HC Deb 09 December 1937 vol 330 cc551-4
34. Mr. Benjamin Smith

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. W. J. Lant, an employé of the West Hartlepool trackless undertaking, was ordered to attend before a justice of the peace of the Borough of Hartlepool to be sworn in as a special constable, and was compelled to sign the required declaration although he had not volunteered for this service; and under what authority the magistrate acted?

Sir S. Hoare

I have made inquiries and am informed that the justices were acting under Section 196 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which provides for the appointment, in October of every year, of borough special constables who can be called on to serve on any occasion when the police force of the borough is insufficient to maintain the peace. I am told that Mr. Lant had been notified before his name was submitted to the justices and that he had then raised no objection: had objection been raised his name would not have been submitted to the justices.

Mr. Smith

If I inform the right hon Gentleman that Mr. Lant most emphatically protested, and was told he would be fined £5 if he did not sign will he take some other action to see that this matter is dealt with?

Mr. Arthur Greenwood

Is it suggested that in Hartlepool the police force is insufficient to maintain the peace?

Sir S. Hoare

This is a matter in which I have no responsibility. It is dependent upon the statutory enactments. I understand that under the Act of 1882 this procedure is practicable, but actually it has seldom, if ever, been used. I am also informed that in this case Mr. Lant was informed in advance of the proposal to include his name in the list of special constables, and it was only when he was asked to come up to make his declaration that he raised any objection. He was also told that no work was to be lost in order to put in an appearance, and that if he could not attend at the time specified, some more appropriate time would be arranged. He did not attend on the date of the summons, but he came to a later meeting of the court, and, after some discussion and explanation, he agreed to sign the declaration, intimating that next year he would prefer to be excused.

Mr. Smith

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree, since he has now told the House that this Act is seldom used, that the justices failed in their warrant to state that a case of emergency existed and that no such intimation was afforded to Mr. Lant; and that Mr. Lant did protest and was threatened with a fine of £5?

Sir S. Hoare

I must not be taken as in any way criticising or supporting the action of the magistrates. It is not my business to do so. I have given the House the information at my disposal. This is, I believe, the first case of the kind that has occurred, and I cannot imagine it is likely to be a case of common occurrence.

Mr. Smith

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise the matter at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Greenwood

rose—

Mr. Sandys

On a point of Order. As the hon. Member has given notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to ask another supplementary question?

Mr. Smith

Perhaps the hon. Member will leave that to me.

Mr. Speaker

There is really no point of Order here. At Question Time, when an hon. Member says that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment the established practice is that no further supplementary questions are asked.

Mr. Greenwood

I asked the right hon. Gentleman, because he quoted the 1882 Act, whether there was a police force in Hartlepool insufficient to maintain the peace, which I understood from him was one of the grounds on which this man was made a special constable? Since this obsolete piece of legislation is rarely used, will he be prepared to repeal it in order to remove temptation from the path of local authorities?

Sir S. Hoare

I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but another hon. Member asked a further question. As to the first question the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, under a misunderstanding. The enlistment of special constables does not imply that the local police force is insufficient, but it does imply that they may be necessary in a special emergency in the future, and it is only for the purposes of an emergency that special constables are enlisted. In answer to his second question, I am inclined to think that as this is the first case of the kind that has come to the notice of the Home Office, it is quite unnecessary to ask Parliament to go through the process of legislation.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

I beg to give notice that on a suitable occasion I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.