§ 15. Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Home Secretary the number of police, mounted and on foot, on duty during September and October at or in connection with greyhound racing within the Metropolitan police area; the cost of the same; and what proportion is payable by the racecourse proprietors?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe average daily numbers in attendance were, during the months of September and October respectively, 148 and 135, at the cost of the Police Fund, and 177 and 166 at the cost of the proprietors. Those employed at the cost of the Police 1092 Fund were engaged mainly in the regulation of traffic on the highway, and their employment involved no extra charge to public funds apart from a trifling amount, under £20, for travelling expenses. Those employed on the racecourses were paid for by the pro-proprietors, and the total charges amounted to £2,129 approximately.
§ Mr. MORRISONDoes that reply mean that the police who are employed inside the grounds have to be paid for by the proprietors, but that in regard to the police outside the proprietors are exempt from any contribution in connection with the regulation of the crowds?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThat is so. Inside, the proprietors have to pay, as they do on all race-courses. Outside, it is part and parcel of the duty of the police to arrange for the due control of the crowds, however they may be collected.
§ Mr. MORRISONBut does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a very large number of police, both mounted and on foot, are required in the immediate vicinity outside where these races take place, who would not be required there unless there were racing going on? Has he any power to require any proprietors to make any contribution towards that cost?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not think I have any power at all, and, on the whole, I think it is not necessary that I should. It is part of the duty of the police to regulate crowds, wherever they may be or however they may be caused.