEBut he said it was not likely to arise.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Member who was speaking said it was likely to rise to 7d. I said that was quite impossible.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEI understand it is to be 1½d. this year, and within a very short time it is going to amount to over £500,000. Anyone who has any knowledge of local finance in London, or in any other great city, knows that 1656 £500,000, although it is a small matter to Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who are accustomed to deal in tens of millions, is a very serious matter for those engaged in local finance. The point I wish to make is that it is a very serious power that we are entrusting to the right hon. Gentleman, and we ought to make sure that even if we do not force him to consult the local authorities, who are going to stand the racket of these administrative acts, we ought to make sure that he is forced from time to time to come back to this House and receive its authority for his action. In the very illuminating correspondence which took place in the "Times" newspaper between the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Midleton, he suggested that a fitting opportunity for discussing a matter of this sort and enabling the House to keep a check upon him, was when the question of his salary came up for discussion. The question of a Minister's salary is always treated as a matter of confidence by the Government of the day, but quite apart from that, Members who have attempted to speak on these questions of reductions of Ministers' salaries, know that when a large and important Department like the Home Office is concerned, there are 101 questions which occupy the interest of the House. It is quite possible therefore that very important administrative acts of the Home Secretary in relation to matters affecting the Metropolitan area escape criticism on account of greater attention being devoted to the administration of the Factory Acts or other equally important subjects. I cannot help regretting that the right hon. Gentleman, at the end of last December, tried to make party capital out of the rejection of this Bill by the other Chamber. I think the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has furnished to the House today refute altogether his contention of last December that the rejection of the Bill by the other Chamber had stopped the granting of the weekly day of rest to the Metropolitan Police. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, in the face of the figures furnished to the House this evening, will not attempt to justify the contention he put forward in his correspondence with Lord Midleton. I would point out that he has admitted to-night that the further sum required for the weekly day of rest is only £30,000. Everybody who has studied the figures knows perfectly well that for the current financial years that matter was assured, and that, as other Ministers have admitted, really the great part of the extra 1657 taxing power was required for wholly different purposes. I think under those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman was hardly justified in informing Lord Midleton that he and those who supported him must bear the full responsibility of deferring the grant of a further instalment of the weekly rest day. I think that is a most unjustifiable statement. The motive that prompted the right hon. Gentleman to try to make party capital out of the municipal grievance in this matter is still more unjustifiable.
10.0 P.M.
I would point out also that the right hon. Gentleman is departing from precedent and the promises made by his distinguished predecessor. The London County Council have on different occasions approached the Home Office and invited that Department to consult them in regard to the administration of the Metropolitan Police, and to keep them informed as to the details of expenditure. The present Lord Gladstone, who occupied the position which is now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman recognised our claim—our right to be so consulted and informed, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way prior to the introduction of this Bill to carry out Lord Gladstone's undertaking in this matter and to consult the London County Council, who represent the ratepayers, and who are responsible to them in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, in his calculations, fully admitted that the extra penny which another place was prepared to accord him last December is fully sufficient for two years. He has furnished an elaborate calculation as to what may happen in the year 1914–15. I submit that he cannot, in the face of what has been said by the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place, take up that standpoint to-night. I should like to put to the House a very short passage from a speech by Lord Ashby St. Ledgers. He stated that a Departmental Committee had been appointed to go into the whole question of the readjustment of local taxation, and that the Committee is sitting at the present time. I think, therefore, that the provisions of this Bill may fairly be regarded as being temporary and provisional, and that this extra rating power was only asked by the Government last December to enable them to tide over that period until the whole question of local and Imperial taxation had been properly dealt with on the recommendation of the Royal Commission.
1658 In conclusion, I should only like to say that I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend who preceded me. He said that he is prepared to maintain the proportion of five-ninths as the proper basis on which to divide expenditure between the Imperial Exchequer and the local authority. I would like to remind the House that the Royal Commission, so far as the rest of the country is concerned, have suggested a basis of half and half. If it is right and proper that the Imperial Exchequer should bear 50 per cent. of the cost of the police in country districts, and in other cities, surely in London they ought to bear a still larger proportion, because the Metropolitan Police perform a very large proportion of functions which are of a national and not of a municipal character. I would remind the House that per head of the population in London the police administration costs 7s. 9d. as compared with an average of 3s. per head of the population in the rest of the country. London is quite prepared to pay an additional sum for the privilege of being the Imperial Capital, but I think there are bounds to the satisfaction of that pride. I hope, when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will see his way to make some concession, seeing that both sides of the House are supporting the principle of the Bill, and that he will reduce the figure from 2d. to 1d., and come to the House again next year if it is necessary to raise an additional sum.
Mr. CHANCELLORI am able to agree with nearly everything that has fallen from the hon. Members who have spoken on the other side of the House. The Metropolitan Police is unique in that it exercises functions over an area, the inhabitants of which have nothing to do with the number engaged, the amount paid, or the administration of the force in any way whatever. Many of their functions are not local in any sense. They are an Imperial far more than a local force. The numbers are also maintained at a figure very much greater than is necessary for local purposes, and a margin is kept up which enables them to be drawn upon for service in other parts of the country. The reason why the cost is so great is because the numbers are larger than would otherwise be required. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that the whole cost of the duties performed outside their area by the Metropolitan Police is paid from outside sources. Is that true? I am told that in connection 1659 with the Investiture of the Prince of Wales at Carnarvon an expense of over £2,000 was incurred which was to be charged against the Carnarvon County Council, but that the charge was revised and reduced to the sum of £53. I presume, therefore, that the balance of that will have to come out of the pocket of the ratepayers of London, or I should like to understand from what source it will be derived.
The charge for the paying of the police in London is raised without any consultation of the people of London. They have no means whatever of fixing any of the conditions under which the Metropolitan Police perform their duties. They are taxed without being represented, and they are rated by Imperial authority, so that my hon. Friend from Liverpool, who is protesting against the protests of the London Members, has as much to do with the levying of this rate, but not the paying of it, as we who live in London. I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary may give us an assurance that even if he gets this Bill through in its present form some consideration will be made in future increases of the charge in London, especially seeing that London at present is worse treated than any other part of the country in regard to the assigned revenues. A few years ago there was a margin of something like half-a-million available for reduction of the London rates. That has entirely disappeared, not through extravagence in the administration of London, but through the increasing charges due to legislation proposed by both sides of the House from time to time, which has eaten up the whole of that balance. To-day the proportion of local expenditure borne by the National Exchequer in London is only about 15 per cent. of the whole, whereas county boroughs and counties throughout the country for the most part receive from 20 to, I think, 48 per cent. of their total expenditure from Imperial resources.
Considering the heavy burden of rates which falls, especially in some parts of London, like the part which I represent myself, I do think that we ought to have more consideration from the Government, whichever side is in power, than we have enjoyed in the past, and when these extra expenditures are incurred, expenditures with which we have every sympathy—because I consider that the granting of one day's rest has been far too long delayed—I think that, considering that the force is really not a local force, and that it per- 1660 forms Imperial rather than local functions, the whole of this additional expenditure should be met by a Vote on the Estimate, and not by an increase of the rates at all. Had that been done there would have been no necessity for a Bill of this kind. The Home Secretary would have been able to increase this force without consulting the people of London, and without raising any protest from them, to a sufficient number of men to enable him to give a day of rest and to get this matter through even without public discussion. I am glad, however, that the discussion has taken place, and I hope that the Government will realise that all the Members for London, on whatever side they sit in this House, think that London should be considered in regard to questions of rating, and the readjustment of local and Imperial taxation, about which an inquiry is now being made. The question is long over ripe for settlement, and we hope that the report will very soon come forward so that some proposal to readjust these burdens more fairly than in the past will come before the House.
§ Mr. DICKINSONI congratulate my hon. Friends opposite on the skill which they have shown in running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. I hope that hon. Member's who have been expressing their anxiety that this Bill should pass, will not, if this Bill passes, appeal to the ratepayers of London for a verdict against the Government on the score of the expense that is put upon the rates. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), and can point out to him a way in which this difficulty—for it is a difficulty—can well be met. He took exception to the fact that this proposal to put an additional charge upon the ratepayers was made by an authority that did not represent the ratepayers. That is perfectly true, and if he will join with us in demanding a remedy by giving the control of the police to the ratepayers of London, I can assure him that he will find us his most active supporters, and if the county council now even, as my hon. Friends have a majority on the council, will make such a suggestion as that, I believe it will not be impossible to carry it through. I take exception to the provisions of the Bill on one point only. I regret that my right hon. Friend has thought it necessary to ask for 2d. instead of 1d. Upon his own showing, 1d. is sufficient for the immediate necessities of the case, for at any rate, two or three years, 1661 and in view of the fact that the whole of this question of local taxation is now before Parliament, and must be reported upon in due course within a limited period from now, I regret very much that he should have asked the House to stereotype this 2d. on the local rates. There is no necessity for that extra 1d. and it may well be that when this question has been inquired into this House will find that it it not fair to put the second 1d. on the rates, and I think that the question ought not to be prejudged on this occasion.
I think that we shall be able to show that London Members who have claimed some special consideration for London have a case, but I do not think that this is the time and the moment at which this case can be settled. There are very grave difficulties in the fact of any such settlement as is suggested by my hon. Friend even on this side of the House at this moment, because precisely the same condition appears to apply to the provinces as applies to London. Prior to 1888 the cost of the police was met by the Government and by the local authorities. In the provinces the Government paid half the cost of the pay and clothing. In London the Government paid four-ninths of the total cost. That system was done away with altogether in 1888, and a system of assigned revenues took its place, and those assigned revenues were given to the local authorities. In every case the increase in the cost has had to fall upon local rates, and that can only be remedied by a full treatment of the whole case, and I do not very well see how we can justify any special treatment at this moment, inasmuch as even on this case of Sunday rest the local authorities in the rest of the country are, of course, paying the extra expenses necessary for that purpose; but that makes it all the more important that we should press upon the Government to accelerate the settlement of this question. I think it is really a disgrace, both to the last Government and to this Government, that this question was not settled long ago. When I was a member of the Progressive majority in the county council, and when Members opposite were sitting on these benches, I recollect that we prepared very lengthy reports, which were presented by deputations to Ministers, showing the iniquities which resulted from the system, and claimed that there should be a revision of that system. The circumstances are now reversed. We have now a Moderate county council badgering the Liberal Government to do the same thing. It has 1662 been far too long postponed, and I do sincerely trust that in the course of the next year or two we shall have this great question settled, and then these minor issues will, of course, be settled also. In regard to the day's rest, I think it can be granted for a much smaller amount than that which has been proposed. I earnestly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the exigencies of the case can be perfectly well met with a penny rate, and the question of a further rate could be postponed until this larger inquiry has taken place—an inquiry which I feel convinced, after it has been held, will show that Londoners have a very much larger claim to consideration than some of my hon. Friends believe.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGThe hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will forgive my saying that on this occasion, with all his great knowledge of this subject, he has never intervened with less success than he did to-night in endeavouring to show that hon. Members on this side of the House have desired to make a party attack. I have seen him unfortunate on previous occasions, but I have never seen him more unfortunate than he was to-night, because he was apparently oblivious of the fact that statements have been made, by no means on one side of the House, indicating that, with the exception of himself and one other speaker, every Member on his own side expressed their agreement with the views of my hon. Friends. Why on earth the hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to say that my hon. Friends were engaged in baiting the Home Secretary while they were establishing a good case passed my comprehension. If we had wanted to make a party attack, not only could we have easily done so, but we would have been abundantly justified in doing so. This Debate has lasted since half-past eight o'clock, an hour and three-quarters, not a very long time for the discussion of a question of vital importance not only to London, but to the taxpayers of the country. It is a question on which the ratepayers of the provinces have a right to hold their own views. On this occasion the Home Secretary has been very chastened in his manner. He adopted a most conciliatory attitude towards the Opposition, and he based his case on facts and figures to which we all listened with attention. But that was not his attitude at the end of last year. Hon. Gentlemen opposite really cannot be allowed always at their own pleasure to enjoy attacking us, and 1663 then expect us to abstain when our turn comes. Last winter the Home Secretary not only attacked the action which was taken in another place on this Bill, but he asserted that it was due to those who belong to the party with which I have the honour to be associated that the police day's rest could not be carried. The statement is shown to be absolutely without foundation by the Home Secretary's own speech to-night, and if we had desired to make a party attack he could not have made a better case nor one which more fully justified us.
The Home Secretary found fault with us for the loss of this Bill, but the House of Lords contains something like twenty-five or thirty Noble Lords who are Members of his party, and yet only nine of those were present when this Bill was discussed. Therefore, for the actual loss, not the party to which I belong, not even the private Peers of the House of Lords, but the Members of the Government themselves are alone responsible. But apart altogether from the actual causes of the Vote in another place, what are the facts as to the presentation of the Bill then and now? We have had a Debate of little over an hour and three-quarters, and nobody who has taken part in it will deny that it has been a Debate conducted on a very high level throughout, and, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman who preceded me, there has not been a suggestion of party bias. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen may say "Oh!" but surely they are not so faint-hearted as to cheer their hon. Friend when he attacked us and desire that we should not hit back. I am justified in saying that, with that exception, every speech has been on a high level. I do not hesitate to say that if we had time at our disposal it could be well occupied by hon. Members representing not only the Metropolis, but the provinces in dealing with this question. I venture to say that out of our Debate from amongst other facts there is one prominent fact, and that is that unless the House of Commons wakes up and pays a little more attention to these matters they will pass completely from outside the control of the House. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson), after his opening sentence, thought it necessary to suggest to the Government that they are taking more money than they want. I entirely agree. He suggested that they should limit the demand to what the Home Secretary has shown he really wants— 1664 namely a penny. We are asked to concede the extra amount on the assurance, which. I am quite sure the Home Secretary would rigidly adhere to, that it would not be taken without appealing to the House of Commons and giving the House the opportunity of discussing it. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and if we give the Home Secretary now the money he actually requires and retain our control over the rest, we shall be securing to the House of Commons not only the opportunity for discussion, but for proper discussion, because the Government will not be able to get the money unless the House is given full time for discussion. It is not to be thought that I am imputing bad faith, to the Government. I am fully aware of the difficulties under which they are placed in those matters from time to time and the pressure made upon them, and it is almost inevitable sometimes that the House of Commons should be treated as it is being treated to-night, but I venture to say that the Government, owing to the exigencies, no doubt, of public business, are putting what I may call unfair pressure on the House of Commons to-night.
We are told we must have this Bill, because without it we cannot give the police one day's rest in seven, and because we cannot open recruiting, which is necessary for them to have the holiday. That is the position as put to us, and while every speaker who has taken part in the Debate has shown that this demand by the Government ought not to be conceded, and would not be conceded, as it is made if the House were free to deal with the question as it would like to do. Therefore, I say that to-night we have an example of the difficulties under which this House is often confronted, even when the Government is doing their best to keep their promise. We have got two and a half hours for discussion which would justify a whole sitting of the House. There is something more than that. Some hon. Gentlemen who have spoken touched very lightly upon the London difficulty, but it really is not only a London question. What is it we are now doing? We are giving the Home Secretary power to levy this rate, although it is admitted in every quarter of the House that London is being unfairly treated. It is true that one or two Members interjected remarks which I understood were intended to imply dissent, and I was surprised to hear them. I did not know that anybody doubted that London has a special burden and injustice of its own. I am amazed 1665 that anybody who has studied the question oven in the smallest degree should deny that that is so. Anybody who has gone back to the old days of the local taxation Debates must be familiar with the fact that it was found impossible in 1888 and 1878 to deal with this question of local taxation in any way by which any measure of reasonable justice was done to London.
In 1888 the injustice to London was not denied in any quarter, and the injustice then inflicted owing to the fact that we could not find a system that would treat London with real fairness has been growing ever since, not through the fault of either Government, or of either party, but owing to two simple facts: first, that the expenditure that London is called upon to incur is steadily increasing, and, secondly, that the contributions out of the Exchequer Grant fail to meet this expenditure in a greater degree in London than in any other part of the United Kingdom. It is not a question of party; it is not a question between those who advocate the taxation of realty and those who advocate the taxation of personalty; it is not a question between the town ratepayers as against the country ratepayer. It is the fact which has been established on the floor of this House times without number, that the London grievance is a real one, and is greater than that to be found in the rest of the country. Are those who deny that prepared to ignore the fact that London contains the Parliament Houses, the great centres of trade and commerce, and the Royal Palaces? Moreover, in connection with the Parliament Houses, those who are responsible for London have to look after hon. Members themselves, and for aught I know their presence in London may be a cause of anxiety to the Home Secretary and make it necessary for him to exercise his powers. At all events, London stands in a position different from that of any other city in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Gentleman who denies that statement will not deny that, great though Liverpool is, and I should be the last to suggest that Liverpool is not one of the greatest cities in the country, it does not possess Parliament Houses or Royal Palaces. Nobody can make any comparison between the conditions in the Metropolis and the conditions in any of our municipalities. The Metropolitan Police have to be a much larger force in proportion to the population than is the case elsewhere because of these special circumstances.
1666 In spite of the fact that a great majority accede to the views which I have put forward, we have the demand made that we should add to this burden. We have been told that there is a Departmental Committee. I have probably taken part in more Debates on local taxation than any other Member of the House, and I would assure hon. Members that if they allow this occasion to pass without any assurance from the Government that something will be done to arrest the growth of the burdens in connection with local taxation, the time would come when they will be unable to overtake the task, and it will be impossible to secure justice for our local authorities. Each time the same statement is made: "We are going to add this to-day; but the time will come when we shall have more money or greater leisure, and we shall then be able to put the matter right."
If the House goes on accepting these views whenever they are put forward, then with the House itself must rest the responsibility. It is no use hon. Members going to their constituents and saying that they are unjustly burdened, and that Parliament ought to relieve them. We do not propose—nobody, so far as I know, proposes—to offer any objection to this Bill. We cannot do it. I confess honestly if I could I would, because I believe a great injustice is being done to London. I believe if the circumstances are as urgent as they are that a better bargain ought to have been made. The Home Secretary can still make a better bargain. He could reduce the amount he is asking for from 2d. to 1d. Surely he will, in justice to London and to those who represent London here, in his reply tell us that he will reconsider the matter, and will endeavour to make such readjustment as will, at all events, maintain the ratio which has hitherto existed, and not take another step in the wrong direction by adding disproportionately to the burden. I ask him to make this concession, for I assure him—I think he realises it himself—that these questions are becoming graver and graver every day so far as London is concerned, and it is impossible much longer to postpone the time when the people of London will demand justice at the hands of this House.
§ Mr. RADFORDI rise rather to join in the appeal to His Majesty's Government to observe the ratio which at present exists in the contributions of the Imperial Government and the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman the Member for St. 1667 Pancras has said that the delay in dealing with the readjustment of local and Imperial burdens in this matter is a disgrace to the Government and was a disgrace to the late Government. My experience of Parliament—not very long, perhaps—leads me to fear that this thing may continue to be a disgrace to the present Government, and also to the next Government. Meanwhile I think it is not untimely to appeal to the Government. Recently the Legislature, under the influence of a virtuous impulse, decided that the police should be entitled to one day's rest in seven. That was not only a virtuous act, but a wise one. It will increase the efficiency and the alacrity of the Metropolitan Police, and two parties, the Imperial Government and the local authorities, will benefit by that. I should like to think that that virtuous impulse is not confined to the Legislature, but is shared by the Government, and that when it conies to sharing the expense, that the Government will share it with the local authorities. I will not go into the question as to whether the proportion should be four-ninths or five-ninths. I am inclined to think, as a representative of London, that London already pays more than her share in respect of this particular burden. London's present rate has been accepted for many years, and I have heard no reason whatever why that ratio should now be disturbed or why His Majesty's Government, which certainly shares in the improvement which will be conferred by this beneficial measure upon the Imperial police, should entirely evade any responsibility for the increased cost and shelve the whole burden upon the people of London.
§ Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELI do not rise with the intention of opposing the demand made by London Members to limit the increased rate to a 1d., but I rise for the purpose of pointing out the very great inconsistency with which they plead their case. It is said, political memories are proverbially short. Only a year ago one hon. Member opposite passed through this House, and also through the other House, a measure asking the provincial authorities to give one day's rest in seven to the police. We all supported it, but the difference between that measure and the one now proposed by the Home Secretary is this: There was no limit in the rate with regard to any cost that may be incurred in giving that boon to the provincial police. I have looked into the 1668 Act, and I do not find any provisions in it either for any assistance on the part of the Government towards the increased charge, nor do I find any limitation of the rate which will have to be raised by the local authorities, whether it is to be 1d., 2d., or 3d. I say if hon. Gentlemen are so very anxious to limit the rate for London to 1d., surely it should be fair for the provincial ratepayers also to have their rate limited to 1d.
§ Mr. REMNANTI should be quite prepared to limit it.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELI understand the hon. Member to object to a probable increase beyond 1d. for London, but in his own measure there is no limitation of any kind. The other point is that the local provincial authorities, county councils, and borough councils had no say in the matter any more than the borough councils of London have. The provincial ratepayers have suffered in the same way as the London ratepayers have, and it is immaterial if a man in London has to pay 6s., 7s., or 10s. in the £ if a man in the provinces has also to pay 6s. or 7s. or 10s. in the £. There ought to be the same treatment for men in the provinces as for the London ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long) made the point that the House of Lords rejected this measure in the general interests of the ratepayers of London. If it was right for the House of Lords to reject this measure with a limitation of 2d. for London, why is it they did not reject a measure dealing with the provinces without any limitation whatever? There is no limitation, and as regards the other charge which has been made about the charging of the police, the provinces are in the same position. In the case of the county councils and the borough councils who are responsible for the police, if there happens to be a deficiency in the Pension Fund it must come on the rates. They have the same troubles and exactly the same charges as you have in London, and I ask the Home Secretary that any consideration or concessions which are made to the London ratepayers must also be made to the provincial ratepayers under this special Act. The provincial ratepayers have no option in this matter. I have looked into the Act, and I find that if they decline to put it into operation within four years the Government can, by Order in Council, compel every one of the local authorities to put the provision for one day's rest in seven 1669 into operation. I believe the provincial councils intend to put this law into force. I know complaints have been made about the excessive charges, but they are prepared even to meet those charges. When I see the demand made to-night almost universally by every London Member asking the Government to make this concession, and when we remember that in 1910 the same London Members placed these charges upon the local authorities, I contend that it is inconsistent.
§ Mr. NIELDMay I point out to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. J. Samuel) that there is a difference in this matter, because in the case of the provinces the control of the police is direct?
§ Mr. J. SAMUELIt is not direct under this particular Act.
§ Mr. NIELDThe total cost of the police is under the control of the administrators of the county, but in the Metropolitan Police area, although I represent a portion of it, I have not the privileges of the county of London, although I have to bear the enormous cost of housing a large population which gets its living in London. That is a very serious matter for the outlying districts of Middlesex, for we have to deal with what are called the dormitories of London. By the cost of the Poor Law and education, which follow a population brought; away from London by cheap trains and other means, abnormal charges are put upon us, and any accession of charges such as these is a very serious matter. The county council of Middlesex have a special grievance in regard to the Exchequer contribution. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of the case which we are pressing upon the Home Office as to the difficulties with which counties have to contend in the matter of that contribution, which is diminishing, while the burdens of the county are increasing, by reason of the passing of the population from London into the county of Middlesex. As we have no control over the expenditure upon the police, which is controlled by the central authority here, and as we have absolutely no voice at all in determining what these rates should be, I join in the chorus requesting the Government that they will indeed put some limit upon these burdens, which are becoming intolerable.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI wish to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. This is not a question of the House compelling 1670 an authority to do a certain thing, but it is really that the House wishes to give one day's rest in seven to the Metropolitan and other police throughout the country. Our contention is that the Government, which bears a share of the total cost of the Metropolitan Police, is not bearing its fair share of the cost of this one day's rest in seven.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELIt is the same as in the provinces.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe police in the provinces are under your control, and the Imperial Government do not pay a portion of the cost.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELYes, they do.
§ Mr. LANSBURYNot in the same way as it is done in London. Why is it that most people think it is a perfectly legitimate arrangement that the police in London should be controlled by the central authority, and that the central authority should pay a certain amount of the cost? It is because London is the capital of the Empire, has this institution, and has, I will say incidentally, suffragette raids which cost a good deal of money. The Metropolitan Police is for the benefit of the country, as well as for London. Great crowds of more or less desirable people are attracted to the Metropolis, with the result that we have to keep a larger number of police than would otherwise be necessary. Indeed, in these days we have to keep sufficient to be able to send down men to strike areas to be used in all kinds of fashion. We all wish to give the police one day's rest in seven—we think it ought to have been given years ago—and all we want the Government is to pay their fair share. The case of the provinces is not at all on all fours with London. I hope the Home Secretary will tell us they are going to reconsider the matter, and will at least help London out in this matter. I come from a district where the rates often come to 12s. in the £. If you put another penny on you will not be very popular.
§ Mr. McKENNAAfter listening to the whole of the Debate, the one fact obvious is that nobody likes this Bill Everybody has recognised that either this or some other Bill is inevitable, but everybody naturally objects to pay. There are a good many hon. Members in the House now who were not here when I moved the Second Reading, and I should like it to be clearly understood that I asked only for a limit of 2d. and undertook not to raise more than 1671 the 1d. which is immediately required without giving the House an opportunity of discussing the propriety of imposing an additional rate.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEOnly on the Vote on your salary.
§ Mr. McKENNAI offered the Debate upon my salary because it was the only offer I could give with certainty, but, as the House knows, there are many occasions on which the question of the police rate can be discussed and, certainly, if the representatives on the other side were to ask the Patronage Secretary to put the Police Vote down he would certainly do it.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEThe right hon. Gentleman would make assurance doubly sure if he only took 1d. this year, and came for the extra 1d. when he wanted it.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is just the point. I require the penny this year, and in 1914–15 I stated I should require practically the penny—it would be rather more—but in making the statement, I have allowed nothing at all for emergencies and nothing for a decline in the Local Taxation Account. Several hon. Members who spoke from that side have admitted that a decline in the local taxation for police purposes is highly probable; not that the Local Taxation Account itself will decline, but other charges on it will increase, and there will be a lesser amount available for the police rate. I shall require immediately one penny without allowing anything for exceptional emergencies or for the decline in the Local Taxation Account available to meet the police rate, and in 1914–15 one penny will not quite cover our requirements.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERThe right hon. Gentleman said he would actually want less than one penny.
§ Mr. McKENNAThen I was wrong, I shall require £5,000 more than the penny rate. In 1914 the deficiency will be £240,000, or just over a penny rate. These are the best estimates I am able to give. Under these circumstances, would it be reasonable for me to ask for less than a twopenny rate, although I hope it will not be required? I have given an undertaking that I will not take it except under the condition that the House shall have an opportunity of discussing it. But why should I go through all the necessary proceedings 1672 for another Bill? A great deal has been, said about the peculiarly harsh treatment of London with regard to the police. I sympathise with London. I admit London has a grievance in regard to the local taxation contribution, which is on quite a different footing to the police. In regard to the police London receives special treatment. She gets a special Exchequer Grant of £100,000, because London has special Imperial charges. In addition to that the Government offices are in London; they are guarded by the police at the cost of the State, because these are peculiarly Imperial charges. It is alleged that London has to maintain an additional number of police in order to supply the requirements of Tonypandy and elsewhere. That is a complete delusion. The number of police in London is determined by the requirements of the Metropolis. From time to time when there is any special demand it lends its police to neighbouring counties. That is also done by Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow, and other great cities, and the supposition that London keeps up a vast supply of men for the purposes of the rest of the community is a complete mistake. As a matter of fact, when London does lend its men, it does not lose money; it makes money.
§ Mr. W. THORNEThen it would pay to lend them regularly?
§ Mr. McKENNAWe have not an adequate supply of men at all times to lend them regularly. The pay and allowance of the men sent to Tonypandy would amount to £20,000, but London will not pay that £20,000. That will now come from the Exchequer, and London will gain that £20,000.
§ Mr. CASSELWill the deficiency of £82,500 be that amount less?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe £82,500 will have nothing to do with it. But for this £20,000 it would be £102,500.
§ Mr. REMNANTWhen London lends men to places outside do they get the same rate of pay as in Tonypandy? Was that not a special case?
§ Mr. McKENNAThey would get the ordinary London pay if they were in London, and that would be borne by the London ratepayer, but when the men are loaned to another place London is relieved of that charge, because the place to which they are lent bears the charge. In the case of Tonypandy, London will actually gain 1673 £20,000 when the money has been paid by the Exchequer. London, in the first instance, bears the ordinary charge for the pay and allowances of the force, but when the police are lent out these ordinary charges are repaid, and that will be done in the present case. I hope I have said enough to satisfy hon. Members.
§ Mr. W. THORNESplit the difference—that is what we want.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the whole circumstances of the Exchequer contribution. There was a time when the Treasury undertook to pay four-ninths of the cost of the London police and at the same time, as an hon. Gentleman opposite has pointed out, the Treasury undertook to pay one-half of the pay and clothing expenses of the provincial police. That system has long since vanished. In lieu of that liability the Exchequer has handed over to the local authorities of the country certain revenues, and out of these revenues the local authorities, and London alike, pay a part of the cost of the police. There is no continuing liability on the Treasury to pay four-ninths of the cost of the police of London, which has been paid by receiving these revenues, but these revenues are now unfortunately exhausted. The various charges allocated to these revenues have exhausted the whole of the amount, and, so far from there being a surplus to go to London in relief of the local rates, there is nothing left to draw upon in order to relieve the London ratepayer of the additional charge for the London police. I hope I have said enough to recommend the Bill, and I trust the House will now give it a Second Reading.