§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £440,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police district, war bonus to Metropolitan police magistrates, the contribution towards the expenses of the Metropolitan police the salaries and expenses of the inspectors of constabulary, and other grants in respect of police expenditure, including places of detention and a grant in aid of the Police Federation.
§ Mr. SEXTONI want to call attention on this Vote to the present position of the men implicated in the police strike two years ago. The right hon. Gentleman will agree, I am sure—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt would not be in order to have a discussion with reference to the police strike which occurred some time ago, nor would it be in order for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to reply. We are now only concerned with a Supplementary Estimate of £440,000 on an original Vote of £6,175,000, and it would not be in order to discuss the general administration of the police of England and Wales.
§ Mr. SEXTONThat was not my intention. My intention was to ask the Home Secretary whether, in the future provision for the employment of police under this Supplementary Estimate, it would be possible to consider the eligibility of these men, who, as we all know, have suffered severely, and whether, if vacancies occur in the police force, they would be considered eligible for rejoining the force.
§ Sir D. MACLEANOn a point of Order. This large sum of £330,000 is being asked for additional pay for police, and I suggest, with much respect, that it is open to my hon. Friend to put his case before the Home Secretary, and ask whether, with regard to this additional sum, the men referred to are entitled, as my hon. Friend suggests, to favourable consideration.
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMANAs I understand it, a supplementary sum of £440,000 is being asked for, and that is the only question before the Committee. If there is any item of expenditure in this £440,000 for payment to any of the ex-police officers with whom the hon. Member desires to deal, he would be in order in asking for information or discussing any money involved in their case. If, however, there is no such money included, it does not come before the Committee now. I understand that the question of the ex-police officers who were on strike does not come into this figure. If it does, then, in so far as it comes in, it will be in order, but at present, as I understand, it is not included.
§ Mr. SEXTONAm I in order in referring or calling attention to that deductable portion of the men's pensions during the time they were in the service? This Vote deals with pensions, and money has been deducted from these men, who had 10 or 15 years' service.
§ Sir D. MACLEANOn that point of Order. Would it not be better for the Home Secretary, who knows all about this, to state whether they are or are not included, and whether my hon. Friend's point can or cannot be dealt with on this Vote? With great respect, it is for the right hon. Gentleman to say whether any 2235 part of this is within the ambit of the case which my hon. Friend wishes to lay before the Committee. If it is not that is an end of the matter, but I suggest that the Home Secretary might answer at once.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt)There is nothing in this sum of money which provides for pensions for police constables.
§ Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNI should like to ask the Home Secretary if he could state the amount of the grants to the councils of counties and boroughs that support a police force, whether or not the various boroughs have agreed to the increases and what steps he intends taking if some of the boroughs refuse to fall into line on the increases.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONThere has been a heavy increase since last year in this Vote. Last year, apparently, the original Estimate was just under £2,000,000, and then the Government came down with a Supplementary Estimate of about £4,000,000, which made the whole expense suddenly up to about £6,000,000. Then the original Estimate this year was just over £6,000,000, and they now ask us for very nearly another £500,000. That is to say, for last year the additional expense is just about £750,000. Every single pound that is paid out by us in respect of the police adds to the rates all over the country, because it is a proportionate grant, and you cannot possibly increase the grant for the police without adding to the rates all over the country. Various councils during the last few months have passed resolutions begging the Home Office not to keep on increasing these grants, because wherever the Homo Office increases them it falls upon the rates. The police are a very deserving body of fine men, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that a great many of these local councils are most anxious that these grants shall not keep on being increased, because it simply means that they have to make a proportionate increase, and it always goes on the rates.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI wish to call attention to much the same case as has been 2236 raised by the two previous speakers. In every county the Joint Committee has a pension scheme for the police to which are contributed, as I understand it, grants from the Home Office. That pension scheme is fixed with some reference to the ordinary rates of wages prevalent in the district. In many counties the police force are perfectly content with the pension scheme they have. I understand the Home Office are taking up the line of saying to these counties where everyone is contented, "Unless you adopt a new and increased scheme of pensions and a scheme which in many cases will raises the pay of the police out of all proportion to the wages of the class of persons from which they are called and amongst whom they live, we will withhold the grants we have hitherto been making." Am I correct in saying that he is doing that, and if so what power has he to do it? Would he modify the great zeal which he is displaying in the performance of his duty, and leave the local authorities to manage their own affairs a good deal more, and keep from interfering in the way that he has done? This is a matter of considerable substance, because the local rates are so high that they are making the cost of living prohibitive to many people. I object on principle to this attempt to make flat rates all over the country. I am glad to see several Members of the Labour party present, because in the railway world they have succeeded in making a flat rate. It was unnecessary, and it is causing a great deal of discontent in the villages. In a village you see a railway porter, who may be a single man of 20 or 21 years of age, who is getting more money than a married man, who may be a skilled carpenter or a skilled man in agriculture. These railway men, in many cases, are getting more money than is necessary, and the cost is damaging to the railways, while at the same time it is causing discontent among other classes of people who live in the district. It does seem a mistake to force upon the police a flat rate all over the country without regard to the needs of the country districts. As a consequence of this you have the same discontent that is felt over the attempt to form a flat rate for other trades.
§ Sir H. NIELDI desire to ram home what has been said by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lamp- 2237 son). I see the hon. Member for Plymouth present (Sir A. Shirley Benn) who was associated with the Port of London Authority, and I daresay he will bear me out when I say that this policy in regard to the police has had a very detrimental effect upon those large authorities who are employing dock police and others who perform similar duties. It is impossible for these commercial undertakings to go on if these charges are constantly put upon them by comparison of what is being done in the Metropolitan area with regard to the police. No one desires to prevent any servant of the State from having such a wage as the present condition of things entitled them to, but it is not fair that public funds should be used to give a wage which is in excess of that which is reasonable, and which presses so heavily upon undertakings which are depending upon the earnings of those trades which are now so seriously jeopardised.
§ Mr. SHORTTI gather that the point which is raised applies to what is called the police bonus, which is a bonus additional to the police pay having regard to the cost of living. As there seems to be some misapprehension in regard to the police bonus, I will endeavour to state exactly what has happened. Under the Police Act, 1919, the police have in their own body of the whole country what corresponds to a trade union. They have a representative body of their own election called the Police Council, which is a central body on which every grade of the police are represented, and on which body the police authorities, the standing joint committees, etc., are also represented. At a meeting of the Police Council the police brought forward the question of bonus, because of the additional cost of living since the Desborough Committee had reported. The Desborough Committee recommended a scale of pay which has been adopted all over the country. The police representatives on the council pointed out that the cost of living had increased very largely since the Desborough Committee reported, and therefore they were entitled to a bonus having regard to the rise in the cost of living. On that a Committee of the Council was appointed, and upon it were representatives of the police and of the authorities. It was so constituted that no recommendation could be made by it unless both sides, that is to say the 2238 authorities as well as the police, were agreed. Therefore anything which the police wished to recommend the representatives of the police authorities could have completely closed down by refusing to agree to it.
The question of bonus is what they had to consider. The representatives of the police authorities on that Committee explained that this was a new subject and that they had no mandate with regard to it and did not feel that they would be justified in coming to any conclusion upon it without having first consulted their constituents. The Sub-Committee's proceedings were thereupon adjourned for two months to enable them to do so. One would imagine that two months was a sufficiently long period. At the end of these two months those representatives came back and stated that they had consulted with their constituents the local authorities. Thereupon the Committee proceeded to consider the proposal of a bonus, and with the exception of one small detail, having regard to the amount of increase in the purely rural district, the Committee were unanimous in recommending the additional bonus. That was a representative Committee, which had full time to consider this, who had representatives of the local authorities who had gone to consult their constituents, and they came back in complete unanimity with regard to the fact that some bonus should be paid, though there was one dissentient as to the amount of that bonus in rural districts. In face of that what is the Home Secretary to do? The only police over which I have actual control is the Metropolitan Police Force, and in obedience to the recommendations of that Committee I adopted this police bonus. An enormous majority of the police authorities in the country have done the same. Some have not and through their representatives say that they are unable to do so.
That may or may not be true. I do not know. However, after a considerable amount of discussion, I have seen a number of deputations, and I have ventured with all respect to point out to the local authorities that really their organisation is defective, and that that is largely accountable for any trouble that has arisen, because they now say that their representatives upon the Council 2239 and the Sub-Committee were not really representative at all. I did not choose them. They chose their own representatives, and if their organisation is deficient, and people come who are not really representative, it is no fault of mine. I ventured with great respect to point that out. I have called, as I am entitled under the Act to do, for another meeting of the Council. I have asked the representatives of the police authorities to choose people on that who really represent them in the matter, and send them to this Council, and then we will discuss what will be done with regard to those authorities who say that they cannot possibly afford this bonus. They will sit in the course of a few weeks. I hope that they will come to some solution of the difficulty with regard to those authorities. I assure the Committee—I hope that I am not very much out of order, but they may wish to hear it—that the one object which the Home Office has is to secure an efficient police force. When we are told that we are interfering and are taking control out of the hands of the local authorities, the statement is absolutely without foundation. The one thing we are bound to insist upon is efficiency. There are many things which go to make up efficiency. One of the main things is contentment. A discontented force is not an efficient force. With regard to all the rest, every authority is complete master of its own house, and there is no attempt on the part of the Home Office to interfere.
§ Mr. SWANI understand that overtures have been made to the Home Secretary to re-absorb the men who were dismissed. Is anything included in these Estimates for that?
§ Mr. SHORTTNothing.
§ Mr. SHORTTI had requests a number of times.
§ Mr. ACLANDThe statement of the Home Secretary will have convinced the Committee that the payment of this extra bonus is inevitable. If you have an increased cost per unit, the only way to avoid a greater total charge is to reduce the number of units concerned. I would like a statement as to the practice of the Home Office with regard to fixing the numbers of the police forces in some of the districts under their control. I have 2240 in mind the case of the borough of Tiverton. I do not sit for the Division so I am not asking the question in my own interest, though I confess I hope to sit for the constituency some day. The borough of Tiverton, I understand, has recently asked the Home Office whether it may reduce its police force. The borough council thinks that the bonuses are too large, but has assented to the payment of them. As Tiverton becomes even more peaceful than it has ever been, the inhabitants feel that they do not require the same number of police as before, and they have asked whether they can have a slight reduction. There is practically no disorder in the town. The only temptation for the inhabitants to commit disorder is to give the police something to do, or, possibly, there may be risk of civil disturbance on the part of the ratepayers because of this heavy burden of the expense of the police. A unanimous request for a reduction of the force has been sent to the Home Office by the Tiverton Town Council. In view of the extra expense for this bonus I would like to know whether any attempt has been made to recast or review the rules which guide the Home Office with regard to the numbers of the police forces which have-to be maintained. This country, one hopes, is gradually becoming more orderly. It is not like Ireland. Therefore it might be thought that there would be from time to time an opportunity for a gradual reduction of the police. Certainly the increasing cost of them makes it more necessary that the question should be considered carefully. If, therefore, we may have a statement as to what steps are now being taken to see whether reductions in numbers may not in certain circumstances be possible, I think the House will be obliged.
Sir J. D. REESI should like to ask the Home Secretary whether any and, if so, how much of this additional sum of £440,000 is incurred on account of the women police in London, because if any portion of it is devoted to that object, I feel it my duty to say that I believe the whole of that money was wasted, and the not inconsiderable sum spent on the travesty on police uniforms of these women police, who have no powers and duties but to perambulate the parks and streets, is a most regrettable expenditure of public money at the present time, when, Heaven knows, there is little enough of it 2241 available. As there has recently been a report on the subject, I do not think it becoming to refer at any length to the question on which hon. Members have been good enough to hear me before to-day, but I cannot let the Vote pass without asking the Home Secretary this question, and if the answer is in the affirmative, it is to my extreme regret that so obvious and necessary an economy is not effected. As regards the grants to borough police forces, is a grant made to every borough which has a separate police force? I gather that is so. I see in the description of the Supplementary Estimates it says "War bonus to Metropolitan police magistrates." I did not know dignitaries of that class received a bonus of this description.
§ Mr. SHORTTSo do county court judges.
Sir J. D. REESThen I hope it will not reach the judges of the High Court, not for any criticism of them, but because I think the bonus system is being very largely developed, as this Vote testifies. What is the grant in aid of the Police Federation? I am no doubt exposing an ignorance which is not shared by any other Member of the Committee, but I do not know. As regards the Home Secretary's remarks on the necessity for efficiency, I submit that neither he nor any other official, nor any Department, can insist upon efficiency irrespective of cost. It is entirely a question of cost, of how much efficiency the taxpayer and the ratepayer can afford, and it is even better, I submit, to stop short of a very high mark of efficiency and have a few pennies left in one's pocket than to have an exceedingly efficient police force and not have a copper left to pay for a bus ride. As to the representatives on the Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, everybody repudiates representatives who do not recommend exactly what they want. Every House of Commons is unrepresentative of those who were defeated at the polls, and I think very little of that. I look to the Home Secretary to exercise a stern and rigid economy, and I hope he will begin to do it by ceasing to spend any more money on clothes and salaries for the policewomen in London. I am not speaking without having made some inquiry. I have made it my business to inquire. I have asked all over 2242 the place in London. Whenever I see one of these people perambulating the streets in fine clothes, at the taxpayers' expense, I have asked, What do they do? And I have never heard a single member of the public who said that they were the slightest use whatever, but were an absolute excrescence upon the police force, and ought to be abolished.
§ Viscount CURZONI would really like, as strongly as I can, to dissent from what the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) has just said on the subject of women police. I do not possess any extensive knowledge of what they are able to do, or what their duties are, but I do not think you get the best out of any force by running it down in the way the hon. Gentleman has done. I am quite confident there are some duties they perform far more efficiently than men could perform them, and, indeed, I believe that to that, testimony has been borne in the Report which has been issued to the House on the subject. I do not know whether there are any women police in Nottingham, but, if not, possibly it might, be a good thing to start them there. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said on the police bonus, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Navy has an absolutely analogous institution to the police force in its welfare committees, which have made certain recommendations to the Admiralty on the subject of pay, to which the Admiralty have not seen their way to agree. When the Police Federation made a recommendation to the Home Secretary in favour of an increase of pay, he said in rather pathetic terms, I thought, "What is the Home Secretary to do?" I suggest he might have done exactly what the First Lord of the Admiralty did on the subject, and that is refuse a great many requests which were just as reasonable. The Navy does not enjoy a war bonus to-day, and I do not see why it should be paid in all cases in the police force. There is a great deal to be said for further inquiry about the war bonus to the police force before it is continued. What I want to know is exactly how much of this expenditure of £440,000 is necessitated by the operations, chiefly of the Metropolitan Police, against automobiles. This is a subject about which I do claim to know something. I have put a series of questions to the Home Secretary in 2243 the past Session on the subject of the control of motor traffic in the Metropolitan Police area I have all the figures—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not know whether the Supplementary Estimate provides any money for these particular duties to which the Noble Lord is going to refer. If not, it would not be in order to discuss them now.
§ Viscount CURZONI ask the Home Secretary whether any portion of the money is for the police employed on this duty. It is impossible to ascertain it from the Vote. It simply says it is a contribution towards the expenses of the Metropolitan Police District. The Metropolitan Police I was talking about, and no less than an average number of about 70 to 80 per week were employed upon no other duties than the control of motor traffic in the Metropolitan Police area alone during last summer up to a certain point. I know it is different now. What I would like to know is whether we could not secure a more efficient and better police service, so far as motor traffic is concerned, organised on different lines. I do not wish motor traffic to go unrestricted in the Metropolitan Police area, or anywhere else, but I do maintain that the system which necessitated the employment of so many police constables every week-end last year was not efficient. They caught very few people who really wanted catching. All they did was to catch people going from speeds of 25 to 30 miles an hour. The people going 40 miles and over were very seldom, if ever, caught. I want to press upon the Home Secretary whether he will not consider instituting in future some special form of road police. I know the subject has been considered, but we have heard nothing of it for a long time, and I hope he can give us some information. A special branch of road police, given a certain amount of mobility, mounted on motor-cycles or something of that kind, would be a great success here as they have been in America and other countries. Is the Home Secretary inquiring into this?
In the Metropolitan Police area, too, a certain number of mounted constables are to be seen in the streets. Does the Home Secretary really think that this expenditure is justified by what these police do? I do as much motoring in the Metropolitan Police area as any other Member, 2244 and I have never seen a mounted policeman directing the slow-moving traffic to get to the side of the road, or dealing with the crawling taxis. There is a great scope for them, and they are badly needed. I urge upon the Home Secretary that further orders and powers should be given to them in order that they may regulate London traffic, which is increasing by leaps and bounds. In my opinion it is nothing to-day to what it will be in two or three years' time with further motor and other traffic on the streets. If the police require further powers on this matter they should be given it as soon as possible.
There are foot police employed specially to see about motor vehicles stopping in the main arteries of traffic in London. These police have no instructions to what they are to do other than that they are to move on any motor vehicle that stops. Would the Home Secretary see these police are given some sort of direction as to where they are to send traffic that desires to wait in the principal streets, and that they send them somewhere where they can go and be parked without being an obstruction? I am sure motorists wish to make the task of the police as light as possible, and any scheme of that sort will be welcomed. Would the Home Secretary see whether he could arrange for some sort of parking place, and for the police who move on motors to have information? He would confer a great benefit on motor traffic and on all road users in the Metropolitan Police area.
§ Mr. MOSLEYI heartily agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken. Before the Committee passes this large Sum for the police bonus, we should be satisfied of an increase in efficiency commensurate with the increase in pay. The evidence available points to the reverse of the proposition. In the police organisation there is a remarkable lack of a sense of proportion. I cannot vie with my Noble Friend in such experiences, but a few cases have recently been brought to my own notice, in only one of which I myself was involved. These instances are annoying and remarkable, when considered in conjunction with the fact that there are demands for the police and for police control at spots where it is really vital for the preservation of human life. In my own constituency, 2245 within the Metropolitan area, at a certain corner there have been recently three very serious accidents. Two of them were in the month of February. The local council represented to the Home Secretary that a policeman should be put there on point duty to save accidents in the future, but the request was summarily refused. It was a request for a policeman to be placed on point duty at a spot where his presence sooner or later would be certain to save a serious accident involving the loss of human life. In conjunction with that, we find policemen throughout the country employed upon the most frivolous tasks, apparently designed to harrass and irritate—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is not in order on these Supplementary Estimates to discuss the policy and duties of the police. The only question now under discussion is whether this Supplementary Estimate should be granted for these additional expenses. It is never in order on the Supplementary Estimates to discuss the main policy.
§ Mr. MOSLEYWith all due respect to your ruling, the question of the efficiency of the police was originally introduced by the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. MOSLEYAs we are voting this additional sum of £440,000, are we not entitled to ask whether we are going to have increased efficiency in the organisation? Clearly, we should be satisfied on that point before we vote this increase in pay. The pay of the men is increased under this Vote, and, under these circumstances, I submit that we are entitled to question the efficiency of traffic control in the Metropolitan area. We find a remarkable lack of proportion—
Colonel NEWMANAre we not discussing the expenditure under "e" and does not "e" in the footnote set out exactly how the expenditure has been incurred and what the police are doing?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANNo, not the whole administration of the force throughout the country. It is obvious that is not the matter before the Committee. It is quite clear that has been sanctioned by Parliament to the extent of £6,175,000. The only question to be discussed now is whether an additional 2246 sum of £440,000 should be granted. That does not raise the whole question of administration.
§ Mr. ACLANDAs I understand it, my hon. Friend was beginning to refer to cases where he considered that an un necessary number of police were being employed. Would not that be in order as tending to show that a reduction might have been made in the numbers and that therefore this extra expense might have been saved?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANCertainly, if directed in that way, it would be in order. I could not disallow it.
§ Mr. MOSLEYThat is exactly what I was trying, very inadequately, to point out. If the police were not employed upon frivolous duties, it would be possible to utilise their services upon vital work and to effect a reduction in the expenditure. Recently many cases have come to light in which the police have taken action, not with a view of preserving life by preventing motor travelling in dangerous places and at excessive speeds, but in bringing purely frivolous charges involving technical offences, such as the temporary failure of a side light, while powerful headlights were still burning. The charge has been recently made against myself, and I have heard of other cases.
I know of a case in which a motorist's sidelight failed to operate owing to a piece of wire introducing itself into the electrical arrangements. For that he was summoned and because, instead of attending, he sent a letter admitting a technical offence a warrant was issued for his arrest. That is carrying matters too far. In many districts policemen are engaged in pulling motorists up for trivial offences and charging them when it is quite unnecessary for the safety of the public, while men cannot be found for points where their presence is vitally necessary In London large vans are permitted to perambulate—
§ Sir J. BUTCHERIs it in order on this Vote to go into the general administration of the force?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have already told the hon. Member it is not, but he has continued to disregard my ruling. The general administration of the police force is not under discussion 2247 and it is not in order on this Supplementary Estimate to discuss the question of policemen looking after motor cars or questions of policy and principle which have already been settled by Parliament.
§ Sir W. PEARCEAs a London Member, I would point out that a few years ago the London police force might have, been very much open to criticism, but to-day, as regards discipline, contentment and efficiency, it is in first-class order. I believe that that is due very largely to the policy of the Home Secretary in seeing that the men are properly paid and looked after. I saw a large number of policemen together one night last week, about 400 of them. The Special Commissioner and many of the officers were present. I was much impressed by the popularity of the officers, and the discipline and good temper of the men. I think, therefore, that the policy of the Home Secretary is not only right, but has added greatly to the security of London.
§ Mr. SHORTTWith regard to the question put by my hon. Friend (Mr. Mosley) as to the necessity for stationing a special man to deal with motor traffic at a corner he mentioned, I may say the place will be visited by an inspector and full inquiry made, and if anything can be done it will be done. I hope the Committee will now give me the Vote.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERI think part of this £440,000 has been spent in connection with the Pensions Increase Fund. I should like to know whether the increase has been sufficient to meet all cases of hardship brought before the authorities, and how large is the increase?
§ Mr. SHORTTI am afraid I cannot give that information. I have not the figures here.