HL Deb 16 May 1923 vol 54 cc227-34

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Motion agreed to

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new-clause: . No special constable if called out for duty during an industrial dispute shall be called upon to perform any work in connection with the industry in which the dispute is proceeding. The noble Earl said: "I am afraid the Government Department which was responsible for this Bill is one of those which are least willing to accept Amendments that are suggested in your Lordships' House. It was even unwilling to accept an Amendment such as this which is moved simply with the object of making the Bill more acceptable to the people of this country. Your Lordships will see from the terms of my Amendment the simple object that I have in moving it. The Bill itself is not a very clear one to follow. There are many references to previous Statutes, but I take it that the situation at the present moment is chiefly governed by the Act of 1831, in Section I of which I find the words that these constables may be appointed for the preservation of the public peace, for the protection of the inhabitants, and the security of property.

As your Lordships know there are two kinds of strikes in these days. One kind affects non-essential industries, such, for instance, as a big railway strike. In connection with these non-essential trades what we want to have made perfectly certain is that it would be illegal to make a demand upon special constables to take part in the organisation of a motor service in order to defeat a railway strike, I take that as an example in order to make the position clear. I would say to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that if he agrees that the special constables cannot under the present law be called upon to do so it should be clearly stated in this Bill. If, on the other hand, he proposes an amendment in the law as it is, I do not think your Lordships would be willing to accept it. If the employment of special constables at the present moment is illegal then let us put it into the Bill. If, on the other hand, it is legal then the position should be made clear to the country.

Surely what passed yesterday gives emphasis to the point. I understand that it has been stated by more than one of those who are in favour of this measure that special constables cannot be used for this purpose at the present time. The discussion which we bad in your Lordships' House yesterday shows, whatever may be the intention of Ministers, that that is not sufficient. We want to have things put in black and white in a Bill so that everybody may understand clearly what the position is. I think the uncertainty which exists may ruin the usefulness of the Bill, or may make the special constables into a class force. Those of us who have seen anything at all in one friendly and Allied country of the use of forces during the last few years, who have seen those forces marching about and have read in newspapers of the actions which they have been permitted to take, would always regret any measure which would allow or in any way assist the promotion of such forces in this country.

But there is yet the other point, that of the essential trades. The words which I have quoted from the Act of 1831 say that the constables "may be used for the protection of the inhabitants." That is a very vague phrase. It may mean a very great deal. I would ask the noble Earl whether it would include such a matter as keeping the electric power stations in working order. Your Lordships may remember that there was a strike in the year 1919, and that there was a good deal of confusion on that occasion. Telegrams were sent from New Scotland Yard to the various commanders of special constables in the different areas of the Metropolitan district asking that men who had special technical knowledge should be paraded on duty at a certain time. "Duty" was the word used in the telegram. It is obvious, therefore, that if any man had presented himself and refused to obey the orders which were then given to him by his superior officer he would have been guilty of a violation of his duty. When these officers paraded it was suggested to them that they should take part in the working of these stations, and although they were told that they should not do that as special constables but as members of the public that surely does not answer the point I am making, which is that they were summoned for duty as special constables and then were asked to undertake this particular work. That seems to me to be a position which should not be tolerated if there is real anxiety that these special constables should become a useful force.

I cannot help feeling that perhaps His Majesty's Government might have made more use of the retired forces of the police throughout this country. Those of us who are at all acquainted with local government must have seen with deep regret on occasion after occasion how constables in the prime of life are retired on salaries which before the war would have seemed uncommonly large, and how a country is deprived of the services of those constables at the very moment when they are in the prime of life, when they have all the experience which a number of years' service in the force has given them, and while they are still strong enough to carry out their work. Those men, knowing the work of the police, able to draw upon their experience, and best knowing how to manage crowds, would be far more likely to be useful than special constables who may have had no experience. Surely we may say, too, that though we have perfect confidence in the intentions of the present Home Secretary and of the present Government, our experience—I again refer to our experience yesterday—forbids us relying entirely upon that. We need to have a special clause in an Act of Parliament so that it may be made perfectly plain what is the intention of Parliament in order that we may remove all doubts and secure for this Bill a greater measure of success than it is likely to attain if this doubt is allowed to remain. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Clause 3, page 3, line 5, at end insert the said new clause.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

The Amendment which the noble Earl has put down says that no special constable called out during an industrial dispute shall be called upon to perform any work in connection with the industry regarding which a dispute is proceeding. That is to say that no special constable shall be called upon to take the place of a striker. I think that is the effect of the Amendment. I trust your Lordships will agree with me in thinking that this Amendment is unnecessary. The noble Earl quoted the Act of 1831. It is true that that Act is the Act which governs the employment of the special constabulary, whose powers are derived from the provisions of that Act. The noble Earl correctly said that no special constable can be called upon to perform any duties except the preservation of public peace, the protection of the inhabitants, and the security of property. Therefore the special constables cannot be called upon to take the place of strikers. Under the Act of 1831 they can only be called upon for the particular duties which I have mentioned, and those, as is quite clear from the wording of the Act, do not include taking the place of strikers during a trade dispute.

The noble Earl has called attention to what occurred during a strike in February, 1919. Let me tell your Lordships exactly what occurred on that occasion when the Government were making their arrangements to carry on the London power stations if the threatened strike took place. Special constables, among other classes of the community, were invited to volunteer, and a number of them did so. They were not removed from the roll of special constables, and they were told that if they volunteered they would not be called up for duty as special constables while undertaking this work. The purpose for which special constables are appointed is defined in the Act of 1831, and my contention is that in no way was it contravened. It is a very different thing from saying that a man who happens to be a special constable and volunteers when an appeal is made to the general public should no longer continue to be a special constable.

In industrial disputes there have been strikers who have joined the special constables, and doubtless the same thing will occur again. There is nothing whatever to prevent men who are striking from joining the special constables, and nothing in the Act of 1831 can compel these men to take the place of strikers. The fear expressed by the noble Earl in his Amendment was that a striker who becomes a special constable may be forced to perform work which, as a striker, he has refused to do. I contend that the Act of 1831 is quite Sufficient to prevent such a danger occurring, and I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. The position is fully safeguarded and the Amendment unnecessary.

EARL BUXTON

The noble Earl who speaks on behalf of the Government has argued that these words are unnecessary because the difficulty anticipated by my noble friend cannot arise. But my noble friend founded his Amendment on the fact that such a difficulty did arise. There was a misunderstanding between the function of a special constable and the function of a volunteer who came forward to assist the public, as he thought properly, in a trade dispute. That difficulty has arisen, and all of us desire that it should not occur again. There ought to be an absolute distinction between a special constable, who if he is called out and on parade refuses to act as he is told commits a very serious crime and may be subject to serious punishment, and the volunteer who is prepared to do the actual work which he is desired to do. I cannot see what possible objection there can be to the Amendment.

I am sorry to say that this Bill is like many other Bills of this Government, and also of the Government of which I had the honour to be a member, inasmuch as it is drawn in the worst possible way. It goes entirely by reference. The unfortunate person who wants to know what his duties are has to refer to Acts which, obviously, he cannot have at his disposal, and he is, therefore, unable to ascertain. No harm can be done from the drafting point of view by accepting the Amendment and great advantage would accrue from the public point of view. The noble Earl confirms and reaffirms what was stated by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons when this particular Amendment was discussed there. The Home Secretary stated definitely that— Under the Act of 1831 they (special constables) cannot be called upon to perform any duties except the preservation of public peace, the protection of the inhabitants, and the security of property. They cannot be called upon to take the place of strikers, because the Act of 1831 already says that they can only be called upon for these particular duties, which do not include taking the place of strikers in a dispute. It is because the Home Secretary stated definitely that special constables cannot be called upon to undertake personal interference in industrial disputes that we are anxious that these words should be introduced.

I know it is constantly argued that every British subject ought to carry in his head all the Acts of Parliament that exist and that if he breaks them it is his own look-out. But this is a very special case. Many of the special constables who may be called out may be in the same trade in which there is an industrial dispute, and surely it is a great advantage that they should know, when they are called out as special constables, what are the limitations to the orders they can receive. There are, no doubt, a great many lawyers in this country, but the bulk of those who are called out will not be lawyers, but laymen, and it is of the utmost importance that the position should be made perfectly clear for the information of those who undertake these duties. The mere fact that a misunderstanding has occurred shows that there is some need for this protection. Many persons, while perfectly willing and anxious to assist the Government in the protection of law and order, would find it most distasteful and would altogether object, and rightly so, to be called upon to undertake duties which may prejudice the position as regards an industrial dispute. That is the difficulty you want to avoid. You want to make it perfectly clear that in no circumstances will they be placed in that position, and I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept words which would make the position perfectly clear.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

There is another reason against this Amendment which was not pressed by the noble Earl on behalf of the Government, and that is that it entirely fails to achieve the object it sets out to secure because of the hopeless ambiguity of the language used. The language of the Amendment is such, as I read it, that it would be impossible, if the Amendment became law, to call upon a special constable to take part in defending power stations from a violent attack. That will be part of his work, and I submit that so far from importing clearness into the law and defining the duties of a special constable, it would import nothing but confusion and anarchy.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not pretend to be a master of this subject but I should like to assure the noble Earl who moved this Amendment—and I am sure he will be gratified to hear it—that there is no desire on the part of the Government to press this Bill through at railway speed. On the contrary, we do not propose to take the next stage of the Bill until after the Whitsuntide Recess. The case which has been submitted to your Lordships by the two noble Lords who sit upon the Front Bench opposite is, as I understood it, that they do not want to go beyond the assurance which the Home Secretary gave in another place as to the present state of the law. That may be the case, but if the law is so already it certainly is not good draftsmanship to repeat it in the present Statute. If the noble Lords will allow me I will venture to make a suggestion. I will ask them not to press the matter at the present moment, and I will engage to look into it between now and the next stage of the Bill, and to confer with the noble Earl opposite on the subject. If he will take that advice from me I venture to think that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships' House.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for the consideration which he has been good enough to give to this Amendment ant I very heartily accept the suggestion which he has made. Perhaps I may be allowed to add this remark. The real reason why we want something added or this occasion is that in the year 1831 strikes had not assumed that importance in the general economy of the country that they have assumed to-day, and it is really necessary for that reason that something should he put into the Bill in order to make the law clear. In the circumstances I agree to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining clauses agreed to.