HL Deb 14 December 1911 vol 10 cc1124-34

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS

My Lords, this Bill is for the purpose of increasing the limit of the rate which may be imposed by the Secretary of State for police purposes in the metropolitan area. The present limit is 9d. in the £, and that was fixed by the Act of 1868. It is found that there is not enough money to pay for the cost of the police force in the metropolitan area. The fact is that some considerable additional expenses have been thrown upon this fund of late. In the year l909 a Select Committee of the House of Commons reported in favour of a weekly rest day for the police force, and that is being given effect to and is estimated to cost £180,000 a year. There is a further item of expenditure—the new scale of pay which is now given to the police, which is estimated to cost £80,000 a year. Your Lordships will remember that in August last, after the strikes and the serious additional tasks which were imposed upon the police force, it was generally agreed, both inside and outside Parliament, that the police should be put on a new and better scale of remuneration. Then there is the general growth of expenditure owing, in the first place, to the growth of the police force in comparison with the population of the metropolitan area, a consequence which your Lordships will see is bound to arise in the metropolis of any country. The growth of population, the number of foreigners who come here, the amount of duties cast upon the police in regulating the traffic, and other things, must lead to an increase in the police force. Then there has been the rise in the price of commodities, of which we have heard a great deal of late, and the general increments which have to be met.

It may be said that this growth of expenditure ought to be met out of the resources at present at the disposal of the Secretary of State, and so, no doubt, it would have been, were it not for the fact that, unfortunately, the rateable value of the metropolis, which for many quinquennial periods has always risen to a considerable extent, shows in this quinquennial period a tendency to decrease. Ten years ago the increase in the valuation of the metropolitan area amounted to no less than £2,000,000. Five years ago the increase was £1,500,000. This year the quinquennial valuation shows that the rateable value of the metropolis has decreased by £350,000. That may be regrettable from one point of view, but from others it may have its compensations. It is owing to that fact that the Secretary of State finds it necessary to ask Parliament to give powers to increase the limit of the rate for police purposes. I understand that some objection is taken to the fact that this Bill is brought before your Lordships, indeed before Parliament, so late in the session; but as many of the items of additional expenditure did not arise until late in the year—for instance, the new scale of pay did not come into existence until August—and there has been a change in the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department, which of course has occasioned some delay, your Lordships will see that it was not easy to introduce this Bill at an earlier stage in the session. The Bill was issued on the 7th of this month, and read a second time in the House of Commons on the 11th, and I understand that the London County Council, who, I believe, are interested in this Bill, have already had an opportunity of discussing it. At any rate a committee of the London County Council discussed this Bill last week. Therefore although the Bill is produced late, it cannot be said that Parliament and those concerned have not had ark opportunity of considering the provisions.

Let me also say that there is considerable urgency in regard to this Bill. If the new rate is to be imposed, the borough councils must know early in February what that rate is. If they do not get the information then there will be considerable confusion, if indeed it will be possible for them to issue the new rate that will be needed. It must be admitted that this Bill throws a considerable burden upon the ratepayers of the metropolis, and so it must be until there is a general remodelling of the system of Imperial subventions to local taxation. Your Lordships will probably remember that that formed the subject of an inquiry by a Royal Commission, and I believe the Report is of a rather voluminous character; so much so that it has been thought necessary to appoint a Departmental Committee, and that Committee is sitting at the present time. I think, therefore, that the provisions of this Bill may fairly be regarded as being temporary and provisional, and that the last word on the question of rating and Imperial contributions is not spoken by this Bill. The fact that this is a provisional Bill is proved by the proviso, to which I will draw your Lordships' attention. The proviso in the first clause provides that. I he local authorities are to be relieved of any obligation to contribute in respect of the additional rate which is here proposed. Your Lordships are aware that under the Local Government Act of 1888 local authorities are obliged to make contributions out of the funds they derive from the Exchequer towards the total cost of the police. The rate is 9d. in the £, and the contribution of the local authorities is 4d. in the £. The proviso to which I have referred establishes that their contribution is to remain the same. This proves that the whole Bill is rather of a provisional character, because otherwise they would naturally be expected to contribute the same proportion as before.

I may say that the sum of money required in order to carry on next year is about £220,000. It is estimated that a penny in the £1 will produce £233,000. If that is so, perhaps your Lordships will ask, "Why do you ask for 2d. additional, instead of only a penny?" In the first place we have to think of the future. There is the increase of ordinary expenditure due to the ordinary growth of population, and then there is the rateable value. There is the fluctuation in the Exchequer contributions account, and the frequent shortages which the police fund has had to submit to on this item. And then one always has to think of the possibility of emergencies, strikes, or anything of that kind, which throws great additional expense on the police fund. But I am authorised by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to say that he only intends to impose a penny additional rate this year, and that he will not go further than a penny rate without giving the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing the whole question upon his salary. Further than that, he will make a personal investigation into the whole question of police finance with a view to seeing whether the expense can be reduced in the future and what contribution can be made by the Exchequer to meet it.

I am aware that this Bill has aroused opposition in some quarters. I hope that opposition will not be pressed, because if this Bill does not go through it will not be possible to go on recruiting the additional police necessary to give effect to the weekly day of fest which has been approved of in another place and promised to the police. If noble Lords insist in their opposition to this measure they must take the responsibility for that weekly rest day being, in effect, cancelled. I hope, indeed, that on reflection the opposition will not be pressed in view of the pledge which the Secretary of State has authorised me to make and in view of the circumstances generally surrounding the Bill. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My Lords, the state of this House surely illustrates the extraordinary conduct of the Government with regard to this measure. I do not think any measure has ever been introduced into Parliament in which such scant feeling has been shown for the ordinary laws of representation. This measure involves a charge on the London ratepayers of about £460,000 a year. It was intro- duced into the House of Commons last week for Second Reading at half-past two in the morning, and the next stage was taken on the following day at, I believe, between two and three o'clock in the morning, and no opportunity what ever has been given to the London County Council to discuss this matter. I had the honour of waiting on the predecessor of the present Secretary of State, who promised in terms that he would give substantial assistance, if he could induce the Treasury to increase their contributions, towards this police fund, but he also distinctly said that no further operations were to be taken without consulting the London County Council. The London County Council has not been consulted, and this matter has never been before the council. It has been discussed by one committee of the council but not by the other, which takes serious objections to it.

Our view of the finance differs entirely from that of the noble Lord. The noble Lord spoke on the assumption that this House was seized with the objects of this Bill. The House of Commons was not so seized. On the contrary, those who carried on the negotiations between the two Parties were assured that the rest day to the police could not be given unless this Bill was put into operation. That is, according to the London County Council, not the fact. The rest day to the police has been given; an extra day has been given. We are prepared to maintain and pay our fair share, but we are not prepared to take on our shoulders the whole responsibility. The system was that the Government should pay half the charge of the metropolitan police, and the London County Council the other half. In the last few years there has been a great increase of expenditure, and at this moment the charge, instead of being 50 per cent. equally, is 58½ per cent. on the London County Council and 41½ per cent. on His Majesty's Government. It is now proposed, at one stroke, to raise the rate by 2d. We contend that no more than £50,000 is wanted; yet by this Bill we are to be liable to have the Secretary of State swoop down upon us at any, moment and raise a further £460,000 a year. After all, the ratepayers of London have some right to consideration in this matter, and, late as it is, I must trouble your Lordships to divide on this Bill unless I get some satisfactory pledge with regard to it.

There is no cause whatever for going beyond an extra penny rate in the present conditions. The total charge which is anticipated by the London County Council next year in excess of the present year is £190,000, and the surplus raised by levying a rate of 9d. at the present time is £196,000. I am instructed that we can pay the whole of these extra charges for the rest day of the police and for the extra wages without jeopardising in any way the state of the fund, and we maintain that we have a right to wait until the Royal Commission's Report has been considered by the Departmental Committee. The Royal Commission recommended that 50 per cent. should be borne by the ratepayers and 50 per cent. by the taxpayers, and until that has been considered by the Departmental Committee we object most strongly to any Parliamentary action being taken except in concurrence with the London County Council. Here we are in the last two days of the session. If we are in difficulties it is clue entirely to the action of the Government. They knew this question would require settlement, they have known it for the last four or five years; they have chosen to give us five days. They introduce the Bill at the last moment, carry it in a small house, and invite your Lordships' assent to it at the close of business, with only one more day of the session to go. There are members of the London County Council who attend more than 500 committee meetings in the year, sometimes sitting more than ten times in a week in order to get good administration and avoid adding a halfpenny to the rates; yet we are now, by a process which is taken entirely out of our hands, to be mulcted to the extent of a further 2d. in the £1 without any power whatever of objection. I have had some communication with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and he was good enough to make me an offer that the Secretary of State would only raise a penny at present and would not raise the other penny without allowing a discussion on his salary. That is no concession whatever. Everybody has the right to raise a discussion on a matter of that sort on the Secretary of State's salary. And after three or four hours' debate the Secretary is in a position to closure it, and the whole thing would then terminate without possibly even a definite vote in the House of Commons. That is by no means satisfactory.

I desire very much to avoid moving the rejection of the Bill. In several measures which have passed the House—in one which passed the House this session—it was required that the Act should not be put in operation until a substantive Motion had been moved and carried in both Houses. I do not here say both Houses of. Parliament, but do ask that if the Secretary of State, who cannot possibly for some years to come require more than a penny rate, desires to raise the other, he should give a pledge that a substantive Motion shall be moved in the House of Commons and carried before any portion of that further penny rate is applied to the service of the police. I ask that as a representative of the greatest financial body, except the House of Commons, existing in this country. We—the London Comity Council—have a revenue of £10,000,000; we have great difficulty in carrying out our services; and to add at one stroke nearly half a million pounds, against the pledges of the former Home Secretary, against precedent, against the advice of the Royal Commission, and against the understanding on which this was carried through the House of Commons last week is, I think, straining a power which the Government would do wisely to avoid, especially when they are in contact with the representatives of the ratepayers of this great metropolis. I have done all I could by personal influence in the last few hours since I first heard that this question would be brought up to induce the Government to make some concession to this feeling. I am absolutely without power of consulting those with whom I act, except those who happen to be members of this House, and they are at one with me. Therefore unless I receive the pledge I ask for I shall be forced to press an Amendment that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.

Amendment moved— To leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months").—(Viscount Midleton.)

THE EARL OF DUNMORE

My Lords, I must support the protest of the noble Viscount. Here is a Bill which was passed through the House of Commons in the early hours of the morning. The noble Lord in charge of tine Bill said that it was required in connection with the recent increase effected in the pay of the police and the extra expense involved in the one day's rest in seven. The noble Lord also informed us that the total amount which would be required was £188,000. We are all in favour of giving these privileges to the police; they are well deserved. But a penny rate represents £230,000, and I maintain, as did the noble Viscount, that there is no chance of the whole of a 2d. rate being required in all probability for many years. The noble Lord contended that the rejection of this Bill would prevent the one day's rest in seven being given. How can that be the case? It is difficult to give the exact figures, but a 9d. rate produced a surplus of over £150,000 this year. It may be said that that surplus is required in connection with the pension fund, but may I remind the noble Lord that separate rating powers are given for the purpose of meeting deficiencies in the pension fund. I know that the cost of that fund is increasing. That is another reason why we should hesitate very much before adding 2d. to the statutory rate. The pension fund in 1902 was £139,000; it is now £282,000, and according to the actuarial estimates it will very soon be £500,000. That is all the more reason why the representatives of the ratepayers ought to have had a chance, which they have not had, of considering and discussing the proposals of His Majesty's Government. This Bill was put through before the London County Council had any opportunity of expressing their views or even considering the matter.

It surely cannot be necessary to pass this Bill in its present form, placing a burden of nearly half a million on the ratepayers. If the whole of that money is required at least we ought to know the purpose for which it is to be raised. I do not want to throw out this Bill, but I would remind the noble Lord that, after all, if he refuses to meet us and we reject this Bill, it is open to him to put a new Bill through again in February, and to bring it in before the new financial year. There cannot be any need for this tremendous haste in putting this huge burden on the London ratepayers. I protest on the part of the London ratepayers, who ought to have had a voice in the matter. I was glad to hear one thing. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that some inquiry was to be made as to the cost of the London police. The cost of the London police is 7s. 9d., whereas the average in the big towns all over the country is somewhere about 3s. Therefore it is more than double in London, and I would welcome any inquiry into this matter. I do hope that the noble Lord will meet us; but if he cannot I shall be compelled to support the noble Viscount, much as I dislike that course. It is absolutely necessary that this matter should be considered. A 2d. rate is unwarranted; there is no need for it. I trust that the noble Lord will give the representatives of the London ratepayers an opportunity of considering the matter.

LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS

The two noble Lords who have just spoken are quite wrong if they think that the Secretary of State has any money up his sleeve and does not need the money for which he comes to Parliament. We have not got these balances of £190,000 and other figures that are mentioned, and if anything is needed to prove the state of the finances of the Metropolitan Police Force, noble Lords have only to look at the state of the balances to the credit of that force on March 31 of each year. In 1905, the balances at our credit were £541,000. By a successive depletion, owing to excess of expenditure over revenue, those balances have fallen in this year to £352,000. There has thus been in a period of seven years a reduction of almost £200,000 out of half a million, or two-fifths of the total balances in 1905. If that is true—and those are official figures given me to-night—it is clear that we have not got these large balances which the noble Viscount thinks we possess and which render unnecessary the proposals of this Bill.

If we do not get our Bill the recruiting for the police force must stop because there will not be funds. The noble Viscount understands that if recruiting ceases the force cannot be augmented, and unless it is augmented the weekly rest cannot be given. It has been estimated that a very large addition—I have not got the figures—is necessary in order to give effect to this weekly holiday, and unless we can go on recruiting that cannot be given. I must correct the statement which was made that the weekly half-holiday had already been given. That is not so. A start has been made; we have been able to give half of it, but if it is to be carried out in its complete form we shall have to recruit another 800 men. I have it on the authority of the Secretary of State that if this Bill does not pass to-night he will not be able to go on with that recruiting and the weekly half-holiday will have to remain where it is, in a very partial condition.

I am rather surprised that the noble Viscount makes such a point of this. He knows, and we all know, that the contributions of the Exchequer to the local services must be revised. That is common ground. A Departmental Committee is considering the Report of the Royal Commission, and it is absolutely certain that before a year or two the whole subject will be reconsidered; and the contributions from Imperial resources to this kind of charge must be very materially increased. Very likely we shall come back to that half-and-half arrangement which the noble Viscount says existed not many years ago. As I said, this is really only a provisional measure to get us over the difficulty. Why deny to the Secretary of State a little measure winch you admit he wants in order to carry on? He comes and asks for an extra penny in case of emergency such as cannot be foreseen—surely it is a mere act of confidence in the Secretary of State to give him that slight margin on which he can draw in case of emergency. Add to that the promise he gives that he will not increase it this year, and that it will not be increased at all without a full discussion in Parliament. I do not quite understand the noble Viscount when he asks for a pledge of a substantive Motion. How is it open to my hon. friend to pledge the Government to give a day in the session to discuss this matter? There is a day allotted for the discussion of his own salary He has promised that, if required, this matter shall he raised on his salary and there must be a substantive Motion;

Resolved in the negative, and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

if that is what the noble Viscount attaches importance to, surely that ought to satisfy him. In any case I deprecate the attitude taken up. I can understand it in a way, because I see that the noble Viscount is afraid that he is going to part with his bargaining power, and that if he lets this penny go, he will not have anything to bargain with next year. In view of the fact that the whole thing must come up for settlement before many years are over and that it is common ground between both Parties that the Imperial contributions must be increased to these rating expenditures, surely it is not necessary for the noble Viscount to press his opposition on this occasion; and I sincerely trust that he will not.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I should have been only too glad to yield to the appeal of the noble Lord, but it is quite impossible. The whole of what is wanted is a halfpenny rate. We offer a penny rate, and that represents a quarter of a million of money. The noble Lord asks us to give away this gigantic power of taxing us to the extent of another quarter of a million without anything in our own hands which may enable the ratepayers of London to do more than state their case before the Home Secretary. If the Bill is not passed not a single policeman will go short of a farthing, not a single administrative act will be changed for a moment. I hope the House will refuse to give a Second Reading to this Bill.

On Question, whether the word ("now") shall stand part of the Motion?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-contents, 22.

CONTENTS
Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.) Allendale, V. Granard, L. (E Granard.)
Herschell, L. [Teller.]
Ashby St. Ledgers, L. Lucas, L.
Beauchamp, E. Colebrooke, L. Pentland, L.
Craven, E. Emmott, L. Southwark, L.
Liverpool, E. [Teller] Glantawe, L. Willingdon, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Devonshire, D. Falmouth, V. Estcourt, L.
Northumberland, D. Goschen, V. Hindlip, L.
Lamington, L.
Barrymore, L. Lawrence, L.
Camperdown, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Newton, L.
Fitzwilliam, E. Clinton, L. [Teller.] Sanderson, L.
Stradbroke, E. Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.) Seaton, L.
Waldegrave, E. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.) [Teller] Sinclair, L.
Wharncliffe, E.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.