HC Deb 09 March 1888 vol 323 cc699-700
MR. GENT-DAVIS (Lambeth, Kennington)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Police Constable 285 L, who was injured whilst on duty, on the day of Her Majesty's Jubilee, in such a way as to have rendered him unfit for further service, would have been entitled, after having served far a period of 16 years and three months, to a yearly pension of £24 19s. 3d. if his case had been one of ordinary sickness; whether a Board of Superintendents sat to inquire into the case, and recommended, after a careful inquiry, that he should receive a yearly pension of £40 11s. 3d. under Paragraph 3 of the General Police Orders of 26th December, 1873, which says— Injuries received in the execution of duty partially incapacitating after 15 years 25–50ths of salary; whether such recommendation was ignored, after being endorsed by the Commissioners, and a pension of only £24 19s. 3d. granted; and, whether he will re-consider the decision in the case, having regard to the special occasion on which the injuries were received, and to the fact that Her Majesty was graciously pleased to express Her thanks to the Metropolitan Police for their services on the day in question?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

The ordinary pension to which he would have been entitled is correctly stated. The constable was injured while on duty on Jubilee Day. But the injury was an accidental one, and arose from a horse treading on his foot, the great toe of which was already permanently enlarged by gout. It is the case that the recommendation of the Board of Superintendents on the case was not adopted; but the Board ignored the distinction between accidental injuries and not accidental injuries, and thus erroneously applied to the constable a Rule not applicable to his case. I was unable, therefore, to adopt the recommendation, though endorsed by the Commissioners. I awarded to the constable the pension mentioned, which, though coinciding with the ordinary pension, was the highest pension that could lawfully be awarded under the Rules of the Force. I must decline to re-consider the decision.

MR. GENT-DAVIS

asked whether, the accident having taken place on an exceptional occasion, some other consideration ought not to have been given to the case?

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that the question of superannuation allowance was governed by Rules from which he was not able to depart.