I beg to move

"That the Clause be read a second time."

This is a small matter, but it provides for what may be a case of hardship. It deals with the case of a sergeant who may retire within the next two or three years, and who happens to have been promoted within three years of his retirement. In the case of a sergeant when he retires his pension is reckoned on the average of the three years before he retires, while in the case of a constable when he retires his pension is calculated upon the actual pay he was receiving when he retired. The result would be that if a man was promoted to sergeant to-day and he had to retire next year his pension would be reckoned upon his three years' pay, which would be two years at the old rate of pay as a constable and one year at the new rate of pay as a sergeant, and the average of that would be very much less than the constable would get who retires upon his full increased pay if this Bill passes. Therefore, we want to provide that if a constable is promoted in the immediate future and has to retire, say within a couple of years, he shall not lose, but he will get the full pay that he would have got if his pension had been reckoned upon his full pay instead of on the average for three years. This is a small matter, but it may meet a hardship.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "other than questions of discipline and promotion affecting individuals."

We are quite conscious of the great benefit that this Bill proposes to confer upon the police, and before proceeding with the Amendment I should like to express my regret and the regret of the Labour party in this House at the ill-advised action of the police in connection with last night's strike. We regret it, especially at a moment when efforts are being made to increase the liberties of the force, and we consider that such action is entirely detrimental to their interests and reflects in a measure upon those who desire to further extend their liberties. We feel, in connection with the establishment of the Police Federation, that that institution will fail in its object unless the members of the federation have a fairly free opportunity of expressing their views and their wishes, and when you rule out at the beginning such matters as promotion and pay you practically remove the greatest interest in the men's lives so far as their service is concerned. The hope of reward is the one thing that appeals to every man, and, in the event of any dissatisfaction, surely it would be to the interests of the force and of all concerned that they should have an opportunity of expressing their views freely in this connection.

The Federation, so far as I have been able to gather, fails to find favour with the police. It is a sort of a three-storey institution. I really do not know which is the top storey and which is the bottom one, and whether the ground floor is the place that the men will aim at occupying or the top storey. But in any case, if you rule out questions of pay and promotion then this Federation will fail to deal with what must be one of the ruling objects of the men in the service. I see no reason why these subjects should be debarred. If injustice is done in connection with either pay or promotion, the men should have full freedom of expression for their views on the subject. I recognise that there must be certain restrictions in a force constituted as the police are constituted, but there should not be these restrictions pertaining to items which are of the greatest possible interest to every man in the force.

I beg to second the Amendment.

:I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not read the words of the Bill with that care which usually characterises him in this House. There is no question here as to pay. It is discipline and promotion that are mentioned, and, moreover, there is nothing in these words which will prevent any board or conference discussing questions of discipline and promotion. They can make any representations they like on these matters. It is only in the case of a single individual that the restriction is imposed. What it means is, that it is impossible, where there has been some disciplinary action, that the body should be allowed to deal with individual cases. As my hon. Friend says, there must be some restrictions in a body like this. But there is no intention to impose restrictions on the discussion of, or the power to make representations, concern-ins promotion or methods of promotion, or matters affecting the success of the men in their career. Practically, every objection which my hon. Friend has raised is one which does not exist in the words as they stand here. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.

After that explanation, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).

The meaning of this Sub-section is that once the Police Federation set up by this Bill is established, it will not be able to associate with any other association, nor will any branch of the Federation be permitted to associate with any other body of persons outside. I suggest that this is too drastic and explosive a part of the Bill, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is reasonable absolutely to isolate members of the police force from all other activities, and to declare that they, unlike all other wage-earners, must form one separate section and be totally denied all contact or association with their fellow wage-earners in different trades and occupations. In face of what has occurred and what may occur, it is necessary to approach this subject in the broadest possible temper and the most reasonable frame or mind. The Home Secretary must now feel that while the police force is disposed to do its duty it is not disposed absolutely to submit to the law of force, as imposed upon it by this Bill. Something more than this repression will be necessary if the loyalty of the police force is to be assured and its good will in the public service is to be continued. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is taking too optimistic a view of the immediate prospects if he has revealed to us what is in his mind in his statement to-day. It is disquieting to see even the beginning of discontent in the police force revealed in this form. It will be a worse thing to provoke further discontent and acts of revolt by pursuing a course which is not consistent with the sense of liberty with which these men are supposed to serve.

As I understand, the police last year were assured in the words of the Prime Minister that they would not be interfered with in the exercise of their right to be in any association chosen by themselves. This Sub-section not merely denies them the right to be in any association, but even forces them by law to be in an association chosen by the Government. This Subsection says that that association must have no contact with any other association, organisation, or body of men of any kind outside the police force. I would even go so far as to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the surest way to secure peace and to enlist the highest degree of loyalty from the men in the force would be not to proceed with this Bill this afternoon, but to withdraw it and to take such steps as can be taken to try to settle matters by mediation, discussion, and negotiation, and by appealing to the men's sense of loyalty, and not by using this extreme instrument of oppression which is to be used to-day. We have previously in this House and in the Committee stage discussed many aspects of the Bill, and I will not go into these details now We on these benches are as anxious as any Members in this House can be to retain the loyalty of the police force, but I repeat my profound conviction that you can only have that loyalty in exchange for freedom and if you deny these men the right to associate themselves together in order to improve their position as wage-earners and their personal condition in the service, you are placing them under a sense of injustice which will rankle and may grow worse, and I think that you will not have in future that trustworthy body of men which you have had in the public service in the past. This is not an opportune time for proceeding with a Bill so drastic as this, which proposes to force them into one association set up by the Government and which denies thorn the right to form themselves into a voluntary association, and which in any case prohibits them entirely from any association with any other body.

I appreciate to the full the desire of my right hon. Friend and those who act with him to secure a loyal and efficient force, but I cannot possibly agree with him either as to the best method by which that can be done or as to the necessity at this moment for any such negotiations or appeals as he has indicated. The information I gave to the House amply proves the complete loyalty of the police force. They are absolutely loyal, and they are a force of which this country, I think, may well be proud. As to the suggestion that this Bill should be withdrawn, I cannot imagine a more unfortunate time than the present in which to bring that proposal forward. I think nothing could have proved more conclusively than the events of last night the absolute necessity for this Bill. The question has been raised as to what this Bill provides. It does not provide to isolate the members of the police force from their neighbours or their neighbours' associations and institutions. It deals with the question of the federation as a federation. This particular Sub-section does not affect the liberty of the individual policeman in the slightest degree. His liberty is affected by Clause 2 of the Bill, which makes it unlawful for a member of a police force to be "a member of any trade union or of any association having for its objects, or one of its objects, to control or influence the pay, pensions, or conditions of service of any police force." We are told that this is far too drastic, that it is a measure of force imposed upon the police. In September of last year, when the police were in a very much more un restful condition than they are to-day, they came to an agreement as to what right they should have for joining any other body of persons. My right hon. Friend was incorrect in saying that the Prime Minister ever for one moment sug- gested to them, or that they insisted, that they were to be entitled freely to join a trade union as a trade union. The terms upon which they joined it were signed by Mr. Marston himself on behalf of the police force, and they are these:

"There can be no objection to a member of the police force joining the National Union of Police and Prison Officers so long as such union does not claim or attempt to interfere with the regulations and discipline of the service, or to induce members of the force to withhold their services, but that in the event of the breach of this condition— "

and if it was never broken before, it was certainly broken last night—

" members of the force may be called upon to sever their connection with such union."

Those were their own terms, the terms signed by Mr. Marston. Take the words of this Sub-section—

"The Police Federation and every branch thereof shall be entirely independent of, and un-associated with, any body or person outside the police service."

What were the terms they agreed to in September? Here is one of the terms, again signed by Mr. Marston:

"The organisation shall be entirely within the force, and shall be entirely independent of, and unassociated with, any outside body."

Those are the very words which are in this Bill, and they were accepted by the police last September, and signed as accepted by Mr. Marston himself. I think, in view of these facts, my right hon. Friend Is hardly justified in using the expression he has used with regard to this particular position. I appreciate his motive to the full. I can assure him that I am as anxious as he is that we should have a loyal and efficient force. I can assure him that I want, if possible, and so far as it is compatible with the discipline which is absolutely essential, the police to have as full and free power of expression, of recommendation and of discussion as it is possible to give them. I have made here an honest attempt to give that.

I want to join with my hon. Friend on the right in an expression of regret at the ill-advised action of last night. It places myself and my colleagues in a most difficult position in our attempts to modify the provisions of this Bill. I trust, however, that anything which happened last night will not be allowed to prejudice the merits of the case we seek to put forward. I am not concerned myself with what took place in September last. What I am concerned with is the principle involved in this Sub-section, and that is that members of the police force are prohibited from joining any outside body. There are chief constables with varied minds. It is still open to a chief constable so minded to say that the policeman, who is invested with civil powers as far as his vote is concerned, shall not belong to any particular political body. That limitation is not placed on any other member of the Civil Service. I see no reason why a policeman should not be affiliated to a political body, and I see no reason why he should not present to that body in a purely constitutional manner any grievance he has got in order that legislation may be enacted for his benefit. Whether or not Mr. Marston or the Police Union signed the terms which have been referred to, the principle still remains, and it is still just possible, if I may reduce the argument to absurdity, that some fractious chief constable might object to a constable belonging to a Christmas goose club.

Not under this Bill.

He may object.

This does not affect the liberty of the individual policeman in the slightest degree. His liberty remains absolutely, except in so far as it is limited by Clause 2. This does not touch the liberty of the individual. He can belong to any body which does not affect the police.

Is it not the fact that he loses his individual liberty in this sense that he is deprived of acting in association with his fellow policemen.

Let me press my point which is that under the Federation to be established by the Bill the policemen would be prohibited from even discussing or putting before anybody other than the police force any question. They could not even come to the Labour party to state a grievance, although not affiliated to them, and to say that they wanted to move in a constitutional manner in order to secure benefits in the direction of pay or promotion, or for any other object, without any attempt to strike or threat to strike. This Bill denies them that opportunity and for that reason I shall vote against this Clause.

I am in thorough sympathy, as I am sure every Member is, with the position of the police, and with the desire to remove any grievances they may suffer from. I should be the last man to say any word out of sympathy with the police. From my experience of them during the War I believe they discharged their duty as well as any other body in. this country. I had many of them under my command, and they were eager to take up arms in defence of their country; and from the way they discharged their duties as civil officers I was satisfied that they would do their duty in the War, and they did. If I say anything now it is not out of sympathy with the police. What is their position. They are not in the position either of the ordinary citizen or of the ordinary Civil servant. Until we get home that root idea I am afraid hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite will not agree on the point. What is a police constable or policeman? He is an ordinary citizen who has confided to him by the rest of the community some of the most vital rights that affect the liberty of the individual. He has the right to interfere in crucial ways with the liberty of every one of us. That is a right which is confided to him by the rest of his fellow members, and it is a right which requires the utmost discretion in its exercise, and it is a right for the exercise of which he is responsible to his fellow citizens and not to any particular one of them. What does this Clause do? The first Clause of this Bill enables policemen of all ranks to form an association such as is set out in the Schedule of the Bill. That differs in no way from an ordinary trade union except this. Before the Trade Union Act of 1871 a trade union was an illegal association.

And it is yet.

It is not. Trade unions have been recognised. They have to go to the Registrar of Friendly Societies to be registered.

Not necessarily; there is no penalty.

Everyone knows that it may be an illegal association unless it does, and all the great trade unions, in order to put themselves in the same position as friendly societies, have to register. They put before the Registrar their objects, and the method of appointment of officers, and are subject to control in regard to funds.

My hon. Friend is entirely wrong in his knowledge of trade union procedure. Trade unions are not legally liable for benefits.

A trade union is registered under a certain provision. This Bill gives the policeman a statutory union comparable in every way with the other unions, the only difference being that it is set up by this particular Statute. The essential difference between it and any other union is that while a trade union, registered or unregistered, can choose anybody to be a member or an officer in control of the union, that is a right, and the only right, of the ordinary citizen which the police-constable is deprived of by this Bill. What is set up is a federation, and policemen can use that federation as a means of communicating any complaints, but everybody in control of that federation must be one of themselves and must not be an outside person. That is quite right, because, to come back to the point I made originally, if we, the whole of the citizens of the community, entrust to a number of men the right to interfere with our liberty, those men are not merely acting as agents of the particular Government of the day, but are acting as the deputees of the whole of the community. We will not submit those rights to a particular section if we know that that section may be controlled by outside influences which are not responsible to the community. That is the whole point under which the police-constable is deprived of the general right. That is quite correct, and it is constitutional, and does him no harm. If that is what this Bill does, there can be no suggestion that the policeman is put in a worse position than anybody else. It is essential, if policemen are to be in a position to discharge their duties to the whole of the community, and it is only fair to the rest of the community that they shall not be subjected to outside influence or outside control by individuals who have no responsibility to the Government or to their fellow-citizens, and who will in moments of excitement do things which policemen themselves would regret. I hope the Government will resist the Amendment.

It is exceedingly strange that the Government should bring up this Bill at this particular time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] We are bound to treat the matter with a certain amount of suspicion when we consider that the police have been in existence a good many years, and if all the good things foreshadowed by the Home Secretary are to be provided, it is strange that the Government should bring in this Bill, with all the unrest which is going on in the ranks of the policemen of this country. The hon. Member who has just sat down has referred to the question that this Bill enables these men to form an association, but when we come to examine what that association will really be, we venture to say that it will not give them that individual liberty and freedom which to-day is found in the ranks of what is commonly known as ordinary trade unionism. It was stated by the hon. Member that the control of this new Federation will be entirely by the men's representatives themselves, and that the men themselves can appoint and control their own officials, but that they must be members of the force. I ask the Home Secretary, and the hon. Member in particular, how it can be possible for any man of the force to be a general secretary of this union, at the same time carrying out his duties as an. ordinary constable or officer of the force? Any man who has a spark of knowledge of trade union work knows it is necessary for the secretary of a union to give the whole of his time, his power, and his ability to it, and not to be tied down by any other official body, in order that he may be able to do his duty to the men who belong to that particular union.

Besides, this is setting up an employers' trade union, nothing more nor less. I have been in my experience a representative of the men on what I could easily term an employers' friendly society, but although we had the majority of representatives on that committee, we were utterly useless, because the employers held the upper hand every time, and although their voting power on the management committee was in the minority, the conditions were framed in such a way that we were unable to get any advantage from the position we occupied as representatives, just as it would be in the case of this Federation. As the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Clynes) suggested, if we are to have a loyal force we should have within it the individual liberty which will give these men their rights as British citizens. Even if this Bill to-day may tide over the difficulty for the moment, I want the Home Secretary to think of what is going to happen in the future. The age in which we live is not an antediluvian period, and people have not got the same ideas to-day as they had a good many years ago. They have greater aspirations, and the ex-Service men coming from the Army are not going to be treated in the same way as they have been treated hitherto, and these men, from whom the force largely recruits, arc not going to bind themselves under any military dictatorship, because that is what it amounts to. We should expect this Bill to come from the War Office rather than from the Home Secretary's Department, and I submit that it is no inducement for the rising generation to be recruited into the force. I want to draw the Home Secretary's attention to the fact that this principle is not being applied all round, but only to the policeman. If it is logical for one section of the Home Office to belong to a trade union simply brought in and probably managed by the Home Secretary's Department, is it not just as logical to say that the Home Secretary himself and others of the great legal profession should withdraw from their union and come within the scope of a Bill of this character? If it is good for the ordinary man at the bottom rung of the ladder, then the whole of the legal profession should withdraw from their union, and the same provisions should apply to them as are being made to apply to the police. What is the Home Secretary afraid of in this respect? If the men have a just case—and I consider that they have —there is no measure in this Bill that will prevent them from amalgamating their forces with the idea of getting better conditions. I hope the Home Secretary will view it from the point of view that it is no encouragement to young men to join the force, but rather is distasteful to the community, and I hope he will withdraw this Clause from the Bill.

I think it is intelligible that the right hon.

I beg to move to leave out Clause 2.

I will give one or two reasons for taking this course. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend below the Gangway that, as trade unionists, we are now fight- ing the trade union battle, but I suggest that we have had no choice of any other course. The line we are taking has been imposed upon us by the terms of this Bill. I have already said in Committee, and I think in the House, that, personally, I would have preferred to have seen the policemen organised on voluntary lines, in harmony with the desire of the Home Office, with freedom to protect themselves in the police service as regards remuneration and pensions, whilst securing the community against the risks of collective action in the form of indulging in a strike to the public detriment. I would have preferred that, but we have been forced by the terms of this Bill—indeed, we have had no choice—to put the trade union position in the manner we are endeavouring to do. The hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew (Colonel Greig) gave to the House a too generous interpretation of the meaning of this Bill, whilst not giving to the House a quite accurate description of what the trade union position is. It is not enough to say that, under this Bill, policemen are allowed to form themselves into an association. They are made to do so. The Bill says they shall form themselves into branches of this Federation. It is not a Bill of "may"; it is a Bill of ''must." They are compelled, then, to form themselves into an organisation imposed upon them by the Government. The Clause under consideration takes the House further, and asks it to say that, whilst the Government sets up a trade union of its own kind, it takes away from the men any right of voluntarily associating together in an organisation corresponding to a trade union.

I, therefore, move that this Clause be deleted, because I believe that the Federation, if the Government insists upon establishing it, can be brought into being and maintained consistently and con currently with an organisation formed by the policemen themselves on voluntary lines, and which would answer very largely to a trade union. Our view is that the Government ought not at one and the same time to force the men into a Federation and force them out of the union which they have recently established for their own protection. Some consideration must be given to the very natural desire of the policemen to exercise as employès rights similar to any working-men in this country. A policeman now is in this position: He is the embodiment of the law, and yet legally he is to be deprived of exercising the common rights enjoyed by the commonest man in the commonest industry. He is the symbol of our freedom, and yet he is denied the freedom to act in any way that his fellow-men can in other associations. I suggest that this Clause, if carried, will destroy completely any right of voluntary effort on the part of the policemen to form themselves together for any kind of protective purpose. If my right hon. Friend will forgive me saying so, I think it is rather trifling with the position when he points out that individually the freedom of the police is left unimpaired, and that they can do what they like.

Everyone knows that in practice that means that personal power is worthless. A man can secure the use of power only when he acts, and is permitted to act, in association with his fellows. As a single unit he has no means whatever of arranging a bargain with his employer, or superintendent, or the man who is in any way in authority above him. He is totally helpless, and that amount of individual freedom is not worth the words that cover it. The belief then of the Labour Members in regard to this Clause is that it can be with drawn without destroying tie object which the Government has in view, and that if it were withdrawn it would go far to allay a good deal of the discontent which is now spreading. Finally, as to what the right hon. Gentleman said relating to Mr. Marston might be said months and months ago. That should be considered in the light that he was acting under a condition of pressure at the time. After all, Mr. Marston signed as an agent. It is not enough to say Mr. Marston has departed from his word. He is being driven from his words by the terms of this Clause. It is not consistent for the Government to make this charge against the Chairman of the Policemens' Union at a moment when they are making it totally impossible by the Clause in this Bill to conform to the agreement which he had to sign at that time.

If I gather aright what my right hon. Friend said just before he sat down, it is perfectly true that this Clause is intended to prevent policemen joining any outside body such as that to which Mr. Marston belongs. It is not right for the right hon. Gentleman to say that Mr. Marston is driven by this Clause to break his word and the conditions ha made. He has broken them consistently from the moment he signed them. I should like to enter a protest against the suggestion that this Clause, or any single word of it, is an attack upon trade unionism. To speak of it as if it were such an attack is wrong. It is nothing of the sort. On the Second Reading, speech after speech was made from the opposite side of the House, in which it was admitted, and admitted freely, that policemen could not be as ordinary industrial trade unionists. To begin with, they could not have what is the very soul of industrial trade unionism, the right to strike. Industrial trade unionism must keep that. For the police to strike is absolutely impossible! We have had months of experience of allowing the police to belong to an outside body. It has had the fullest trial. This Clause merely prevents the police joining any outside body which seeks to interfere with them. They can belong to the Labour Party or Conservative or Liberal parties. They can join their associations. They can join any goose clubs, such as have been talked about, or any other club of a similar description. If once, however, these institutions attempt to interfere with the police, try to stir up unrest among them, and try to lure them on to strike and that sort of thing, then their membership of that association must cease. That is a protection which is essential if the police force is to maintain its efficiency. This Clause goes no further than that, and I ask the House to stand by it.

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "Secretary of State," and to insert instead thereof the words "the Minister of Labour."

We do not know what the Amendment really is, and perhaps the Home Secretary will explain it.

If the hon. and learned Member will look at Sub-section (2) of the Clause he will see the words

"(2) If any question arises whether any trade union or association is a, trade union or association to which this Section applies, the question shall be determined by the Secretary of State."

I have accepted an Amendment making it determinable by the Minister of Labour, who is more closely in touch with the subject than the Secretary of State.

I beg to move to leave out Clause 3.

I would like to appeal to the Home Secretary either to assent to modify its terms or to take it out of the Bill altogether. This Clause proposes very severe penalties to persons who cause disaffection, and it deals with attempts to cause disaffection or what may be calculated to cause it, or attempts to induce others to do certain things. In the present temper of the country it is highly undesirable especially in a Bill which deprives a body of important public servants, as we believe, of individual freedom, to strengthen the law in respect of acts of prosecution against persons who may be innocently engaged in the trade union service. If a trade union agent from some public platform expressed the view that policemen were entitled to the same rights of organisation and ought to exercise them as other people, under this Clause he would be liable to prosecution and to the infliction of the very severe penalties which are mentioned in this Clause. This Clause may be regarded by organised trade unionists as a challenge, and if not that, certainly it will be considered as an attempt to greatly lessen. organised service not only in relation to policemen, but to many other public servants, and it will deprive a certain section, of men of their right to voluntary combination. I think the object of the Government can be met without stirring up the suspicion and dissatisfaction which is bound to arise under a Clause of this kind.

:This Clause is in no sense a challenge to trade unionism, and in no sense will it reduce the power of trade unionism in so far as it is properly exercised. It does not deal with anyone who attempts to improve the position of the police or with anyone who seeks to improve their conditions, pay, pensions, or anything else, but it does aim at those who seek to deprive the public of that protection to their lives and their property which the police are pledged to give. We know that there are people in this country whose objects are not those of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but whose methods are of such a nature that it is essential for them to be able to have a disaffected police force that they can rely upon not to fail the country during some crisis. Therefore we must have this protection. The Bill does not touch trade unionism, and it does not prevent any individual doing anything which he can legitimately and properly do as a trade unionist, and trade unionists will not be affected. It is the agent of disaffection and of revolution and the agent of real mischief which is aimed at in this Clause, and I ask the House to retain it in the Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman did not say any- thing about the Press. I would like to ask if newspapers will be prevented from commenting upon matters affecting the police.

No one would be touched who really points out grievances which ought to be remedied, but if the Press set themselves to incite the police to strike at a time when some strike was on, and they wanted the police to help them, of course they would come under this Bill.

This Clause seems to me to be very far-reaching, and it possibly might be used in a way which was never intended. As I read the Clause, it might give people the opportunity to charge others who are only doing what they may think they have a legal and constitutional right to do, and it might place those people in a very unfair position. The police force is one of which we are all very proud, and we as trade unionists, with all our years of experience, can freely say that we have always found them doing their duty to protect property, and they have never assisted strikes or strikers, and from that standpoint we have nothing very much to talk about. The strike which has happened will undoubtedly be crushed, but it will leave behind it a sting in the hearts and the mass of the people affected by it, and it will mean that people who have a grievance may be victimised. A statement may be carried from one mouth to another until it reaches the proper person, and charges might be levelled even against myself or any other hon. Member of this House who have no desire to break the law. Therefore this. Clause ought to be withdrawn or amended in some way so as to modify it in order to safeguard innocent people from being penalised who have no desire to break the law.

No one regrets more than I do that this Bill has been necessary, but I think we must all realise that the unfortunate conditions of the past few years brought about by the neglect of the Government during the War of the police force has brought about an unsatisfactory condition of things. The opinion which I believe every hon. Member of this House holds is that the police force should be put into such a position that under no circumstances whatever is it likely that they will be a fruitful ground for agitation of any kind. Their pay and their conditions should be good in every way, but we must always remember that this particular force is entirely different from any other trade, organisation, or business in the country. They are there to keep the ring. It is possible that they may have to guard a trade union office to-morrow, or an employer's office. It does not matter. They have to do their duty to the State. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what he has done for the police. We support him in the whole of this Bill, because we realise that for the good and safety of the nation the police must be guarded against people who go about making mischief in the force. It is a very dangerous thing for anyone to try and interfere with them in any way, and I do, therefore, hope that the Government will strongly support this Clause.

:This Clause imposes very heavy penalties for offences. I do not find fault with the period of imprisonment or the amount of the fine, but I do suggest that the last sentence in the Clause ought to be deleted. It means that a man when he has paid his fine and served his period of imprisonment may be further punished by loss of pension. That is very harsh punishment. He pays towards the fund from which the pension is drawn, and I submit that the right hon. Gentleman should agree to the deletion of these words. A man who has been twenty years in the force may be convicted of some offence, and to say that he shall be fined and imprisoned and then forfeit his pension to which he has contributed, is carrying the thing a little too far. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the Amendment.

I would like to support the appeal made by my hon. Friend. I am not a lawyer, but I think the words "attempts to cause disaffection" are rather ambiguous. Almost any suggestion to the police in connection with their pay or conditions of service might possibly be construed by the legal mind to be something calculated to cause disaffection. Surely the phraseology is rather loose, at any rate it appears to be so to the lay mind. It may be that the word "disaffection" has a particular meaning in the law, but it certainly seems to leave people open to charges for offences with very little reason. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will respond to the appeal and delete the last words of the Clause. At any rate, it should be made optional to the judge to say whether a police constable who is overtaken in a fault of this sort should be deprived of his pension rights or become disqualified from being a member of the police force. It is really carrying the penalty too far. It should not be in the Bill at all, and in any case it should be left to the discretion of the judge who would be influenced by the particular circumstances of the case to say whether it should be inflicted or not.

:I desire very respectfully to make a suggestion. There is a good deal in what has been said with regard to the possibility of a person offending against this Clause quite innocently, and every Member would desire to prevent that possibility. I am anxious to make it impossible for an innocent person to suffer by reason of the Clause, and I therefore respectfully suggest the introduction of the word "wilfully" so as to protect the innocent person. The Clause then would read "If any person wilfully—" That would satisfy me, and I think it would satisfy the objections which have been raised by some hon. Members.

I desire to support the Government in the general principle of this Bill, but I would certainly like to join in the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman to modify the last words of the Clause. The other penalties, of course, are within the discretion of the judge, but as the Clause stands forfeiture of pension rights must take place in any event. I think that ought to be altered. There should be some discretion as to whether it has been a bad case or not.

If a man is convicted, or is even suspected of being inclined to stir up dissatisfaction in the force, it is absolutely necessary that hr should be turned out of the force. Therefore, I do not see how you can take these words out of the Clause. I quite agree that there may be hard cases, and it may be. very difficult for the Home Secretary and the police authorities to say whether a man ought to be proceeded against or not. The moment there is any question of proceeding against him, however, he is a man who ought to be out of the force I hope, there-fore, that the Government will stick to these words. The word "wilfully" goes too far, because we know how difficult it is to prove whether a man has done a thing intentionally or not, but whether the Home Secretary can modify the sentence is another thing. It is part of the essence of the Bill that the man should be turned out of the force, and I do not think that hon. Members who have suggested the omission of these words realise that fact.

It seems to me the guarantee to the House that the Clause will be put into operation in a proper manner is contained in the words "on conviction he shall be liable." If the case comes before the stipendiary magistrate, or before the High Court then surely we can trust the judges or the magistrates to investigate the particular circumstances. We are sure that judges will give the most careful and sympathetic consideration to cases of this kind. We are proud of the way which we can trust those who are charged with the administration of the law.

We cannot always trust the magistrates.

:Of course we know that some magistrates may go wrong, but it is the exception and not the rule-I want the Committee to bear in mind that the offence we are here dealing with is a very grave one. I agree that the words at the end of the Clause are very severe, but what may be a very minor offence in a man outside the police force becomes very serious in the case of a man inside the force. The main thing is, I imagine, that the penalty to which the man may render himself liable will act as a deterrent. It would be a very bad thing indeed to leave discretion to the judge or to anybody else, because they might err on the side of sympathy. It is far better that Parliament should take upon itself the duty of laying down what shall be the punishment in cases of this nature, and we ought not even to leave it to the Secretary of State. We should ourselves declare what is the unavoidable penalty in cases where men commit these offences.

I am sure my hon. Friends opposite have not considered how far their proposal is taking them. It has been assumed by most of the speakers that for a very venial offence a policeman may be penalised by the loss of his pension. If that were a possibility, I am sure every Member of the House would support the appeal made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tyson Wilson). But, as a matter of fact, as the last speaker well said, there can be no comparison between policemen and ordinary trade unionists. It has been argued as if the circumstances in the two cases were the same. But let it be borne in mind that no trade unionist has to take an oath of service to his employer, whereas a policeman does take an oath to the Crown that he will do certain things as a policeman. There are moral values involved in these conditions. If we are to agree that a man may break his sworn word with impunity, I would like to know where we shall find ourselves. I say that a man who does so must suffer a penalty commensurate with the crime committed, and that, at any rate, will act, as a deterrent to other people who may be tempted to follow his example. Therefore, while I believe that the men would get consideration from the permanent officials or from the Home Secretary, I think we must be careful where we are going, because if we are going to give a licence to a man to break his obligations, which surely have a moral value, we are going along the path which leads to chaos and disorder in the country.

I quite agree that this Clause is very severe, and that it is intended to have a wide application. The crime against which it is aimed is a far-reaching one. It is the offence of causing disaffection or doing things likely to cause disaffection, and it is quite right that the penalty in such a case should be severe. A policeman found guilty of the offence will, under the Clause, forfeit his pension and be prevented ever again becoming a policeman. I have stood up pretty often to protest against severe sentences in different Acts of Parliament, and I have not received very much backing, I am afraid, from Labour Members. But I say it is absolutely necessary to support the Government in carrying a strong Clause of this nature, and I will tell the House why it is so important. I have attended meetings time and again where it has been the declared object of the speakers to ruin England as a constitutional State. I have heard them say, "We don't mean to fight; we don't mean to go in front of the guns. We are not up against the policeman's baton, but we want to get round the loyalty of the Army and the police force, so that those men may fight on our side." I am sure no one has the slightest sympathy with or intention of supporting men who advocate such doctrines. These are the men who have been sowing disaffection among the police and among the troops. The Home Office made a lamentable failure on the occasion of the last police strike. I am glad it is now showing some backbone, and I for one am prepared to support it whole-heartedly in carrying this Clause into the Act of Parliament.

What we are seeking to do is to protect the police force from outside interference, because we know that otherwise chaos and ruin will come upon us. We know what disorders occurred during the last strike, and it would be a wrong thing for us in any way to weaken this Clause. It would be very easy for an agitator to say, "I did not know when I was doing this thing that it would affect the police force, or that the leaflets which I was issuing would sow disaffection amongst the members of that force." We must prevent such things occurring. It is idle to suggest that we are denying policemen the common rights of citizenship. Men who take certain positions under a constitutional Government must always give up certain rights. It might easily be made a complaint that because Mr. Speaker holds his position he has to give up a right common to every Member of this House—the right of voting in Divisions. Officials of Government Departments, when they take certain positions, are called upon to surrender certain specific rights; and as to the suggestion of the hon. Member that if this Clause is persisted in it will deter men joining the police force in the future, because they will not agree to be subjected to this penalty, I can only say I do not believe it will deter a single man. I am sure that when a policeman joins the force and takes the oath of allegiance, he means to keep it. If he docs not, then the punishment ought to be severe. I have never before supported a penal Clause of this character, but I do-hope that the Government will press this, because it will keep people from interfering either with the police or with the Army. The members of the force will have the fullest protection under this Clause. They will be protected by the-magistrates.

They have not sufficient representation.

I quite agree. I might remind my hon. Friend that I was the means of having an Amendment made to a Bill which is now the law providing that in every case of conviction by a magistrate there should be an appeal. In the Criminal Law Amendment Act there is an appeal to the High Court judges

The Clause deals with conviction on indictment.

And summary conviction as well. Once a man is convicted by a Court of first instance and on appeal for an offence so insidious and grave as this is, this penalty ought to be imposed, and I trust the House will show strength and support the Home Secretary.

I beg to move, to leave out the words

"and in either case if a member of a police force shall forfeit all pension rights and be disqualified for being a member of any police force."

If these words be left in a man may be fined £l or £2 without any imprisonment at all, and he then forfeits all pension rights, and it is made imperative that he should be discharged from the force. That is where the harshness comes in. He may be convicted of an offence in one locality for which he would not be proceeded against in another locality. In that case, in one locality he would not be considered a fit and proper person to be in the force, whereas in the other he would be admitted to the force. These words impose a very severe penalty indeed. I hope that the Home Secretary, if he will not accept the Amendment, will consider the desirability of modifying these words in another place. I am certain he would not like a man to be fined £l for some offence under this Clause, arid, because of that, should forfeit all his pension rights to which he has contributed for fifteen or twenty years. Even at the eleventh hour I hope the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment. If there is anything like a spontaneous strike after this Bill becomes law, it will be because the men in the force feel that an Injustice has been done to an individual member of the force and that, Act or no Act, they should take such action which they thought might influence the people responsible for the action taken.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I agree with a good deal that has been said as to the necessity for keeping up discipline in the police force and punish- ing severely any person who causes disaffection in it. Here, a policeman, who has been tried and summarily convicted, may be punished by a small fine, yet that has to be followed up by the forfeiture of all pension rights. That is carrying the punishment too far. In Scotland we say that when a man has the led his assize he must not be tried again. A man may be tried for a technical offence. The magistrate may impose a small fine or a short period of imprisonment. That carries with it the forfeiture of the pension. That carries an element of vindictiveness alien to all sense of justice. I agree that there should be the option to the judge to deprive a man of pension rights or to order that he shall no longer be a member of the force. I would ask the Home Secretary to leave it to the option of the judge to decide whether a man should be deprived of his pension rights or that he shall no longer be a member of the force. I recognise the difficulty of amending the Clause to provide for that, but I would join in the appeal that between this stage and the Bill being taken in another place the Home Secretary should consider whether he could not modify in some way or other the harshness of this part of the Clause.

I hope the House will not accept this Amendment. It may be possible for me, before the Bill actually receives the Royal Assent, to consider some proposal with regard to the pension. It is highly improbable that a member of the police force guilty of any of the crimes which are dealt with in this Clause would ever get off with a fine of £1 or a. short period of imprisonment. Some hon. Members appear to have forgotten the fact that a policeman who is charged under this Bill is, in fact, a traitor, nothing more nor less.

A man who is charged under this Bill?

Of course, I am talking of conviction.

You said "charged."

:If I said "charged" it was a slip which I should have thought would have been apparent to anybody. A man who is convicted under this Clause is a traitor pure and simple. He is a man who, having taken an oath himself, tries to incite other people to break theirs. That he should possibly remain a member of the force is out of the question. I cannot consider any Amendment of the words "disqualified for being a member of any police force," but with regard to the pension it might be met with some provision whereby the Secretary of State or the police authority or somebody else in special circumstances could decide it in a different way. Generally speaking, the principle ought to be that a man who has taken the oath and become a policeman and who is guilty of any of the charges which are made under this Clause ought to be very severely punished, far more severely punished than any ordinary member of the public. I hope the House will not accept the Amendment, but between now and a later stage of the Bill I will consider how far it is possible to make some provision for the less severe or grave cases not losing their pension rights. I cannot give any promise about it, but I will consider between now and a later period whether anything of that sort can be done.

I would remind hon. Members that a Civil servant is also under disabilities. If he commits an offence such as a breach of the Official Secrete. Act he may not only be dismissed but also lose his pension. A Civil servant does not take the obligation of an oath in the same way as a policeman. It is a mistake to think that a policeman who commits a misdemeanour under the Bill should get off. A policeman is in a position different from any other individual, and while it is quite true that he loses certain rights, it is also a fact that Civil servants lose certain rights. A Civil servant is precluded entirely from taking any part in civil government. He can take no part in the work of county councils or town councils. To say that a policeman should have certain rights which a Civil servant has not got is going beyond the point. I trust under the circumstances the Government will stick to their measure, because there are men going about to-day who are doing their level best to cause dissatisfaction amongst the police force and the Army, and these are the very men who, during all the years we were at war, were not only unwilling to serve, but were doing all they could to bring about disaster to this country. I trust the Government will keep to the Bill and that the House will support the Government in making it as strong as possible, in order that this dissatisfaction may cease once and for all.

I take it the right hon. Gentleman is, at present at any rate, inclined to put some such provision as this into the Bill?

I am considering it, at any rate. I think possibly it would be a wise thing to do.

If the right hon. Gentleman will give it favourable consideration, I will not press it.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "government" ["regulations as to the government "].

2.0 P.M.

It seems to me that the object of the first portion of the Clause is to secure some measure of standardisation of the rules and regulations appertaining to the police force. I can well see the desirability of such standardisation in so far as pay and allowances are concerned, but when we come to government, a very wide meaning can be attached to the word and a good deal of elasticity can be put into its interpretation. "Government" mean3 executive power. Hitherto, if I understand the matter aright, watch committees of local authorities have possessed certain powers in connection with the government of the local police force, and it appears to me that under this Clause, with the word "government," the Home Secretary is going to supersede entirely the watch committees. He is going to cut right across their work and is going to take out of their hands all opportunity of governing the local police forces. That is giving the Home Office too great power in view of the excellent services which have been rendered by these watch committees.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. It really is just as important that you should standardise what government involves as that you should standardise conditions and pay. I have felt for some time that it would be wise if there were a disciplinary code amongst the police so that you would not get individual cases of harshness and so on as you do at present. Regulations would be necessary for that. The methods of promotion ought to be standardised. Promotion from one force to another, from a smaller to a larger force, could only be done by regulations from a central source. The inclusion of the word "government" does not in the least take the real executive power out of the hands of the watch committees or local authorities but merely gives power to make regulations in order to standardise the conditions. I could give many other instances, but I think it will be clear to hon. Members that this is not an Amendment that they would care to press. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words

"except where the matter is certified by the Secretary of State to be one of urgency."

I accept.

I beg to move, after the word "submitted" ["be submitted to a council"], to insert the words "to the police authorities and."

My object in putting in these words is that the standing joint committee or the watch committee should have some say in the matter. Under this Clause it goes to a council which consists of members of the Police Federation, representatives of the chief officers of the police, and the police authorities, a sort of joint council who are to be consulted. But we claim that the county councils also ought to be consulted. They are the people who carry on the police. They are responsible and ought to be consulted before anything definite is done. They are quite prepared, after they have been consultd, to join with anyone else to consider the matter, but they think the Home Secretary ought to consult them or, at any rate, let them know about it before any fresh regulations are submitted.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. Member has a further Amendment on the Paper to insert in Sub-Section (2), after the word "State" ["Secretary of State"], the words "after consultation with the county councils' associations and the association of municipal corporations." I should be prepared to accept those words. The object is to have a body which is representative of the opinions of the Government and of the other authorities, such as the watch committees in the boroughs and the standing joint committees in the counties. If the associations have a voice in the choice of their representatives that would probably meet what my hon. Friend has in view. The Amendment which he has now proposed would be quite impossible, because it would mean that you would have to consult not one single body, representative of all the authorities, but each police authority all over the country, which would be a very heavy and cumbersome matter. If the words which I suggest, which are the hon. Member's own words, are inserted, they would meet all that he desires.

:The Home Secretary should have authority in cases of emergency to immediately put new Regulations into force. If he is going to attempt to have all these extra additional bodies consulted before he can meet a case of emergency, difficulties are certain to arise, and I hope, as the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself to be firm when he is satisfied that the case is just he will be firm in resisting Amendments which are not necessary.

:I should be glad to accept the suggestion of the Home Secretary, although I would have preferred that he should have accepted this Amendment, because it gives me more of what I wanted. Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "State" ["Secretary of State"], to insert the words

"after consultation with the county councils' associations and the association of municipal corporations."

These bodies are representative of the watch committees and the standing joint committees, more or less.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should like to know from the Secretary of State how long he imagines it is going to take, in the case of emergency, to consult all these extra outside bodies. How does he propose to deal with a case such as that which happened last night?

It is quite evident that my hon. Friend does not appreciate the meaning of this Amendment. A council will be set up and the council will always be there. It will be there to consult immediately in case of emergency. This Amendment simply deals with the original constitution of the council. It provides for consultation as the first step in choosing the representatives who will form the council. Once the representatives are chosen, there is no further consultation required of any sort or description. It is merely a question of consulting them once in order that they may choose their representatives. When the representatives have been chosen and they form the council, they can be called upon at any moment in case of an emergency or otherwise.

Then why does the right hon. Gentleman have the words in the Clause, "where the matter is certified by the Secretary of State to be one of urgency"?

The reason is, that I cannot for the life of me imagine any case of emergency which would affect the question of drawing up Regulations. Therefore I accept it.

I beg to move, after "1829" ["Police Act, 1829"], to insert the words "as amended by any subsequent enactment. This is simply to ensure that the provisions of the Act of 1829 in so far as they have been amended shall have force.

I beg to move to leave out the words

"be the amounts payable or transferable in accordance with the said paragraphs in respect of the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and accordingly those paragraphs shall have effect as if for the words 'during the preceding year,' in both places where they occur, there were substituted the words 'during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen,' and Section twenty-five of the same Act shall apply with the necessary consequential modifications,"

and to insert instead thereof the words

"be equal to the amount so paid or transferred from the Exchequer Contribution Account of each county or county borough for the financial year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen."

This is only a drafting Amendment. The Home Secretary is, no doubt, aware that the financial year comes at different dates, and, if this Amendment is not accepted, we shall not get the benefit for the year 1919.

I should like to be satisfied that this Amendment does not constitute an additional charge. Under the Clause I understand that the State make a contribution towards the expenses of the local authorities, calculated for the year ending 31st March, 1915. If this Amendment is carried, and the payment is made for an earlier period, to 31st March, 1914, that would be an extra charge, and the Amendment would be out of order.

I think it probably would be a charge. If my hon. Friend will look at the two Amendments standing in my name, he will see that the same thing is done, except that it remains 1915 instead of 1914, and if he would withdraw his Amendment and support mine, it would meet all that he wants. Another point may have escaped his notice. If it is to toe the actual amount paid, it may not meet the full amount. There may be cases where the payment may have been smaller owing to deficiencies and so on. The full amount provides that each authority will get what is prescribed under the Act, and I think the full amount, which I propose in my Amendment, would be best. Then the word "fifteen" obviates the necessity of discussing the other point as to whether or not a charge is imposed.

As the Amendment does impose a charge, I must rule it out of order.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3) to insert the words

"so, however, that the pension shall not be less than if the constable had continued in his former rank."

This merely carries out what I explained when I moved the new Clause earlier today to provide that in the case of the man promoted within the next two or three years there shall be no loss of benefit in the matter of pensions or gratuities and allowances.