POLICE PAY. (Hansard, 1 October 1942)

§ LORD SNELL

My Lords, the police are public servants of whom the nation is rightly proud. Their reliability and their dependable character represent a valuable asset—an indispensable asset—in the nation's administrative life. The noble Earl is therefore assured of the sympathy of your Lordships in any matter which affects their comfort and their well being. The question on the Paper refers to "resentment" felt by the police throughout the country and it also describes the two scales that exist as an "unjustifiable anomally." I do not want to detain your Lordships very long but the answer of the Government to this complaint must be given, however briefly. I ought to explain why these two scales exist. Before 1919 there was no uniformity in the scales of pay of the police. Local authorities throughout the country decided themselves what they thought was the rate adequate for their own particular district and the rate of pay for constables varied from 21s. to 30s a week at the minimum rising to 26s. and 42s. at the maximum. Then what is known as the Desborough Committee was appointed to consider the whole matter and that Committee recommended, first, that the scales of pay should be uniform throughout the country, and secondly, that the scales should be 70s., with 2s. for each additional year of service up to 90s. after ten years. In addition there might be granted two further increments of 2s. 6d. after a constable had been at the 90s. rate for seven and twelve years.

This recommendation was adopted by the Government and that constituted 515 what is known as Scale A. Then complications arose, as complications always arise in human affairs. First of all, in 1920 and 1921 a temporary bonus was given because of the increase in the cost of living. Then, in 1931, when the economic crisis came, the police were called upon, as many other citizens in the country were called upon, to suffer a deduction. This amounted to 4s. 3d. in the first and 8s. 6d. in the second year, subject to the provision that this deduction should not exceed 10 per cent. in any individual case. These cuts were restored, half in July, 1934, and the remainder in July, 1935. Then a Departmental Committee was set up, known as the Higgins Committee, to inquire whether any alterations should be made in the basic pay for new entrants—that is to say, of men who joined after September 1, 1931. This Committee recommended, so far as new entrants were concerned, that the scale should begin at 62s. per week and rise by increments up to 90s., with two additional increments of 2s. 6d. each after further service. This recommendation was adopted by the Government and that constitutes the B Scale. It is to be noticed, in passing, that the ordinary maximum scale was 90s. in both cases. There were differences, however, in some respects. In Scale B the starting point is lower than in Scale A. It begins at 62s. against 70s. Moreover, it takes twelve years instead of ten years to reach to 90s. and the two additional increments do not count for pension. That is a brief history of the two scales.

The present complaint, as the Government understand, is that these differences are regarded as anomalies and unjust. I am not clear why. Is it that the existence of two scales at the same time is wrong in principle? Suppose, for instance, that a proposal had been made to abolish Scale A altogether. It is not improbable that there would have been an immediate demand that existing Service men should not suffer on that account and you would have had, as now, the two scales. Their position was not in fact disturbed because only new recruits joined on the new scale. For all practical purposes there is at the present time only one scale operating—Scale B. Every constable who joined before October 1, 1931—that is eleven years ago—must by now have reached the ordinary maximum on Scale 516 A and must be drawing at least 90s. a week, unless in some rare and exceptional cases through inefficiency and misconduct his increments have been mislaid. The men who have not yet reached that maximum must all be on Scale B; so in fact there is now the one scale which has any effect as a scale. The anomaly such as it was has disappeared and Scale A could now be deleted from the police regulations without any practical effect, subject to one point—the two extra long-service increments which are pensionable under Scale A and non-pensionable under Scale B. So much for the question of anomaly.

I do not think that that is the really important point. The real complaint, I suspect, is that it is unfair that rates of pay of constables should have been reduced at all in the time of stress. There is a feeling, perhaps natural, that the police force suffered a loss of status, and that the reduction was effected in a time of economic crisis and ought not to be maintained after that period of crisis has passed. It is not any part of my business here to-day to justify any rates of pay of the police force, but your Lordships would perhaps like to know just precisely what the present scale is. For the lowest paid man, that is the unmarried man, pay is at the rate of 67s. 6d. a week. There is a boot allowance of 1s. 6d. a week, a special duty allowance of 13s. 6d., a war duty allowance of 3s., and if the free quarters are valued, say, at 5s. a week, the man's total remuneration comes to £4 10s. 6d. a week. There is also the question of uniform and free medical attendance. Further, there is the fact that constables may look forward to enjoying pensions at a later period of life, and there is what must be a source of not inconsiderable satisfaction to any man—permanent employment.

These are the conditions which exist, and whilst I am not saying that they are adequate—that is not my business here—the position is that the police force has lived under these conditions and the Government feel that they cannot do very much more in that respect. No information has been put before the Government to suggest that the decision taken in 1933 is under present-day circumstances so inequitable that it is necessary to revive during the war the basic rates of police pay. It is true that the local authorities in England and Wales who 517 concurred in 1933 in the decision then taken, and supported that decision up till 1939, have now through their representatives on the Police Council expressed themselves in favour of a departure from the 1933 decision and a reversion to the Desborough scale, and that a few Scottish local authorities have indicated that they are in favour of the abolition of Scale B. But, while the Government are naturally anxious to give the greatest weight to the views of the local authorities, this is a question of national policy for a decision on which the Government must take the responsibility.

Just as the Desborough Committee recognized that the scale they recommended must be open to review from time to time, so the scale recommended by the Higgins Committee and adopted in 1933 must be regarded as capable of reconsideration when circumstances justify such a course. There are, however, obvious objections to reconsidering basic rates at the present time in the midst of the war when some uncertainty must inevitably be felt as to what the economic conditions of the future may be. I will see that the appeal of the noble Earl is put before the right quarters so that the matter may be under consideration. But the Government feel that war-time conditions can most appropriately be met, as they have been met, by allowances of a temporary character, and in the view of the Government no sufficient case has been made out for a change in the basic conditions at the present time.