HC Deb 05 March 1929 vol 226 cc313-5
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison)—in page 5, line 6, at the end to insert the words: Provided also that no person who at a date immediately prior to the commencement of this Act holds the office of chief constable of a burgh shall be deprived of his office save on payment of a sum sufficient to secure him against pecuniary loss. —would create a charge and is, therefore, not in order.

Sir R. HUTCHISON

On a point of Order. I think that, as these chief constables are paid out of the rates, there would be no additional expense, even though my Amendment were accepted.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The words are: Provided also that no person who at a date immediately prior to the commencement of this Act holds the office of chief constable of a burgh shall be deprived of his office save on payment of a sum sufficient to secure him against pecuniary loss. Therefore, there would be a charge in respect of the outgoing chief constable, which would be a charge on the rates, and that it is not possible to do on the Report stage.

Sir R. HUTCHISON

The point I wish to make is that at present powers are taken in the Bill to remunerate these people for loss of office, and, therefore, this will simply define the amount of compensation which is already allowed in the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If it defines, it may increase beyond the powers of the Bill. It is a rule of the House that you may not put anything on to the rates on the Report stage of a Bill, and there is no doubt that this, at any rate, might do that.