HC Deb 29 January 1952 vol 495 cc110-28

Order for Second Reading read.

7.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The purpose of this Bill is to empower the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District to borrow additional sums not exceeding £5 million to meet the needs of police building in the Metropolitan Police area. Parliament has from time to time been asked to give authority for the raising of loans for this purpose. The most recent authority is in the Metropolitan Police (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1935, which authorised borrowing up to £4 million. Of this amount £2 million was taken up before the war, £500,000 has been borrowed since 1945, authority has just been given to borrow a further £500,000, and the remaining £1 million is expected to be exhausted before the end of the financial year 1952–53.

Therefore, Parliament is being asked for authority for further loans now so that there may be no check in the progress of building operations and particularly in the provision of houses for married policemen and their families and of single men's quarters. As I have indicated, first and foremost comes housing. The Metropolitan Police aim is to provide housing for 4,000 police families. Before the war 1,200 houses and flats were available. Since the war a further 1,600 have been provided or are under construction. Of the balance of 1,200, tenders have been invited or received for 300, and the programme will be completed as rapidly as possible.

The present programme contemplates additional quarters for 2,000 single men and women. It is unnecessary for me to devote much time to stressing the urgent need to provide reasonable accommodation for policemen and their wives, particularly in an area where accommodation is more than usually scarce and there is such a serious deficiency in the strength of the police force. Everyone in the House will agree that, in the nature of things, a force such as the Metropolitan Police is often at a serious disadvantage in the matter of housing.

Appeals have been made on various occasions for London housing authorities to recognise the special disabilities of the police in this respect when those authorities are allocating their houses but, while some have helped, the general response has been disappointing. There is, in addition, a need for some building work on police stations as distinct from houses but, of course, the rate at which that programme can be fulfilled must in the present conditions be highly problematical, and this is recognised in the amount specified in the Bill.

If I state briefly the relation of the problem I am putting before the House to the general question of expenditure, not only by the central Government but by the local authorities, I hope that the House will forgive me because I think it ought to be put into perspective. The total building programme which we have in mind covering all classes of building would extend, at a reasonable estimate, to a capital cost of £17½ million. Although it would be foolish at the moment to attempt to set any term to the completion of this programme, I hope it is not outrageously unrealistic to say it will be completed in 12 years.

In accordance with the accepted practice, the cost of the programme will be met partly by loan and partly out of current revenue. It is, I am told, the general view of the authorities in London that the amount spent from rate revenue in building operations for the Metropolitan Police should not exceed the result of a 1d. rate. At present a 1d. rate would produce about £400,000 and, with the Exchequer grant, we have £800,000 available from income, if I may put it that way, for building purposes. On the assumption of a 12-year period, that leaves something like £8 million to be raised by loan.

I think the House will agree it is sound practice that one should not ask for the whole amount at one bite, if I may use that word, because it is preferable to come back and ask again so that the House can keep control over the borrowing for this purpose. That is why we have asked for only £5 million at the present time.

The only other aspect which I think the House should know about is the ultimate cost. I am assuming that the loan will be based on a repayment period of 30 years, because this is the normal period for loans by the Receiver. I also assume that the loan will carry interest at the current rate of 3¾ per cent. On this basis the charge by way of interest and sinking fund when the whole £5 million is taken up will be some £280,000 a year. But against that the provision of the living accommodation of which I have spoken will result in a saving in rent allowances of an estimated amount of £100,000 a year. So we are left with a net figure of £180,000 a year. Of that £90,000 will fall on the central Government revenue and £90,000 on the rates.

That is the ultimate figure which, of course, we shall not reach for a long time. In the next year the charge will be negligible. There will be no additional cost in the current financial year, and the increased cost in 1952–53 will be negligible. As I have explained, the sums we have available for borrowing will enable a gradual increase up to the sum of £90,000 in respect of rates. I do not think, therefore, that anyone can consider that that is an excessive amount.

Although this is a small and somewhat technical Bill I wish the House to appreciate and to be with me on the need of the police for houses. It is a very important subject and I am anxious that we should continually improve the recruiting figures and bring the force up to strength. I am anxious that the men who are recruited should have those decent conditions which are particularly important for men who are working the hours which police have to work.

Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether any provision is being made for housing the widows of police officers? He knows the problem which confronts such widows. Frequently they may have to move from the married quarters, and perhaps he has considered the possibility of allowing them to remain after their husbands have died, or perhaps been killed.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

If the hon. Member would allow me to look into that problem I will communicate with him. Frankly, it is not one with which I have acquainted myself and I would rather make no answer except one which would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln)

My hon. Friends may have points on finance or housing which they may wish to raise, but I would assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that we do not oppose this Bill in any way. We welcome, as we did when in office, any action designed to improve the position of policemen. We welcome this Bill as we did the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). We will always welcome anything which would assist in building up the strength of the police wherever it may be, and especially in the Metropolis.

Throughout the country the police forces are below establishment. The most recent figures which I have for London, which are for November, show that the Metropolis is down 4,000 on an establishment of about 20,000, which is serious. Of the general difficulties throughout the country housing, obviously, is the most important. Policemen are not the most welcome of lodgers, because of their hours of work and the fact that they need such things as drying facilities.

London is much worse than the provinces. I speak with knowledge of one city, the City of Lincoln, which is a typical city of its size, where they have no real problem as they are only eight down in an establishment of 120. The difficulties of housing in London are made greater by the fact, as we can all judge when we pass the time of day with the policemen who serve this House so well, that the police officers come from the far corners of these islands. They come from the provinces and face this real problem of housing.

We hope that as a result of this Bill we shall not only reduce the amount spent in rent allowances but, in the long run, increase the housing accommodation for single and married men. The House knows that the position of the police has improved greatly in recent years and the police force today provides a real career for men. There is no need for men to stand back. They should come forward to join this fine service. Today, we might well amend the words of W. S. Gilbert and say: … taking one consideration with another, A policeman's lot is now a happy one.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Ian Harvey (Harrow, East)

The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) has voiced the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the principle of this Bill and I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend will find complete support for it.

I wish to raise with him a point of which I have given him previous notice. It is purely a technical point. He referred to the period of 30 years as being the normal period of a loan. I think, however, that I am right in saying that the normal period for borrowing for housing is 60 years. If we adopt that longer period the loan charge is, in fact, reduced from £280,000 a year to £210,000.

Allowing for the mathematical calculations which my right hon. and learned Friend has described to us, it would mean that the annual rate burden would be reduced from the £90,000 to which he referred, to £55,000. It would seem to me, in the absence of any argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman might put against it, that this would be a more healthy period, and I do hope that he may see his way to adjust this in his Bill.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter (Southall)

There are a few points upon which I should like to ask one or two questions of the Home Secretary. First of all, I should like to know exactly what type of housing accommodation is envisaged. In my view, in the past the provision of houses for the Metropolitan Police has been based on entirely wrong conceptions. What we have created in the past have been barracks—"section houses" is the name they are known by—and it really means that there are policemen above, below and on either side of one another.

I believe, from a purely community point of view, that that is bad development. I think a policeman's house ought to be in the middle of an ordinary community of people—that policemen should take part in the life of the community in the ordinary way, with Mrs. Brown, the policeman's wife, talking to Mrs. Jones, the bricklayer's wife, instead of to Mrs. Jones, another policeman's wife. There is obviously all sorts of back chat which goes on as a result of that type of development.

Secondly, I should like to know that, whatever is provided in the way of housing as a result of this loan, it will in no way affect the provision of housing materials and supplies to the local authorities in Greater London or Metropolitan Police areas. I think it is very important that there should be no question of it being regarded as something which is to be fitted into the ordinary housing programme. I think it might be wise to add this total number of houses or flats to those to be provided by the local authorities and to ask the local authorities to provide that additional number of houses with the consent, of course, of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. If that were done it might well be that we could get an additional number of houses, which would also be much better distributed among the community than would be possible as a result of that type of development.

I have always held that the development of one section of the community—police or otherwise—all together in one particular environment is not a good type of development. There is, perhaps, a rather critical aspect about this. It is interesting to note that the provision of houses for this purpose is to cost more than rent allowances. Rent allowances practically equate to what police officers have to pay for housing accommodation and, although I am not necessarily objecting to it, from the ratepayers' point of view it is not a very good bargain if, to save rent allowances which are reasonably adequate, they are to pay another £90,000 per year, over and above what they are now paying. I am wondering whether it is not an expensive piece of work to save rent allowances which, after all, have some relationship to the economic rent being paid today by police officers. I think we should look at that question.

I would ask the Home Secretary to consider the possibility of a conference with local authorities in the Metropolitan Police area with a view to providing a dispersed form of housing for police officers in addition to the total number of houses they would be providing in the ordinary way, thereby allowing the police officer who is given this advantage to fit into the ordinary scheme of things. It would be an innovation, but I think that when we are to spend £5 million on police officers we are entitled to some innovations. If that were done it seems to me that it would be better. It would be getting away from the idea of herding all police officers in one community, and it would also ensure the development of houses in areas where policemen are, much more than getting them together in specific blocks.

I do not know how far it would be possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to go in that direction, but if we are to pay for this purpose more than we are now paying in the way of rent allowances it seems to me that we should do it in the best possible way. I am not really satisfied that it is not better to pay the rent allowances for the officers concerned. It might have been argued—I think it was argued—that housing accommodation, as far as the Metropolitan Police Area is concerned, has had some effects on recruiting. I believe the position in the Metropolitan Police Area is that they do not want very many recruits at the moment.

As a result of the alteration in pay and allowances, the position of the policemen has improved very considerably in the Metropolitan Area. I may stand to be corrected on that, but I think it is a point that we might well look at. I have always argued that normal housing is rather better than special provision, always provided it meets the needs of the community and also the special needs of the police force which is necessary in a reasonable area for the purposes of its operations.

I hope that the Home Secretary may be able to make some observations about this. I do not want to imply that I should be opposed to the Bill because of that—because I feel that any addition we can make to the general sum total of houses in the Metropolitan Area is a good thing; but I want to be quite sure that this will make an addition to the total and it will be usefully employed.

7.46 p.m.

Lieut. - Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

It is, of course, quite true that the provision of more housing accommodation for the Metropolitan Police will not in itself entirely solve the problem of recruitment. It will, naturally, make some contribution towards inducing more men to join the police force, but I think the Home Secretary will agree that other factors and other considerations enter into the minds of the man or woman who desires to become a member of this force.

Another point made in the course of the discussion of this Bill is the undesirability, from a planning point of view, of herding together large numbers of police constables in large blocks of flats. It so happens that in my own constituency there are several large blocks of flats, specifically provided by either the City of London Police or the Metropolitan Police for their own police constables. The feeling I have about these aggregations is this: it does tend to isolate the policeman and his wife and family from the general life of the community in which they live.

I know that the difficulties in London are perhaps greater than elsewhere in providing a dispersed form of housing accommodation in separate houses scattered over the various boroughs of the Metropolis; but I hope that those concerned in the provision of police accommodation will not concentrate on exclusively the provision of large blocks of flats in which the members of the police force will live the somewhat cloistered lives that living together like that seems to entail.

Nowadays there is very much less suspicion than there used to be between the police force on the one hand and members of the general community on the other, but I think that anything which tends to break down whatever barrier may still possibly exist is worth exploring. For that reason I would like to support the suggestion, that, so far as possible, the police in the Metropolitan area should not be housed in blocks of flats.

There is one other point perhaps of greater constitutional importance which is involved in the Bill. This House has few opportunities of discussing the finances of the Metropolitan Police Force which is in an entirely different category from any other police force in the country. It is different because the control of the Metropolitan Police is vested by statute in the Commissioner of Police subject to the approval of the Home Secretary. That places the Metropolitan Police and all its activities, and, in particular, the financial concerns of the Metropolitan Police, in an entirely different category.

In the county areas outside London we have standing joint committees of democratically elected representatives. These committees precept on the county council which, in turn, precepts upon the constituent local authorities. In the county boroughs we have the watch committees which are committees of the local borough councils and which control the police forces in the county boroughs concerned. In London that situation does not apply. This has caused a certain amount of heartburning on the part of the 28 metropolitan boroughs and the fairly considerable number of other local authorities which come within the Metropolitan Police area.

The reason for this uneasy frame of mind on the part of the local authorities in the Metropolitan area is simply explained by the fact that out of the rate which he pays every ratepayer in the Metropolitan area pays 1s. 8½d. in the pound for the Metropolitan Police. In that way some £8 million is provided by ratepayers for the maintenance of the Metropolitan Police. For example, the Lambeth Borough Council contributes £183,000 a year towards the maintenance of the Metropolitan Police without having a single right to express its view as to the manner in which this money is spent or in respect of the calculations upon which these figures are based.

What happens is that every year, on 14th February, St. Valentine's Day, the Metropolitan Police send a circular to all the local authorities with whom they are concerned informing them that for the forthcoming year the police rate will be a certain amount. Last year the police rate was fixed at 1s. 8½d. Neither the local authorities nor this House have any knowledge whatever of the estimates on which that precept is based, because it is not until some time after the Commissioner of Police asks the local authorities to pay this precept that this House is presented with the Estimates on which the precept is based.

I find that for some years past the demand has gone out from the Metropolitan Police to the local authorities on 14th February and no Member of this House has had an opportunity of seeing the Civil Estimates, which include the Police Estimate, until 9th March. That seems to be a negation of the principle of no taxation without representation. It persuades me to say that the Metropolitan Police are subject to less democratic control than any other police force in the length and breadth of the land.

The local authorities in the Metropolitan area have no say whatever in the financial and other operations which may be involved in the provision of police protection. I know that this matter has been brought to the notice of more than one Home Secretary and that whenever it is brought to the notice of any Home Secretary, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), the answer is that it is impracticable to consult all the 100 or so rating authorities in the area.

But in my opinion it is still possible to arrange some form of consultation with a limited number of perhaps five or six appointed people to represent all the rating authorities in the London area. They could consult the Commissioner of Police or the Home Office on the Estimates before the precept was issued. Surely it is right that both Members of Parliament and local authorities should have an opportunity to see the Estimates on which the precept is based before the precept is issued and that they should be allowed, as Members of Parliament or through local authorities, to make such representations as may be appropriate.

Having left that point, I proceed to another matter of a financial character in relation to the fairly substantial cash balances which are held by the Commissioner of Police. In the Estimates for the past year the interest earned on these cash balances alone was shown as £10,000. If the Home Secretary refers to the figures for previous years, he will find that in the six years since 1945 the total amount of interest earned by the Receiver, who is the financial officer of the Metropolitan Police, is no less than £76,000. That is a considerable sum.

In effect, the average interest earned over the past six years or so has been between £12,000 and £13,000 per annum. That is a factor which should not be overlooked in considering the demands made upon the people of London for the maintenance of the police force. This Bill will impose a further additional charge upon the ratepayers in the Metropolitan area. Fortunately, the fact that this legislation has had to be presented in the form of a Bill has provided the House with an opportunity of commenting upon the financial implications which may be involved.

A further point I wish to make is that the local authorities and the ratepayers in the London area are, to some extent which it is not possible for me to calculate, subsidising the Government in the discharge of their financial responsibilities to the Metropolitan Force. At present the situation briefly is that half the cost of the police force is provided by Government grant. The other half is provided by precept on the lines that I have described. That is, briefly and roughly, the position.

Included in the estimates of the Metropolitan Police Force is a figure of £100,000 for the discharge of what are described as "imperial and national" services. This figure was fixed in 1909, 43 years ago, because the Police Act of 1909 provided that: … there shall be paid in each year out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of services rendered by the metropolitan police for imperial and national purposes such sum as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine. This figure of £100,000, which has remained unchanged since 1909, provides the Metropolitan Police Force with the extra money for the additional expenditure entailed by visits of foreign royalties and dignitaries from abroad, and the ceremonial functions in connection therewith.

The cost of the Metropolitan Police has gone up tenfold since 1913–14. In the latter year, the Metropolitan Police cost somewhere about £2,500,000; in the current year, it is costing £25 million. Although the cost of the police has multiplied 10 times, we are asked to believe that the cost of discharging their national or imperial responsibilities is the same as it was in 1909. That I find difficult to believe. It means, in effect, that the ratepayers of London are subsidising the cost of this particular part of the duties of the Metropolitan Police, because those duties must inevitably entail a larger expenditure now than they did when the sum of £100,000 was originally fixed as a result of the 1909 Police Act.

I do not expect that the Home Secretary is in a position to deal with these rather important matters that I have ventured to raise tonight. I hope, however, that in the not too distant future he and his advisers will consider the problems that I have presented, so that the ratepayers of London or the Metropolitan area, and the local authorities concerned, may have removed from them a sense of grievance which they have, not unjustifiably, felt for some considerable time.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I want to limit my remarks to one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and another point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton).

I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall, who said that it would be a good thing if policemen did not live in section houses or in barracks. During the six and a quarter years when I was Home Secretary, I made many efforts to persuade local housing authorities of the Metropolitan Police district to let me have an assurance that, on their various housing estates, an odd house here and there would be provided for a police officer, but the response which I received was surprisingly disappointing. I was told that it was my job to provide housing accommodation for the police.

I still retain the view that a scattered police force is a great deal better in the police system of our country, where, after all, the policeman is only an ordinary citizen discharging duties that any one of us may be called upon to discharge in keeping the King's peace. I think that it is also a good thing for the discipline of the force, and for good feeling between policemen's wives.

If we have a dozen or more policemen living together, and one of them unfortunately becomes involved in some disciplinary offence and gets a stoppage of pay, or some other indication of the displeasure of his superiors, when his wife goes out and sees two of the wives of other policemen talking together, she assumes that they are talking about her husband. That is not a good thing. If the men are living in reasonable isolation—I mean one in one part of a housing estate and another in another part—that kind of thing does not arise. After all, it is a good thing, in the police system of our country, that the police should be living the lives of ordinary citizens, mixing when off duty with their neighbours, who have something else to think about than the idiosyncracies of the local superintendent.

Therefore, I would make an appeal to the housing authorities of the Metropolitan Police district to assist the Commissioner of Police in making available houses which can be used for police purposes. Of course, it is essential—and I know that this is one of the difficulties—that the Commissioner should be assured that, if the man whom he places in such a house is moved, for promotion or other reasons, the house shall be available for the man who is taking his place.

It is desirable that the police force should be reasonably distributed, and therefore I welcome the Bill. In fact, had the General Election ended more satisfactorily, I and not the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been proposing the Second Reading of this Bill. It was because I knew what would be said that I was not in the House when the Home Secretary made his speech, and I apologise to him for it. Hearing another man arguing one's brief is not a way of spending a pleasant evening.

I hope that nothing I have said, however, will be a hindrance to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his relations with the housing authorities or the Commissioner of Police in continuing what I believe, in the main, is sound policy. Let us have no misunderstanding about it. In a great city like London, it will always be necessary to have some section houses mainly for unmarried men who would be available to deal with the kind of emergency that a great city presents to a police force.

Now I want to comment on the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton. The people of the Metropolitan Police district have no grievance over the method of financing the Metropolitan Police Force separate from that which is felt in every county area in the country. I speak as one who served for 35 years as a member of a county council, half of whose area is in the Metropolitan Police district, while the other half is outside. I served as chairman of that county council for four years. Annually, the standing joint committee presented its precept to us, and, if any member of the county council had dared to utter a word on that precept, it would have been my duty to explain to him that a standing joint committee is not merely above criticism, but is also beneath praise, and that one may say nothing about it at all. There are obvious reasons why the House, in 1888, adopted that principle with regard to the standing joint committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

Will my right hon. Friend permit me to put a question to him? Were there not, on the standing joint committee with which he was acquainted, representatives of the members of the county council, of which he was the chairman?

Mr. Ede

Oh, yes; half of them were there, but even they could not say anything about this matter at the county council meeting. My hon. and gallant Friend is a Member of this House, and it is for him, as he has done this evening, to raise matters connected with the Metropolitan Police when that business comes before the House.

I do not complain that the Opposition, during the six years in which I was at the Home Office, never put down the Home Office Estimates for debate, or that no discussion of the matter took place. I do not imagine that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will come along to us and say, "Why do you not have a jolly good row about the Metropolitan Police?" I have no doubt he will be as much for a quiet life as all his predecessors in office. Let this be quite clear, that the Estimates are submitted to this House; and if the Opposition have any grievance with regard to the way the Metropolitan Police are conducted in financial or other matters, it is open to them, on the appropriate sub-head of the Estimates, to call for a discussion to take place here. This is the place where the Metropolitan Police Force can be discussed, and if there is any feeling with regard to the other kinds of matters to which my hon. and gallant Friend alluded, this is the place where they should be discussed.

I did on more than one occasion meet representatives of the boroughs and urban districts—the rating authorities—in the Metropolitan Police district, and I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he were asked to meet them, would also agree to meet them. But let it be understood that the duty of the police authority for the Metropolis is vested in the Commissioner, and the Home Secretary has to answer in this House for what the Metropolitan Police Force does. In that respect the ratepayers and electors of the Metropolitan Police district are better off than the ratepayers and electors of county areas, for the exact limit of the Home Secretary's duties in respect of provincial forces has been very strictly defined, and many things that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to answer for in this House in respect of the Metropolitan Police Force he does not have to answer for in this House in respect of the provincial police forces.

Let me just say this in conclusion. I believe that the Metropolis gets very good value for money out of the expenditure that is incurred on the Metropolitan Police Force. I was rather surprised to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Southall that recruiting for the Metropolitan Police Force had been so good that it was no longer a cause of anxiety. I cannot think that the additional attraction to serve under the right hon. and learned Gentleman rather than under me has had so sudden an effect on recruiting. I hope that if he holds office as long as I did—not that I am going to help him to do it—the recruiting will improve.

I am quite certain that, in spite of what some chief constables in the country are now saying, the appropriate housing of the police forces is among the things that could be a very considerable inducement to the right type of recruit. I hope this Bill will have a Second Reading, and that, in spite of some things that we hear about the difficulties in building, there will be a substantial improvement in the housing of the Metropolitan Police Force as a result of the passing of this Measure.

8.14 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I ask the leave of the House to speak again for a very short time. First of all, let me thank the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), who opened the debate, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who closed it, and almost every intervening speaker, for the good wishes they have expressed for the solution of the general problems of the police, and specifically of their housing problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. I. Harvey), raised a point of which, as he said, he had been kind enough to give me notice, about the period being 30 years. Well, it is a traditional period, but there are other arguments. I do not want to go into them in detail, but I want my hon. Friend to know that his point has been considered. I think that, if he does look into the matter again, he will see that there is a difference between borrowing for the purposes of police houses and borrowing for the purposes of local government housing, where, of course, a direct impact on the rents has got to be considered.

From the point of view of the Metropolitan Police we are bound to take into account the fact that the total sum involved on a 30-year basis is nearly £1 million less than the total sum involved on a 60-year basis on a loan of £1 million. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—I hope he will—that anyone who has to consider the problems of the Metropolitan Police has to consider the problem of pensions not only today but in future years. That is a point that has to be taken into account.

If there were real hardship in the matter I should be pleased to consider it again, but the difference, as the hon. Gentleman points out, is £35,000 a year, and the larger figure for which I am contending in this argument is rather less than the product of a farthing rate; my hon. Friend's figure is slightly more than the rate of on eighth of one penny. We are really dealing with a very small sum which, I think, is outweighed by the considerations which I have endeavoured, very shortly, to put.

The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) made a point, which has been reinforced by the right hon. Gentleman, about the type of housing. I have looked at the figures since he spoke and I find that there has been, broadly, a 50–50 division between houses and flats; and—I will check it in view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) said—that the majority of these blocks of flats are small blocks. But I want the hon. Gentleman to realise that I am in general sympathy with the view, which he put forward first and the right hon. Gentleman supported, as to dispersal and, as a matter of principle, the police living among other people.

But, in turn, I should like to have his support, with his great local authority experience, in responding, and in getting his colleagues and friends to respond, to the request which I make, just like the right hon. Gentleman, that the local authorities should be more forthcoming than they have been in the past in contributing to the solution of this problem.

Mr. Pargiter

Has the approach been made or would it be made on the basis that this additional demand on whatever their housing allocation may be is something extra for which they will not be required to provide money, but for which the money will be provided out of the fund now being created?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

We will look into every argument, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will approach it in a spirit of goodwill and anxiety to help. He will see that, in view of the facts which the hon. Member for Lincoln put forward as to the difficulties of recruits to the Metropolitan Police who come, as we all know, from different parts of these islands, there is a very special difficulty which demands, I think, a solution; and we have tried to propound one.

I do not think that continuing rent allowances is a satisfactory way of dealing with the problem, instead of dealing with it as a 30 years' problem as we are trying to do. I emphasise the importance of the type of house; and also the ability to get a house for the successor to the original occupier doing the same job. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will consider all these points when weighing up the argument he has propounded, and which I will, of course, consider with the care it deserves.

Most of the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton have been dealt with by the right hon. Member for South Shields—certainly the main point. I cannot think of any police authority that is so sensitive to public opinion and any well-grounded complaint as the Home Secretary, as the police authority for the Metropolitan area. After all, there are all the Members of this House who can criticise and raise matters in innumerable ways. I think the history of the House shows how readily any problem of real substance is raised, and how often Home Secretaries with powerful majorities behind them have bowed to that expression of opinion. The more detailed points which the hon. and gallant Member propounded are, as he said, not points to be answered on the spur of the moment. They are matters for inquiry, and that inquiry I shall make.

Once again I apologise to the House for taking up its time. My only explanation and excuse is that this interesting little debate—little in time but not in subject-matter—has shown that the needs of the police are not forgotten in this House; and I hope that will go out to the police. It is in that spirit that the House is giving a Second Reading to this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Standing Committee.