HC Deb 06 June 1919 vol 116 cc2475-502
Mr. BRIANT

I wish to turn to quite another subject. The House has not had an opportunity of discussing the facts in connection with the strike which was threatened by the police. There is no one inside the House, and I hope there are very few outside, who are not very glad, indeed, that that strike was averted, all except that small minority of individuals who prefer revolution to redress. I am extremely thankful that the strike was averted. But the causes of the trouble have not altogether been removed, and the House will be wise if it considers carefully the real causes of the unrest. When one remembers what the record of the police force has been in the past, its record for good nature and for tact, which, indeed, has been commended by the Home Secretary it is incredible that this body, the finest civic body of its kind in the whole world, should suddenly be transformed into a number of revolutionaries by the efforts of a few extremists. You have to look deeper than that, and although it is often said if these men had adequate wages and better hours there would be an end of all the trouble, that is not quite so. Human nature is built in such a way that wages and hours do not count for everything. So long as there is the feeling that the men have been treated unjustly, and that there has been a breach of faith, so long will there be causes of disturbance, however excellent the wages you give them or however short the hours granted to them. I do not think the House fully realises that the police force as a whole has at least some justification for its belief that there has been a breach of faith. First of all, the Home Secretary, only a few weeks ago, assured the House that there was no crisis. We were then within a few weeks of a big crisis. If the right hon. Gentleman was advised correctly, he would have known that already the preparations for a strike were being made. I can only presume that he is badly advised, because certainly many people were fully aware of what was going on. I was, for one.

You have to look right back to the time of the August strike to understand the position of the police at present. For years the police have been trying to get their grievances redressed. They have used all the ordinary channels which were open to them. They have applied to the authorities in the proper way, and they have failed to get redress. That is admitted on all hands. At last they formed a union, and the union organised a strike. All strikes are deplorable, without exception, and I regret that the strike took place, but it is difficult to deny that it was justified, for the Prime Minister himself, almost immediately it was called, went into the questions individually, and with a characteristic oratorical gesture said, "Why was I not told before?" and he immediately made some drastic alterations. No official record was kept of the speeches made at that interview, but I have had access to some who were present, and I want to direct attention to the words which I believe were used, because unless you hear them you will not understand why it is that the police quite sincerely believe they were not treated fairly. I am informed that these words were repeated the same night in many places, and I believe they are correct. The Prime Minister said this to the men: You can have representative committees farmed at the different stations or divisions which will forward your grievances to the executive committee and then direct to me. He was talking to the executive of the union, introduced by the president of the union (Mr. Duncan), and when the Prime Minister used those words you can well understand the men believed he was obviously speaking of their committee. Afterwards those expressions were more or less explained away. I am told the Prime Minister did not intend that at all. He was speaking to the policemen as policemen and not as members of the union. But I ask hon. Members, can they not understand the men believing that phrase was intended to cover their union, and that the representations of the executive of the union would be received and eventually forwarded direct to the Prime Minister? In the Report which was presented by Lord Cave, then the Home Secretary, these words were used: He could not in war-time sanction the recognition of the police union. The Prime Minister used those words in war time. What would that convey to any ordinary body of men but that when the War was over, at least the whole question would be carefully considered? The men have some justification for believing that, not intentionally but in practice, they were misled. I am giving reasons which I think are adequate to understand the mind of the police, and until you understand their mind on this matter you will never deal properly or adequately with their grievances. We are informed there was no objection to their belonging to a union at all. Step by step, the men were led to understand not that it was recognised, but had attained a semi-official recognition, and certainly it cannot be swept away by a single stroke of the pen without inquiry. They feel that strongly.

I will not say a word of exaggeration or a word which will make it more difficult to bring about the harmonious relations I hope to see. These are not men of the lowest form of education—indeed, they have to pass a high examination, and they are not chosen only for their mental or physical capacity, but there is a close inquiry into their moral characters. A candidate for the police has to go through a categorical inspection of his previous character, such as no Member of this House ever has to pass. These are not men who can easily be moved by two or three wild enthusiasts or agitators. I fully admit that many foolish things have been said on their behalf, but that is not sufficient reason for putting on one side the real grounds they have for an inquiry. Unfortunately, with a strange fatality, the authorities pursue a line of policy which could only tend to the aggravation of the position. I will not say a word against General Macready. I have never seen him. I dare say he is a very able gentleman. It was singularly unfortunate that at this particular time he should have been appointed to this post, because not only the police but I believe the civilian population of this country did not want the police force to have any trace of militarism about it, and this appointment gave an impression to the police that somehow or other there was to be a tightening up of the military side of police administration and discipline. I cannot take the House into all the details of the series of small incidents which culminated in the threat of a strike; but take the case of election to the new representative committee. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will say that those committees are representative. They are not really elected by the men, because the men absolutely and flatly refused to vote. In one division of about 900 men not 100 voted, while in one police station with ninety or 100 men only four voted. It may be their fault, but the fact remains that the so-called representative bodies have not the confidence of the police. Somehow or other, rightly or wrongly, the police feel that they are not adequately represented. We have heard in this House about the method by which the police union have conducted their ballot. How was the election to these representative bodies conducted? Instead of its being a voluntary election, orders were actually given for the police to attend at the election. How do you imagine that men who may be inclined, let us say, to look for cases of injustice are going to act when they are ordered to attend at an election, thereby believing that they are being coerced? The scrutineers were also ordered to be scrutineers in this free election. These incidents are small in themselves, but when combined they lead to the feelings of irritation which culminated in the threat of a strike.

I do not think it is wise for us to gloat over the failure of this strike or to be joyful in expressions about smashing the union. We do not want to do anything to engender a strike. We want to see the host way out of the difficulty. We have not settled the problem. I want to see it settled. I have studied the police question long before I was a Member of this House, and I do think the time has come when not only the particular question of recognition should be settled, but other matters as well. Recognition may not be possible—I am not prejudiced on the point —but if possible it must mean a good deal of the ordinary powers of a union. I can conceive nothing more lamentable than a police union which might come out on a sympathetic strike. One does not help one's case by shutting one's eyes to these facts; but we must realise that the time has come for reconsideration of the general administration of the police. The strike in August was practically condoned by the Prime Minister, and the course adopted was fully justified by the facts. We are dealing with a body of men who are quite ready to be reasonable, leaving aside, of course, any extremists who may and do exist. The time has come for this House to take the whole matter in hand, and I feel sure that if a Committee was appointed to inquire into the general administration of the police we should have an end of the trouble. Apart from considerations of pay and hours, it is time the House gave more attention to this question. Knowing the men as I do, and knowing their past history and record, which everyone admits is one almost without parallel in any force in the world—in-deed, they are the envy of the world for their general behaviour—we should be wise in putting aside all personal feelings and trying to examine into all the circumstances which have led to this unrest.

You have two facts to consider. First, that the men had good reason for believing at least the question of the recognition of the union would be considered after the War; and secondly—a fact which cannot be denied, that the present representative body is not representative, that they distrust it, rightly or wrongly; they do not believe in it, they have not voted for it, and until some better method obtains of getting access to the authorities on the questions on which they are agreed we shall not have grappled with the problems that require solution. I cannot conceive any greater disaster than that this body should come out on strike. I do not complain of the Government making due preparations for carrying on the government of the country, but it would be a disaster whether they manage to carry on without the police or with a depleted force of police. It would be a disaster if a great body like this, which has done such wonderful service, should be in a any way demoralised or its power should be in any way weakened. I hope there may still be a way by which the whole question can be considered without in any way pledging myself or anyone else or the public to the recognition of the union. So far as the union is concerned, there has been semi official recognition, because the placards of the union are exhibited on the, premises of practically every police station. Indeed, one of their head officials at one station seeing a notice of the Police Union suggested that such notices should be put on the board with the official notices of the police. In face of these facts it is idle to try to sweep it on one side, and to say that it is a body of whose existence the Government are not aware. The Home Secretary said the other day that there is no Police Union. I do not know what legal frame of mind ho was in when he made that statement. Perhaps he had some meaning which I as a layman do not attach to words. The union exists and has been recognised by practically every police authority in England. Police administration has failed not through any faults of individuals—I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman—but because of the system, and it is time we took into careful deliberation all those aspects of discipline and administration which I be lieve would maintain and increase the power of the police and its value to the community.

Sir ERNEST WILD

The House and the country are indebted to the hon. Member for raising this important matter and for the temperate and moderate way in which he has put forward his case. There is no doubt that considerable alarm is felt by the public and the police in regard to the circumstances arising out of last Sunday, and which commenced in August last. Before the House rises for the Recess, it would be very helpful both to the public and police if the Home Secretary could see his way to make a statement which would alleviate the anxiety of both the public and the police. Although I do not follow the argument of my hon. Friend in all respects, I do agree that the right way to approach this most interesting and complicated problem is to ascertain the mind of the police, and I do-not think that in my remarks I could do better than to commence by saying things which may be somewhat platitudinous, and, taking a brief survey of what the police are in this country, I do not exaggerate when I say that they are the protectors and the confidants of law-abiding citizens. They are an essential part of the State's safety, security, and convenience, and the phrase "ask a policeman," which is a household word, is very true as expressing in a sentence the way in which we of the public rely upon the police in all the exigencies of the moment. The curious thing is that their status is unique. I do not think that in any community in the world you can find police who have the same relation to the civil population that our police have to us. It is not a military relation, and it is not strictly a civil relation; it is an unique relation. They are the summary arbiters of difficult questions. Whether it may be a man's alcoholic state or a woman's honour, they have to decide, and their decision is very often final. You go into a Court of law and you find a woman branded by the police as a prostitute because the police say so and believe it. The police are the arbiters as to whether a man is in a condition that is known as drunk.

The liberty of the subject is entirely in the hands of the police. They have the right of arrest, and there is no redress to the subject supposing that that right is exercised upon erroneous grounds.

In the question of street difficulties they are the arbiters. The right hand of the policeman held up is almost as potent as the intervention of Mr. Speaker or the Deputy-Speaker in our proceedings. Their own lives are very often in jeopardy. They carry their lives in their hands in many cases where they have to deal with desperate criminals. They are the infallible oracles and friendly despots of our streets. They go into the law courts and present their case to the magistrate, and many magistrates have told me that they very often are compelled to rely upon the verbal accuracy with which the policemen will quote from their note-books or will recount certain facts that have happened in the course of the case. In addition to that—but fortunately in London it does not obtain as much as in the provinces, and it is a great mistake where it does happen— promotion in the police should in no way depend upon securing convictions. I have had great experience in opposition to the police, and since the War began—although I do not want to advertise my War experience—I have been a mere policeman. I have had opportunities as a special constable and as an inspector in the Bow Street division of knowing the police from the inside as well as in the street, and of realising that the functions of the police are of enormous importance to the work of the State. Upon their human discernment may depend the salvation or the damnation of a man or woman. Take the case of some sexual practice charged against some man or women. The policeman makes the charge and gives his opinion, and that man's or woman's future is entirely damned supposing that that opinion be correct. On the other hand, many a man and many a woman has been saved by the friendly attitude of the police. I know of many cases where the superior police officers have intervened and given a man or a woman a chance, and the same is equally true of the ordinary police constable. That is what you ask of the police. You must demand a high standard of honour and integrity from the police, and of discernment and of judgment Very often the policeman's opinion is the thing that guides and will determine whether or not a prosecution is to be promoted. That is a tremendous thing to ask of men.

In these circumstances, making these cogent requirements upon the police, we find it is a fact that until the month of August last year the Metropolitan police constable's pay was 43s. a week, and it took him twenty years to obtain that paltry pittance, having started at 30s. I. know that, in addition, a married man had lodging allowance of 2s. 6d., with 2s. 6d. for every child of school age, and 1s. for boots; but that was the position until August, 1918. Therefore the House welcomes the announcement of the Home Secretary with regard to the attention that he is paying to the increase of the pay of the police and to the Police Provident Association. I am certain he will not only deal with the ordinary police constables, but that he will extend his investigations and those of the Committee that has been appointed to the question of the pay of the higher ranks. It is very-important that the higher ranks, particularly in the Metropolitan Police, should be put on equal pay with chief constables in the various boroughs of the Kingdom, because a superintendent of police in the Metropolis certainly has much more important functions to perform and many more men under his charge than has an ordinary chief constable in the provinces. My right hon. Friend intervened at the right moment, so far as he was concerned. It is no fault of his that it was a mere tardy act of justice. It is one of the-tragedies of our State that this country never intervenes until it is forced to do so. It was only pressure from one source and another that brought this matter (o a head. In the coal miners' dispute you did not intervene until you were; forced; the conductresses of tramways had to threaten a strike before intervention came. It is no fault of the right hon. Gentleman. He was not at the Home Office, but it was largely the fault of the system. We never seem to see an injustice until it is forced upon our notice. I hope my right hon. Friend will tell the House what is his attitude and that of the Government with-regard to the National Union of Police and Prison Officers. Of course, they take all the credit. They say, and not without some justice, that if they had not come along there never would have been a rise in pay, but the credit is not all theirs. They say in the old words— and I am not infringing the Rule of Order—"Codlin's the friend, not Short." In those circumstances they come along, and I was one of those at the election, and there were others of us, who, viewing this matter from the ordinary rules of collective bargaining and believing that it is trade unionism that has largely given the working man. the liberties and the justice that he has obtained, thought, why should not the police union be recognised in the same way as any other union?

But certainly the performances of those who are behind the so-called National Union of Police and Prison Officers have caused, at all events me, and I think many others, to alter their views. The National Union of Prison Officers would be very interesting as far as the convicts are concerned, and I am certain that they would be glad if there was a strike. Take the test case of Police Constable Spackman. We were threatened last Sunday with the whole of the metropolis being plunged into disorder, with no Epsom, no trooping of the Colour, nothing to happen in this week of jubilation, and one of the principal reasons was that Police Constable Spackman had to be reinstated. I have taken the trouble to find out what that constable did. On the 1st of April, an appropriate date of this year, there was a notice posted up by a sub-divisional inspector upon a station noticeboard, and Police Constable Spackman calmly wrote across it and signed his name to it. "No action." What alternative had the Chief Commissioner, or any other man who respects law and order in this country, but to tell Police Constable Spackman that his activities were of more use elsewhere? It is perfectly idle to ask the State to sanction or encourage such gross Bolshevism as that. Then there is the question of affiliation to other associations. The beautiful idea of these gentlemen was that they should have a sort of sympathetic union with other unions and therefore, in combination with the Triple Alliance, that they should simply hold their hand upon the jugular vein of the State and be able to plunge the whole of this country into disorder and anarchy. No State can stand that. Then, of course, in the way in which tyrannical people generally proceed, the way in which they themselves have been resorting to what the trade unions always put their heels down upon, and that is victimisation, is interesting to observe. They have an organ called, "The Police and Prison Officers' Magazine," and on the 23rd January of this year a certain policeman named Patterson wrote this: There is one point which must not be lost sight of. That is, that every member of the board must be a union member, and that only union members' complaints will be considered by the board. I know that the authorities will say that this is victimisation, but I will refer them to the very old saying, Self-preservation is the first law of nature. But I am going to suggest that we do in future only represent ranks up to and including inspectors. That is victimisation, and therefore the proposition was that unless a man came into the union he was not to be allowed to have his complaint heard or his grievances redressed. That might be all very well in ordinary industrial matters. It may be necessary if you are dealing with any ordinary trade, but my point is that the police is not an ordinary trade. The police stand upon an entirely different footing. I believe they are heartily ashamed of their union and that they are heartily ashamed of the threatened strike. What they complain of is the miserable pay that they receive, a pay which was a disgrace to the State that allowed it-, a matter that ought to have been redressed years ago, not because we want to spend money, but because it is true economy. If our lives and our liberties and all that we care for, our safety, our security, and our welfare are bound up, as they are bound up, in the action of the police, it is ordinary economy as well as justice and generosity that these men ought to be properly paid. Now they are ashamed, and they want to come back, and I agree with my hon. Friend that the last thing that any man should do is to say, "The State's truncheon is bigger than your truncheon, and we have beaten you." Give them a golden bridge over which to come, and show them that the State will do everything that it can, although it may be—and I expect my right hon. Friend will say so—that an ordinary union cannot be tolerated in a police force. At the same time, they must have their right of redress, and because of the peculiar constitution of their force they cannot combine in such a way as would lead to strikes and plunge the whole community into panic. For that reason more than adequate opportunities ought to be furnished to the police to ventilate every possible grievance to headquarters.

The experiment of a representative board was tried. The earlier experiment was a representative board irrespective of ranks, and you had inspectors, sergeants, and police constables on one board. That was hopeless, because it undermined discipline. Then you tried, in about April last, the better system of representative boards, one for inspectors, one for sergeants, and a third for police constables. I believe the inspectors' boards and the sergeants' boards are working well, but the police constables' boards are not working as well as they might, because, as my hon. Friend says, they will not vote. I thought the case of the other side was that we were only in a majority here because people would not vote, but if they will not vote it is their fault. The point is, however, that you want confidence, and you want the men to feel, not that they are brought there by the crack of the whip, but that they come there of their own volition, and that they shall have access, whatever their complaint, not only to the Chief Commissioner, but to the Home Secretary himself. If you deny men what will ordinarily be their right of collective bargaining, the right of using the strike weapon in the last, resort, then you must, as compensation for them, give them every adequate provision to make their wants known and to have their grievances come to the very highest quarter and be ventilated, if necessary, in Parliament itself, and there must be no victimisation. We all know that the one thing a man is afraid of is that if he is a prominent man in making complaints he is a marked man and will not get his promotion. I am certain that my right hon. Friend and the Chief Commissioner will take steps to prevent that state of things; but it must not be supposed that Codlin is right, that the trade union is right, in stating that all the grievances have been redressed because if its intervention. It is not true.

We have at the present moment in Sir Nevil Macready a man who is doing his very best in particularly difficult circumstances. I have here a list, which covers three pages of foolscap, of reforms that have been brought about in the service without any intervention by the representative boards or the union or anybody on behalf of the men. There is, for instance, the 2s. 6d. allowance for children per week, the extension of that grant to all officers up to and including superintendents, general increases of clothing allowances, the appointment of two superintendents to the rank of chief constable, the question of promotion considered, accused officer allowed a friend on the discipline board, allowance increased temporarily for funeral expenses, refreshment allowance granted for duty performed on special occasions although not a continuous duty of nine hours, provision against officers losing seniority through service in His Majesty's Forces, sick allowances dealt with, chief inspector's allowance increased. There is also the appointment of Lord Desborough's Committee to consider the police questions generally. All these are matters dealt with without any intervention on the part of the men, and on the initiative either of the Commissioner or the Home Office or the authorities.

There is only one other matter with which I will trouble the House, and that is a matter on which I am certain that the police feel strongly, and that is the question of promotion. I am not going to deal with the ordinary promotion. That is a matter in considering which you have to consider not only a man's ability and seniority but the combination of those things. I am dealing now with what does seem to me to be a matter that ought to be considered by the Home Office, and I beg to draw the Home Secretary's attention to it. you want the policeman to have a career that attracts the better class man. I am not talking about the socially better class, but the man of intellect who desires to get on in his profession. In every other profession you keep the plums and prizes for the people who have succeeded. Even in my own much-abused profession there are plums. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There are not as many as there ought to be and they are certainly not always allocated to the right people, but there are plums. Supposing you were to put a doctor on the Woolsack, or to make a superintendent of police a general in the field, you would say, "How absurd!" Why should you keep your chief-constableships so largely for men who know nothing whatever about police work? Why should you appoint to such posts a perfectly respectable and useful soldier who is retiring and wants a job and a certain amount of social life in the counties or boroughs, and who knows absolutely nothing about the police? The work wants a bit of knowing, yet you allow your watch committee or other authority to appoint a man who knows nothing about the job. I say without fear of contradiction, and I believe I will carry the House and the country with me, that that ought to be stopped. The policeman moving up from the bottom ought to be just as much entitled to the plums of his profession as a member of the legal or ecclesiastical profession or of any other occupation. I hope that my right hon. Friend, with his passion for reform and the strength he brings to bear on such questions, will deal with this matter and prevent this gross anomaly which places soldiers, incompetent for police work, into positions as chief constables in boroughs and counties.

I conclude, as I began, by expressing the hope that nobody on either side of the House or in the country will try to make this matter of the police into a party matter, or to gain political capital out of it. I am perfectly certain of this, that all of 'them, from the youngest constable right up to the superintendent, are ashamed of the position of affairs that arose in August only for a day, and nearly arose again during this week. We want to forget it. What we want to do is to make the policeman feel that he is the friend of the citizen, one of us, and I am perfectly certain that under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the House may part for the Whitsuntide Recess with a knowledge that past events will be forgotten, and that the police will retain the nation's confidence as our natural friends.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt)

I can assure the House that the Government are most grateful to both my hon. and learned Friends for introducing this subject. Although I stick to the phrase I used the other day, in which I said there was no crisis, and that I have sufficient faith in the honour and loyalty of the police to know that there was not a crisis, none the less the position is such that a statement of some kind is necessary. I agree that there were amongst the police many grievances which ought to have been remedied some time ago. It is true that they came to a head very largely during the period of War, and, of course, it is very difficult in a period of war to give your attention to matters which can be shelved; it is very difficult to take your attention from the more urgent and important matter of fighting and to turn to those which are grievances of a less urgent character, grievances which the persons who bear them are too loyal to broach. Therefore, undoubtedly and unfortunately, the police grievances were not attended to as soon as they ought to have been. Amongst the police, as everywhere else, the main grievance is always financial. The main police grievance was undoubtedly financial. It is true there were other questions that arose. With the main grievance we are taking steps to deal. One of the first things I did when I went to the Home Office was to appoint Lord Desborough's Committee, consisting of experienced and able gentlemen who could be trusted to give a reasoned and sound Report, and one which would be a very useful guide. I have already announced, as far as pay is concerned, that although we do not yet know what the proposals of the Committee will be, the Government are prepared to increase pay—the starting pay—of every constable to not less than 70s. a week. We did not announce the definite figure because the Committee have not yet reported. That will not mean a loss of 6d. ultimately to the police, because equally I have announced that whatever the change may be, whether 70s. or more, it will date back to 1st April. Therefore the police will not be the losers merely by the fact that the Committee does not report at once.

Equally, we are providing for the question of pensions, of allowances, and what is, especially among the London police, a very important question, the question of the housing of the police. The housing of the police in London is a very difficult matter. Men who have to perform their duties in the city or in regions like the centre of London very often have to live very far out and away from their work. It is a matter of great hardship to them. Proper provision will be made to remove that hardship, and I have no doubt, from the evidence that has been put before Lord Desborough's Committee with regard to the question of housing, that we shall have some strong recommendations made upon that point; but, whether there are or not, it is a question which is receiving the close attention of the Commissioner and myself and our advisers, and we hope to put that upon a satisfactory footing. You have the question of the immediate pay that goes on during the men's time of work, and the question of their pensions. There is another question which has also been engaging our attention, and that is the question of what is known as the Police Provident Association. It is rather a misnomer to call it a provident association, and perhaps some Members of the House may not know what it is. There is no fund of money at all now. There are no rights connected with it. What happens is this: If a policeman retires, a collection is made amongst all his colleagues, and a lump sum is raised for him and given to him on his retirement. If he dies, equally a collection is made and a lump sum is handed over to his widow and dependants. But there is no fund, no- regular weekly payment, no right. No man to-day who has been paying on the retirement of his colleagues for fifteen or twenty years has any right to a similar collection for himself. They depend entirely on the good will of one to the other.

That is not a very satisfactory state of things, when you get a body like that which calls itself the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, which, as we have information, has decided that in future no man, no matter how generously he may have subscribed to his friends in the past, is to have a collection made for him unless he is a member of the union. Whether or not that is victimisation or oppression or. what my hon. Friend would call coercion, at any rate it does not seem to be right. Therefore what we have done is this: We have entered into negotiations with one of the foremost insurance companies in the country, and we are now putting the whole thing upon a sound financial basis. We have calculated about how much the average policeman pays in subscriptions for his friends and colleagues in the course of the year, and upon the basis of that we have arranged for a subscription, and from now forward whenever a policeman retires he will receive as a right—there is no question of depending on goodwill—a lump sum in addition to his pension to start him with. If he dies his widow and dependants will receive a lump sum. Of course, that does involve a certain amount of Treasury expenditure. It involves this: You get a man who has been paying for fifteen or twenty years and you cannot expect the insurance company to take a man of such an age with the same payment and give him the same rights as, they would give to a newly-joined constable. Therefore we have had to provide for a certain sum of money which is actually necessary in order to put the older men on the same footing as the younger. It is not a serious sum. It will diminish year by year until it disappears. But the Government and Treasury have- consented, and that has been done.

So that the position with regard to finance is this: We are trying to put the question of housing and allowances upon a more satisfactory footing. Little finicking allowances are irritating things. It is far better to pay a man a proper sum. We intend the sum to be paid to be generous. You ought to pay the men so that they and their wives and families can maintain the position which they ought to occupy as members of a great force. We want to pay them in that way. They ought, if they are to be loyal and to abide by the terms of their contract with the State, to have their future provided for. Therefore what we are trying to get is a generous pension for the future, and a lump sum to start them with when they retire. That, with decent housing accommodation will, we hope, at any rate be a reasonable attempt to meet what we believe to have been genuine grievances in the past.

Mr. FRANCE

In regard to insurance may I ask, does it involve a weekly payment by each member of the force, and, if so, what is that payment likely to be?

Mr. SHORTT

If my hon. Friend will forgive me I have not yet quite finished with the details.

Mr. FRANCE

But will there be a contribution?

Mr. SHORTT

It will involve instead of paying a few shillings occasionally as a subscription, the payment of a weekly amount.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS

Will it be compulsory?

3.0 p.m.

Mr. SHORTT

I should be inclined to say not, but that is a matter which the police will decide for themselves through their own bodies. So far as the Government are concerned we should not make it compulsory, although we hope that every policeman will have the sense to join it. With regard to promotion, I have hoard it suggested that an attempt is being made to militarise the police as a force. Nothing is further from the truth. I have met many soldiers. I do not think I have met any soldier who is less of a military martinet than is General Sir Nevil Macready. He is accused of bringing in soldiers from outside. Of the four chief constables in the London police, two are soldiers, and they were appointed before Sir Nevil Macready became Commissioner. He had nothing whatever to do with their appointment. Since he has been Commissioner two have been appointed; both of them worked their way up in the ranks and have got just that kind of promotion which you must have if you are going to make any force a reality. It is true he took General Horwood into the force, but he was a trained policeman; he had had some years' experience in the police and he was chosen for his high position because of his police experience. Another gentleman was brought in because he happened to be singularly adapted for dealing with horses and horsemen, and the was brought in with a view to the reconstruction and development of the horse section. All General Macready's promotions have been from amongst the police themselves. They have been promotions by merit and not by seniority. What we propose to do in the future and what we are aiming at is to have a proper and contented force, to which is held out every inducement for intelligence, industry, capacity and zeal, and we look forward to a force on whose loyalty in the future we can depend as we have done in the past.

Sir E. WILD

What about promotion in the country?

Mr. SHORTT

We have not the same control over promotions in the country, but I hope that in future there will be a more unified central system for the police all over the country. There is great diversity at present. The whole thing lacks coordination, and if the educational system in this country were on the same lines we should certainly have a state of educational chaos. Now I come to the question of the work of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers. That union undoubtedly came into existence because of grievances, and any success it may have obtained in securing members has been because there were unremedied grievances. It is a body which undoubtedly has attempted to exercise very great influence over the police forces of the country. The dispute, we all know, culminated in August last year, when the unfortunate strike took place, but at that time an agreement was entered into. There were negotiations, and there were interviews, and I agree with my hon. Friend it is a pity that no official record was kept of those interviews. But if we have no official record of what was said we fortunately have a definite record of what was agreed to, and it is signed by Police Constable Marston, the then spokesman for the police, and now the president of the union. We have a definite document signed by him, and I will tell the House exactly what was agreed to at that time.

In the first place, there was definite agreement as to what was to be the position of the force with regard to the union, and what arrangements were to be made for the force having the power of collective representation of their grievances or their aspirations. They were to have representative bodies to deal with matters connected with conditions of service and their general welfare, other than questions of discipline. That was a definite agreement which Mr. Marston signed. It was to be a representative board to deal with general conditions other than questions of discipline. This was a most important part of the agreement. I will not trouble the House with details, but I want to give another paragraph, also signed by Mr. Marston, which was to the effect that the organisation shall be entirely within the force, and shall be entirely independent of any association and any outside body." There Mr. Marston signed on behalf of the police force, for whom he purported to speak and write what the representative board" was to deal with. It was to be all matters except discipline and it was to be entirely independent of any outside body. When it came to the question of dealing with the union itself, this is what Mr. Marston signed. Referring to General Orders 61 and 62 (these were old orders which had dealt with the question whether constables were to be allowed to join a union or not) it was agreed—, It is notified that there will be no objection to a member of the force joining the National Union of Police and Prison Officers so long as such union does not claim or attempt to interfere with the regulations and discipline of the service or to induce members of the force withhold their services ''—— Thus Mr. Marston pledged himself that the union would not either claim or attempt to interfere with the regulations of the service or to induce members of the force to withhold their services. And the paragraph went on— but that in the event of a breach of this condition, members of the force may be called upon to sever their connection with such union. That was what Mr. Marston signed. I do not care what took place at the interviews. This was the result of the interviews— this was the final decision which he signed. The police were to manage their own affairs through their representative body, which was to be free from outside interference, and members of the force were to join the union only on the condition that the union made no attempt to- interfere with the regulations, and if that were done then they were to be liable to be called upon to withdraw from the union. That is what took place. How has that agreement been kept? We knew at the first that the National Union of Police and Prison Officers would be quite likely to call a strike, because in their own rules —in Rule 2, which deals with the objects of the union—these words are contained:

Rule 2 is: (a) To use every legitimate and reasonable effort to maintain a just, impartial and efficient public service. (b)To promote and encourage at all times the due observance of the regulation, and discipline of the services. (c)To rigidly maintain a. true sense of obligation to the public by permanently guarding against any possibility of members withholding their services, as a means of obtaining redress, and to Issue all differences between the authorities and the members of the union arranged by amicable and conciliatory means. That was the old rule, and members of the force were induced to join the force on the strength of that rule. But in August the climax came. The circular was sent out, and it was sent to the Home Secretary. The executive committee of the National Union of Police and Prison officers hereby gives notice to the London Metropolitan authorities that hon. compliance with the above demands "—— this was their ultimatum— by twelve midnight the 29th August, 1918,will necessitate the suspension of Clauses (a), (b), and (c) of the union, Rule 2, enclosed, and furthermore holds the police authorities responsible for any situation that may arise there-from. So we had a warning that they were quite capable, in spite of that rule, of declaring a strike if it suited their purposes. But we were prepared to accept the definite pledge and signature of the man who was the spokesman of the police and is now president of the so-called union. We thought, at any rate, we might have relied upon his pledge and on his written word. What has taken place? In December last they started a publication which was called the "Police Officers' Magazine," and from the very first it was clear, from what appeared in that magazine—and I am going to prove my case against them out of their own magazine—that from the very beginning they have never kept one single line of the obligations which they undertook to keep and which were signed by Marston. From the very first they determined that they would secure full control of the repre- sentative board. In the issue of the 19th of December the board was described by the secretary of the representative board itself, Police Constable Patterson: The representative boards should be the various representative boards of the police or prison services, divisions or districts working under the auspices of the union. On the 2nd January the same gentleman wrote: If the Commissioner or any person holding an equivalent position refuses to given the representative board entire satisfaction of any just-and reasonable requirements, the board immediately places the matter before the executive committee of the union. … The divisional and station representatives of the Metropolitan Police Representative Board are elected annually on the committee of the branch of the union. This is an absolute breach of the definite pledge: My readers will clearly see that the representative boards must of necessity be leading union members, so the name of the representative board is merely camouflage for the National. Union of Police and Prison Officers. That is from their own magazine. On 23rd January there appeared the passage which was quoted by my hon. and learned Friend: There is one point which must not be lost sight of, and that is that every member of the board must be a union member find that only union members' complaints will be considered by the Hoard. I know that the authorities will say that this is victimisation, but I will refer them to the very old saying, 'that self-preservation is the first law of nature.' That is the way they observed the definite pledge that this body was to be free entirely from any outside control or interference, which was accepted by Marston, while all the time they intended that that pledge was never to be kept. As to the higher ranks, they should be in the same union as the police. Constable Patterson says: We must also remember that if the higher ranks of the board were to go against the reasonable wishes of the union whilst they are sitting on the board they render themselves liable to be expelled from the union, and thereby lose all the benefits which arise from the same. That is a position of things that could not possibly go on. Now we know, in addition to that, who was the power which was' running this union. I am not going to make any reflections upon the views and opinions of any people. That does not arise at this particular time, but I know from themselves and from their own magazines that they are in very close-touch with those gentlemen who are con- cerned with the "Daily Herald" newspaper and all its activities. They may be right or wrong. I am not concerned today to discuss that point, but I am justified in saying that the particular people who are concerned with the "Daily Herald "newspaper and its activities are people who can be fairly called extremists. They hold extreme views. They are out for the social revolution. They are out for what are known everywhere as highly extreme views, and it is with those people that the leaders of this National Union of Police and Prison Officers are closely concerned. They have stated definitely themselves that it is the "Daily Herald," of all the London Press, that represents their views; it is in the "Daily Herald," that they publish their ultimatums, and it is to the "Daily Herald" that they refer anyone who wishes to know what are their intentions and desires. That is the kind of political people with whom they are connected, tout they have measures of their own in dealing with the affairs of their own union.

It was clear at one time that some leakage was taking place, and in the issue of the magazine of the 20th March a certain, gentleman name Mr. Thiel—he is the paid organiser of the union—set out a private letter written by a chief constable, and he said: It is strange how these chief constables' confidential memos and letters get into my hands.'' Then he proceeded to quote another which was also private and confidential. But in the same issue there was a certain branch secretary who in his report let in a little light as to the methods, and I cannot do-scribe the methods better than in his own words— One of their comrades 'somewhere in England' acted as a naughty boy, and stole a letter which a chief constable had written to the secretary of the Chief Constables' Association, and then he proceeded to quote it. That was a description of what had taken place. Those are the methods that they adopted. I am not connecting the "Daily Herald" with methods of that kind, but from the political point of view the "Herald" extremists are the people with whom they are associated, and who help to guide their policy. Now with regard to the question of a strike. I would remind the House again that Police Constable Marston had pledged the union that it was not to attempt to interfere with the regulations or discipline of the service and to induce members of the force to withhold their services. Originally the rules of the union were what I have described. They provided for using "every legitimate and reasonable effort to maintain a just, impartial, and efficient public service," and so on. They began by interfering against their pledge with the Representative Board, as I have shown. They began by interfering with the force, the rules, regulations, and even discipline of the police, and then, when they were allowed latitude—and I think wisely allowed latitude, because it was just as well that the public, and the police even more, should know perfectly well what it was we were up against and who it was with whom we were dealing—when they found all this latitude, they proceeded to change the rules of their union—rules which were originally framed so that a strike would be out of the question, rules framed so as to get into membership the sane, sober members of the force, who would not join any body dependent on a strike. They came out into the open and made alterations in their rules. Originally the rules read as I have stated. Rule 2 read as follows: (a) To use every legitimate and reasonable effort to maintain a just, impartial and efficient 'public service.' That is gone. (b) To promote and encourage at all times the due observance of the regulations and discipline of 'the services.' That is also wiped out. That is no longer one of their rules. (c) To rigidly maintain a true sense of obligation to the public, by permanently guarding against any possibility of members withholding their services as a means of obtaining redress and to have all differences between authorities and members arranged or decided by amicable and conciliatory means. The words "by permanently guarding against any possibility of members withholding their services as a means of obtaining redress" are gone, and are replaced by these words and that in the event of this failing, a ballot vote of all members of the union be taken, and services be not withdrawn unless a majority of two-thirds declare in favour of such withdrawal. So that they have now come out into the open before the public as a body one of whose rules is to entitle them to call out the police if a two-thirds majority be obtained in favour of that course. In addition to that, the union is affiliated with the London Trades Council, and I think sonic other bodies, and I presume would be liable, as would any other associated union, to a sympathetic strike. If it is not, what use is it to its fellow-unions? I expect fellow-unions who have taken them into association will expect a quid pro quo for what they give, and what can the police give except what Mr. Marston and others foreshadowed on Sunday last— something the police would never do, but something they would persuade the police to do against their will. That is the position with regard to that union.

What have been their open activities? The case of Spackman has been raised over and over again and mentioned in the Press. My hon. and learned Friend described in the House what he had done. Ho was guilty of a piece of gross insubordination, and I do not care in the least whether it is true or not that he was guilty of that insubordination at the bidding of his union. It makes no difference whether he did it at the bidding of his union ox not. Gross insubordination could' not be tolerated by any police force in the country. Of course, he was dismissed, and if there had been any chance of taking him back the activities of the union have made that impossible. It is absolutely inconceivable that a man should be reinstated who had been guilty of that gross insubordination, and who gloried in it, and said be ought to be reinstated because he did it at the bidding of his union. Merely because a number of men marched to Trafalgar Square and Hyde Park, that man must be reinstated and the Commissioner dismissed, without any trial at all, is absolutely impossible. But there is another case. I am not going to mention names, but a man of some years standing in the force, of very good character, had been guilty of gross disobedience. Despite the Commissioner's order, he obeyed that of the union. He also came before the Disciplinary Board and the question was definitely put to this man, "Do you rank the command of the union above that of the Commissioner?" and his answer was, "I do," and he stuck to it. What could be done? The Disciplinary Board were bound, when they tried him, to decree that he should be dismissed the force. They gave him another chance, but he refused to take it and stuck to what he said, "I am bound to obey my union before I do the Commissioner." Then the Commissioner gave this man, who was really a very decent fellow, another chance, and I do not mention his name because he, like a wise man, took it, withdrew from an impossible position, absolutely repudiated that he was any longer bound by the union, and we have been able to deal with him, I am glad to say, in a much more lenient manner than we otherwise would have been able to do. He fortunately took the wise course and withdrew from an impossible position.

But just consider the position of things where an outside independent body seeks through its members to impose its own orders as being above those and superseding those of the Commissioner and others in authority. The position is absolutely impossible, and, having regard to what has taken place, we have come to a definite conclusion, and that is that this state of things cannot continue as it is. I am not going to suggest that the police are to be left without any means of consultation and collective representation, whether it is of grievances or whether it is of aspirations. I attach as much importance to the collective representation of aspirations as I do to the collective representation of grievances. It is clear that, however well the representative boards may work in individual forces—and they have worked exceedingly well in the London force, in spite of what has been said about them, and exceedingly well in many of the provincial forces—they do not provide for any kind of representation of the police as a whole. That is the great failure about them. They have worked well in London. Of the representations they have made since September last, between sixty and seventy of their representations have been satisfactorily dealt with by the Commissioner. Matters which otherwise would not have been brought to his attention were brought to his attention by the board, and they have been put right, and equally it has been so in the country. What we propose is this, and we propose to put it upon a statutory basis, so that the police shall be entitled to it, and no chief commissioner, no chief constable, no watch committee can say, "We are not going to have any of this sort of nonsense in our force." We intend to make it absolutely a right to the force. We intend to make it an association —call it what you will—to include the police as a whole. It will begin as a union of the various forces. I cannot give full details to-day, but we have been con- sidering it very carefully and Lord Des-borough's Committee has been considering it very carefully, but until we have had the opportunity of considering their representations and then of considering them with our own, it would be improper for me to go into any details. But this I can assure the House. The association will be really representative of the police. Every policeman will have a voice in the election of the delegates. It will be representative, not of any one individual force, but there will be provision for the forces and all their representatives conferring whether in districts or whether over the whole country. There will be provision by which the newest-joined constable can have any grievance which is his taken as a right to the very highest authority in the land, and we hope by that means to have a body amongst the police which will really represent them upon a thoroughly sound democratic basis, elected and controlled by themselves, fully representative of themselves, and with full power to bring any grievances or aspirations they may have to the very highest authority in the land. We feel justified in saying this. When that body is set up and is looking after the interest of the police, we will then say definitely, once and for all, no policeman has to belong to a union of any sort or description in accordance with the terms of the agreement signed by Marston. They will be called out of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, and they will be prohibited from belonging to any union of any kind at all.

Mr. J. DAVISON

What would be the attitude of the Government, assuming that the members of the union already in existence voted against the establishment of the board that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now describing?

Mr. SHORTT

I am not quite sure I followed the question of the hon. Member, but if he means what will be the attitude of the Government if they insist upon belonging to the National Union——

Mr. DAVISON

That is so!

Mr. SHORTT

—they will then cease to be policemen. They cannot be both. This is a free country. They are not obliged to be policemen. If they like to be industrial trade unionists they can be; if they like to be policemen they can be; but they cannot possibly be both. It entirely rests with themselves. I have tried to explain to the House what we propose to do to remedy their real and genuine grievances; what we propose to do to enable them by combination, discussion, and joint action to safguard their own interests in every possible way. Having regard to the fact that they are a disciplined force; that they are not an industrial body, having regard to the duties they owe to the State, we are justified in saying: we have given a full trial for nine months, with every latitude to the arrangement, in allowing them to join an outside body. It has hopelessly failed, and must cease to continue. That is the position taken up by the Government.

I sincerely hope, and, indeed, I am confident in saying, that it will meet with the approval of the very large majority of the men. I am certain of this, that the Police Force of London, after all, and, indeed, the police forces all over the country—will not tolerate such a. position as that which was outlined in Hyde Park last Sunday. They were asked to hold their hands for the time being, and to hold over the head of the authorities the threat of a strike. This strike, which was to be timed so as to take place in the hour of the public's greatest need, when the danger was greatest, when the storm-clouds were blackest; that, I say, was to be the time chosen by the guardians of the public to desert their charge and to be faithless to their vows. That was the time they were going to choose. That is the kind of men that we have to meet; the kind of people in this union. That is the kind of people who want to control the police. The more extreme the views, the more extreme the methods that these people contemplate, the more essential it is for their purpose that they should be able to call out the police when the public are relying upon the fact that the police are on duty. Then it would be seen that the police had failed in their duty to protect the public. We have to guard against that. We intend to guard against that. While we intend, so-far as it is possible, to be just and generous to a force which has won the admiration of everyone in the past—and which, I believe, in the main is a force which is just as loyal as any body of men possibly could be—a force which is the pride of this country, a civil force such as no other country knows—we are satisfied we shall be able to keep and maintain them at that high standard—a contented force, too—that is if they are properly and generously treated.

Mr. TYSON WILSON

The hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House has touched the point of the difficulty. If the men have taken rather strong action sometimes, as Spackman, for instance, I think that even in that case justice might be combined with mercy, and might go a long way to allay the feelings of the police forces throughout the country and also to allay the unrest amongst the civil population. Might I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the Spackman case. Those of us who read the newspapers at the week-end, and thought that a strike was likely to take place, advised the men not to take any action until they saw the promised report so as to know exactly where the police force stood. I am not in any shape or form going to defend the action of those who signed an agreement and then suggested the breaking of it. I believe that to whatever class of society you belong, that if you agree to sign an agreement that agreement ought to be observed and not treated as a mere scrap of paper. Unfortunately, it seems that there are some agreements that have been signed and have been treated as scraps of paper, and nothing more. I fully recognise that there is a difference between an ordinary trade union in ordinary industry and the police force. But I should like to make an appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take into the fullest confidence the police force in regard to the proposals suggested to be put into the Act of Parliament, and to consult them in regard to what their views are. He need not accept those views, but consult them.

Mr. SHORTT

was understood to assent.

Mr. WILSON

And that would go a long way, in my opinion, towards a satisfactory settlement of the matters in dispute. I should just like one word upon another subject. It is reported that there is to be a certain flat rate of payment proposed—one rate for London and another for the provinces, but that they are being given, in addition, house rent.

Mr. SHORTT

That is not settled.

Mr. WILSON

Policemen are much concerned about this, as to whether it is to be given in wages or is to be paid separately from their wages. It is difficult for the policeman to meet his outlay anyhow. They are also concerned as to whether or not this allowance for house rent will be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of the pension. If the amount paid for house rent is to be deducted from the pensionable wage then it seems to me there is injustice going to be done. In the final decision, I hope consideration will be given to that aspect of the matter. I trust the police will have the fullest, right to appoint their own officials in connection with any board or committee. If this is granted I think it would go a long way to remove at least one of the grievances that the men have now. I am not going to criticise the brief outline of what is going to be done by the right hon. Gentleman. I think it will be better for all concerned to wait and see in print the details of the scheme. I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak as he did in regard to promotion. This is a matter upon which the men, not only in London, but throughout the country, feel very strongly. Many of them study law, the regulations, and so on, and everything they can in connection with the police force, to qualify themselves for the higher posts. When they see a man put into the position of chief constable who knows nothing about the police force it creates an extremely bad feeling in the force, and amongst the most intelligent members of that force. If we could have some assurance, generally speaking, that in the case of the men who qualified themselves in the force for the higher positions their ability would be recognised and promotion would be given to them, it would go a long way toward establishing greater confidence in the police force.