WOMEN POLICE.

HL Deb 08 March 1922 vol 49 cc393-404

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR had given Notice to draw attention to the Report of the Committee on the Employment of Women on Police Duties (of which Sir John Baird, Bart., M.P., was Chairman), in which the first conclusion arrived at was the following: "That the experience of the war has proved that women can be employed with advantage to the community in the performance of certain police duties which, before the war, were exclusively discharged by men"; and to ask, if in view of the large amount of expert evidence received by that Committee in favour of the above recommendation, and also in view of the useful work since performed in various centres by women police, information will be available as to the source of the evidence which led the Committee on National Expenditure, in their Second Interim Report, to make a recommendation which, if adopted, would lead to the disbandment of the women police patrols in the Metropolitan area.

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in framing this Question I have endeavoured to word it so that, as far as possible, it would tell its own tale. Nevertheless, this subject has more ramifications and bearings than might be, at first sight, apparent. Of course, the central feature of the recommendations of the Committee now known as the Geddes Committee is that of economy at any rate, ostensibly. But I am only voicing the feelings of a vast number of people when I offer the opinion that the utility of the women police and the women patrols is not negligible, but that the economy effected by the proposed disbandment would be negligible, both in a direct and an indirect way.

For example, t he building which is used, I understand, as the headquarters of this Division of Women Police will, I presume, be continued, even if that portion of the force is disbanded for the time being. It will be utilised, I suppose, for some police purpose, and therefore the expense of the maintenance of the building, fire and light, and so forth, will continue, though at present it is debited to the charge of the women police. Then as to the uniform, which has been in use only for a short time. At the present, time it almost seems impossible to buy except in the dearest market, but, when it is a case of selling, it is always the cheapest market. One can imagine the sort of value set upon scrapped uniforms.

With regard to the question of pensions, I am aware that in another place some official announcements have been made which would seem to indicate that the claim to pensions, if these officials are disbanded, would be evaded or, at, any rate, could not be made good. I confess I am very much puzzled by that statement for the reason that in the Police Pensions Act, 1921, the points are mentioned under which the women police are deprived of the privilege of pensions. For example— No provision relating to pensions, gratuities or other payments to or for the benefit of the widow or wife of a member or ex-member of a police force shall apply to the: widower or husband of a policewoman and again— A police woman shall not be entitled to reckon as approved service any service before the passing of this Act unless she pays to the police authority a sum equal to the aggregate rateable deductions which would have been made from her pay if this Act had applied to her during such service. I think it is recognised maxim, and especially a legal maxim, that when cert in disabilities are mentioned other things are assumed not to apply; in other words, that those who do not come under these exceptions would, according to the Act, be entitled to pension. Perhaps I ought to apologise to my noble friend who will answer this Question for bringing up the matter of pensions, but if he would wish me to raise it on another occasion I should be only too pleased.

I pass on to the other supposed sources of economy. Of course, many things which are done by the police women now could be done by the men, and I cannot refrain from adding that I am second to none in the feeling of admiration for the manner in which the Metropolitan policemen perform their duties. There was a magnificent example of that in the historic events of Tuesday of last week. Of course, the tribute paid on that occasion was primarily to the splendid order of the crowd, but I think it is agreed that the tact and judgment of the police help to make a crowd orderly and well behaved. But there are some duties which certainly can be performed better by the women police than by even the best and most experienced men.

For example, in the case of women or girls who have got into trouble and been brought before a magistrate, the work of women police in passing them on to some voluntary institution, where they can be cared for, has been recognised for a long time by the Police Department, and I believe they have an admirable lady at the head of that particular section. But one official cannot cover the whole ground in such a matter, and it seems certain that the number of such cases passed on—and therefore saved from corning on the rates, because there is the liability of the workhouse and the prison—has greatly increased. For last year the number was 1,131, which is certainly much in advance of the figure of some previous years.

I will give one other example of the usefulness of the women police. The rule is that when a woman prisoner is being taken from the place of trial to a prison she must be accompanied by a woman official. Since the institution of the women patrols this duty has to a large extent been fulfilled by the women police. But a male member of the Force has to accompany the prisoner and the woman escort. It seems rather a cumbrous method, but the reason it has to be done is that, as yet, the women patrols have not been sworn in, and therefore a full-fledged policeman has to accompany them. The remedy for that is to swear in the woman, and economy would lie gained thereby. Then there would be no need for the extra expense of a policeman. The total amount saved in that direction would be considerable.

Lastly, I wish to refer to the testimony as to the value of women police. Sir Leonard Dunning, in his annual Report for the whole country, speaks of their value, especially in preventive work. He goes on to say— Sexual immorality does not always lead to the commission of crimes or offences which clearly lie within the preventive duties of the police, but it does, directly and indirectly, to so great an extent that its prevention, even when it is not unlawful, cannot definitely be said to lie outside the duties of a police force. I think you will agree that anything that tends to reduce immorality is indirectly a benefit to the State, in the practical utilitarian sense.

Another example of official testimony before the Baird Committee is what was said by Mr. J. W. Olive, C.B.E.— There are certain duties which the women police can and do now discharge which formerly had perforce to be carried out by the ordinary constable, but which it is desirable that women, properly qualified, should undertake— and so on. Another witness, a superintendent of police, Superintendent James Billings, said— In the beginning I was somewhat sceptical as to what the results would be. For that reason I have given special attention to the matter, and I am fully convinced, now that Women Patrols are established—I am speaking of the women who have had careful training in the work—they have proved very useful and a great adjunct to the carrying out of the police duties generally. They have done a lot of excellent work, particularly in the direction of cases of a certain sort in open spaces—Hyde Park in particular. In addition to that testimony, people who are in contact with social work in the fullest sense have given their opinion in no uncertain tones. A few weeks ago a conference convened by the National Council of Women—at which forty-four Societies concerned in various branches of social welfare were represented—considered the recommendations of the Geddes Committee on this matter and passed a unanimous resolution that it would be a mistake and a misfortune if the women police were disbanded. In addition to that, twenty other societies expressed a similar opinion; so that sixty societies have indicated their strong feeling upon the subject. After all, they can form an opinion. It is not like people giving an opinion of civil servants inside a Department, because that must be left to their official superiors. But these people are, to use an apostolic phrase, living epistles. "known and read of all men." I am very glad that the most rev. Primate has remained in the House to-night because he has had the most unrivalled opportunities of becoming a repository of all such information and will. I hope, give the House his views on the subject.

Lastly, may I say that if, unfortunately as so many people think, these policewomen are disbanded in this City of London it will be a cause of regret throughout the country because the system is still a comparatively new one. It has been tried in various centres, in most cases with great success. Of course if it is stopped in London, that will have, or may have, a deterrent effect, though I believe only for a time. In my opinion, if this force is disbanded now, it will come into existence again, because we can no more keep women out of the police than your Lordships can keep women Peers out of this House.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, although the contemplation of these empty benches is not exactly stimulating to a full statement upon such a subject as this, or indeed upon any subject, I should not like the noble Earl who answers on behalf of the Government to speak until I had at least put before him a word or two as to the perplexity in which we find ourselves in regard to this matter. Until a few days ago the position was bewildering enough; but it has become very much more bewildering during the last twenty-four hours, because the answer given last night in another place seems absolutely inconsistent with the recommendation on which it was based and which was made by what is called the Geddes Committee.

The whole of this question rests at this moment upon the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure. On page 69 of that Report the Committee say this— We have considered the question of the employment of the women patrols. This refers to London and to London only. These women patrols, 110 in number, are in addition to the numbers of police. Their pay is only a little less than that of the 'uniformed' constable. Now notice this— Their powers are very limited, and their, utility from a police point of view is, on the evidence submitted to us, negligible. We do not think that in present circumstances this expenditure can be justified. I have waited day by day since the publication of that Report in the hope of seeing what is "the evidence submitted to us" which proves the work of these policewomen to be negligible. Last night, in the House of Commons, the Home Secretary was asked whether he would state what witnesses appeared before the Geddes Committee to give an account of the women patrols, and whether any members of the Women's Force were called, and his reply was— The Committee consulted the Commissioner of Police and myself. No witnesses from the force were called. Now note this— It must be remembered that the question was not as to the efficiency or usefulness of the women police, but whether the work was of such a nature that it ought to be maintained at the expense of the State in a time of extreme financial stringency. There was no question, he said, as to the efficiency or usefulness of the women police, but the whole point was that the Geddes Report, as he called it, said that their powers were very limited and their utility from a police point of view was, on the evidence submitted to the Committee, negligible. The evidence submitted was that of the Home Secretary himself, and the Commissioner of Police and no one else, apparently, at all, and the utility of the women police was thereby proved to be nil.

What are the real facts as to what had gone before? Just think for a moment what the story was. Two years or a year and a half ago the Government appointed a very strong Committee of eight persons to investigate the question of the employment of women police. That Committee met under the chairmanship of Sir John Baird, and took an immense mass of evidence which occupied over 160 pages of a large Blue Book. They called 47 witnesses whom they examined in full, and they made a unanimous Report. Their recommendation upon this particular point was this— After careful consideration of all the evidence we are of opinion that in thickly populated areas, where offences against the law relating to women and children are not infrequent, there is not only scope but urgent need for the employment of policewomen. That recommendation was based upon a mass of evidence from all sorts of people, to some of whom the noble Marquess has already referred, who were giving testimony as to the value which they as Chief Constables, as police authorities in different parts of the country, or as magistrates, felt to belong to the work of the women police. It was done with enormous care, and may I say incidentally, if we are talking about economy, obviously at very great cost.

Sir Nevil Macready, who gave very useful evidence indeed, said that he thought the force had fully justified its existence. And he continued— I cannot say at the present moment to what extent it should be increased. He said further that if he got certain powers he would desire to see the force very greatly increased, and would transfer to it a very large amount of work which was now done by men. That may or may not be so; but it was the evidence given by an expert upon the subject the Committee were called upon to consider. Then Sir Leonard Dunning, the Home Office Inspector of Constabulary, said that the fact of having a woman to do this particular work made the whole difference, because— her very sex gives her influence over the child whose mischief has brought him under the notice of the police, before the mischief takes the form of crime, and over the mother to whose neglect the offence of the child is so often due. And he goes on to say how difficult it is for the police to extract from these girls the kind of evidence that is necessary in such cases. May I say it is very bad for them to give it; it is bad for a young female to go into details on this subject to the police. That is thoroughly to the bad, and is recognised by witness after witness.

Further, a man like Superintendent Billings says— In my opinion they would be very well employed as matrons at police stations, and also in the place of constables on reserve at the police station, particularly at those stations where a great many women are dealt with. Many women who come into police stations would naturally make a better and fuller statement to a woman than they would to a male police officer, and a carefully trained woman employed at a police station on reserve duty, instead of a constable, would, in many cases I am sure, be found very useful indeed, and probably it would bring about some saving. Supplementary to that, I should like to say that it is wrong to suppose that this is an occasional thing happening now and then.

During one year alone—1921—the women police in London took 429 statements, and 1,131 women and girls passed through their hands to such hospital or other treatment as was required. All over England and Scotland, to some degree, the same thing is going on. There is evidence about it in all parts of the country, though the evidence is not unanimous as to the advantage. The minority who spoke against it, however, is so insignificant that the Report, as I have already pointed out, is unanimous on the part of the people who devoted a great deal of time and trouble to investigating the whole matter.

Now we are suddenly told that this is to come to an end. When we ask why it is to come to an end, we are told that it is on the ground of cost. The Home Secretary says that on the evidence submitted the utility of these people is negligible. He was asked last night what was the evidence upon which that opinion was based, and he said: "It was the evidence which I gave and the Commissioner of Police gave." But no other members of the force were called, nor was anybody else called who was capable of speaking about it in the country, nor were any of those called who had done the work. This statement of the Home Secretary is made in the face of the printed Blue Book containing the evidence of all the people who, one after another, recommended this system, and in face of the unanimous Report in favour of it. What does this upsetting of it mean? Is it really a question of economy? One wonders where the economy is going to come in. The numbers of the women are not very large, and the cost is not very great. The Inquiry itself cost an immense amount of money, and it produced a unanimous Report that the work ought to go on.

However, the question I want to raise to-night is not whether or not the women police are a gain to the public service of the country. Upon that I do not profess to be an expert, though I have seen some of their work both in town and in the country, and am strongly in favour of it. But my good opinion may be a complete mistake. What I want to point out is that we have no evidence now before us upon which there can reasonably be justified a complete change of policy upon a large question of this kind. If it were said: "They are costing too much, there are too many of them, and we must diminish the number and economise on their pensions or their pay," or something of that kind, one could understand it. I could understand it if it were said: "We shall continue to observe the principle which has so far been carried out because we believe that principle to be right, but we must economise." If that were said I should answer: "Very well, I regret a great many things that we may be asked to do in the way of economy; we regret this as well as ethers, but we must acquiesce for the country's sake." But that is not the question here. Here it is a question of a complete change of the policy which has been deliberately adopted after being supported by a mass of evidence and by the unanimous Report of a Committee appointed to inquire into it.

Whether the change now proposed be right or wrong, it certainly has never been justified to us upon any evidence whatever. We ought to know, and we are entitled to know, what is the ground upon which this work recommended by a large Depart mental Committee is to be put on one side. Upon that we have no evidence whatever before us. I feel that to be a position in which we cannot acquiesce. We must know why the change is to be made. If it is merely a question of economy, let it be so said, but it will be almost impossible, I think, that economy would be brought about, sufficient at any rate to justify a complete change of policy in the face of such a Report as that made by the Departmental Committee appointed by the Home Secretary.

The matter requires, I think, to be very much more openly handled. We desire to know why it is that this change has been brought about. We want to have the evidence before us, if there be any, which answers and neutralises the mass of evidence collected upon the other side. We have not that evidence before us at this moment. I hope the noble Earl who speaks for the Government will be able to tell us that such evidence has been collected, or that he will put before us some evidence to show that the change is made professedly on the grounds of economy only, and that there is no question of the utility or non-utility of the work. This is far too important a matter to be allowed to rest where it is, and I hope we shall have from the Government to-night a statement that will clarify our minds on the subject.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, in reply to the Question of the noble Marquess, I should observe in the first place that Sir John Baird's Committee, which the noble Marquess quoted, took the view that women cannot be regarded as substitutes for men in a police force, and, therefore, that the women police must be looked upon as supplementary to the regular Metropolitan organisation. I do not think anyone can fail to endorse the finding of the Committee which is quoted by the noble Marquess in his Question, and the experiments which have been undertaken since the Committee reported, and since women patrols have been working, bear testimony to the efficiency and usefulness of the women in the sense in which the noble Marquess and the most rev. Primate referred to them. This usefulness has been repeatedly voiced by my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons, and also in circulars issued to the police, and in other ways. The Report of Sir Leonard Dunning read to us is a case in point.

As to the reasons why the Home Secretary has decided upon the disbandment of this force, when Sir Eric Geddes' Committee examined into the expenditure of the Home Office, this question of women patrols was one of the matters gone into. The Committee consulted my right honourable friend and the Chief Commissioner of Police, Sir John Horwood. The question at issue was not as to the efficiency or usefulness of the women police, but whether the work that they were undertaking was of such a nature that it ought to be maintained at the expense of the State at a time of extreme financial stringency. The most rev. Primate has referred to the fact that no witnesses were called from the police force, except, of course, the Chief of Police. It was open to Sir Eric Geddes and his colleagues to ask for other views, but in order to arrive at their decision they did not think it necessary to go into the matter further than they did. They had all the evidence which they thought, they required.

The decision of the Committee has been read to your Lordships by the most rev. Primate. I should like to read the last paragraph of it in which they say: Their powers are very limited, and their utility from a police point of view is, on the evidence submitted to us, negligible. We do not think that in the present circumstances this expenditure can be justified. In my opening remarks I quoted the opinion of Sir John Baird's Committee to the effect that women patrols could not be regarded as a substitute for men in the police force, but must be regarded as supplementary to that force. Let me amplify the statement of the Geddes Committee for one moment. The Geddes Committee, having regard to the limited scope of women patrols as compared with the regular police, and the short period during which they have formed part of the Metropolitan Police organisation, considered that the service was one which in the present urgent need for economy should be dispensed with. That recommendation my right hon. friend felt bound to carry out. It is not a question as to whether the force was desirable or doing good work. What was under consideration was the question whether we could do without this particular force at the present time? It is a question what we can do without, not what it is desirable to keep if we can. Really it is a question as to what we can afford.

With regard to the question of which the noble Marquess gave me private notice, and also his inquiry as to pensions I will answer briefly, but if he wishes to have any further information I should be grateful if he would give me further Notice. Steps are being taken for the disbandment of the Metropolitan women police patrol to commence on March 31, and they have been given notice that after that date their engagements, which are for a period of twelve months expiring at various dates in 1922, are not to he renewed. Now as to pensions. My right honourable friend in answer to a question last night in the House of Commons stated that women patrols will not be entitled to pensions on disbandment. The reason is that they are only engaged for a year at a time. They have not hitherto been assimilated with the ordinary police force. It is true, as the noble Marquess has said, that deductions have been made from their salary for the purpose of pensions but these deductions will be refunded to them as soon as their notices expire.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

The limited period is, of course, a matter of importance. If they are engaged for twelve months only they are in a different position from the men. I am obliged to the noble Earl for his reply.

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this subject, and what has fallen from the noble Earl relieves me of some of the observations I had proposed to make. I gather from his last sentence that the disbanding of these women will he wholly unaccompanied by any pensions at all.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

That is so.

LORD BUCKMASTER

That, of course, is a very important matter from the point of view of economy, because it would be quite indefensible to establish a force of this kind and at the end of a few months to disband them with pensions, which are only payable to people whose services have been long enjoyed. The question as to the need for their disbandment is quite different. I thoroughly understand the need for economy and on that point I agree with the noble Earl. I think it is quite impossible at the present moment for any Department to ask that money shall be provided on the basis of the efficient administration of that Department. The only claim they have a right to make is that all the money that can properly be allotted to their Department shall be given. They have no right to ask that any Department should be carried on at a superfine pitch of excellence which the country cannot afford. In other words, we have to cut our coat according to our cloth and not according to our taste.

But is it quite so clear that economy is going to be effected by the way it is proposed to treat these women? It seems quite likely that the force as now established, with its present personnel, is in excess of what we can reasonably pay for. The services they discharge may not be commensurate with the payment they receive. But as the most rev. Primate has pointed out there are quite a number of functions these women discharge which can only be properly discharged by women, and I agree with him that it is a bad thing for everyone—for the children, and it is not a good thing for the man—that young girls should be interrogated as to offences of a sexual character without the intervention of a woman. It is eminently desirable that this branch of their services should, if possible, be kept on foot, and so far as I can gather that might be done without the complete disbandment of these women. This view may not carry out all that is desired by the noble Marquess and the most rev. Primate, but my own feelings would be satisfied if I could be assured that the duties which are essentially feminine will still continue to be discharged by women, although they may cease to be regular members of the regular Metropolitan Police Force. That is a slight modification of the view that has been put forward in the debate and I hope the Home Office will give it their serious attention.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I cannot at the moment reply to the noble and learned Lord on that point, but I assure him that I will bring it to the notice of the authorities concerned.

House adjourned at seven o'clock.