§ (1) The word "thirty" occurring in Subsection (2) of Section twenty-five of the principal Act shall be deleted and the words "forty-five" shall be inserted in lieu thereof. Provided that the said Sub-section shall not apply to the case of a person transferred or appointed to the post of chief constable.
§ (2) The words "Great Britain" occurring in Sub-section (4) of Section four and Sub-section (6) of Section twenty-seven of the principal Act shall be deleted and the words "the United Kingdom" shall be inserted in lieu thereof.
§ (3) In lieu of Sub-section (3) of Section twenty-five of the principal Act, the following provision shall apply:—
§ "The limit of age in the case of a chief constable on first appointment shall be forty-five years. In the case of promotion or transfer of a person serving in the police force to the post of chief constable in the same or another police force, the limit of age shall not exceed fifty-five years."
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1).
965 2.0 P.M.
I shall have to read a portion of the Act of 1890, in order to make clear what I want to do. I am sorry to have to do so, but this is the effect of legislation by reference. The Sub-section which I propose to omit is not clear unless the Act of 1890 is read in conjunction with it. The first part of Clause 25 of the Act of 1890 says that no person shall be appointed to any police force unless he has come to the age of twenty-five years. That, of course, is a very good condition, especially when there is a Superannuation Act, because you do not want to appoint a person who is so old that he immediately becomes eligible for a pension. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 says: "The limit of age in this Section before mentioned does not apply to the case of a person immediately transferred from another police force, or who has, in the immediately preceding three months served in His Majesty's Navy or Army, provided that such person when transferred or appointed shall not be more than thirty years of age." Unless my Amendment is accepted the word "thirty" will be left out and "forty-five" will be put in. I do not think that is the intention of hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill. Any person who has for three months previous to his election to the police force served in the Army or Navy, though he may be forty-four years eleven months old, may be appointed a police constable. I am told that before he would become entitled to a pension he would have to serve a certain number of years. That may be so, but surely it cannot be the intention of the promoters of the Bill to appoint people of forty-four years of age to be police constables. I am not quite certain what length of time a constable must serve to be entitled to a pension; but supposing he must serve twenty-five years, if you add twenty-five years to forty-five years you arrive at seventy, and I venture to say no ordinary police constable would be kept in the force until he is seventy. He would be no use at all, even in a law-abiding country like Scotland. I venture to say that forty-five years of age is much too old to appoint a person to serve as police constable. A police constable is required to be an active and energetic person with all his physical powers about him for the purpose of coping with breakers of the law. At the age of forty-five physical forces begin to deteriorate, and you cannot jump and run and do those things which can be done earlier in life. The Section which it 966 is proposed to repeal is a good one, and ought not to be repealed, and I do not see why it should be repealed in a Bill dealing with superannuation. My hon. Friend (Mr. George Younger) tells me that it has no effect upon superannuation, but may I point out that the Section to be repealed deals with the transfer from one police force to another and with the enlistment of men who during three months preceding their enlistment have served in the Army or the Navy. When we are dealing with the question of superannuation why should we alter the age at which men may enter the force? I am told that this proposal is made in order to allow policemen to be transferred from one county to another, but this Bill goes beyond that, because it does not deal with the first part, namely, the transference of policemen from one county to another. It is said that it is advantageous that policemen should be transferred up to the age of forty-five from one force to the other. I am quite willing to listen to any arguments upon that point. I think I am right in stating that in Lanarkshire a man transferred at the age of forty-four and a half years to another county will be allowed to count the time he has served in Lanarkshire to enable him to get his pension in Dumbartonshire. A constable may have served fifteen years in the force in Lanarkshire, having entered at twenty-five years of age, and yet when transferred at that age to Dumbartonshire that county will have to pay the whole of his pension.
§ Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERMay I remind the hon. Baronet that whatever sum is due to the constable is transferred? The police pension fund is made up of a variety of contributions consisting of deductions from pay, Government Grants, and fines, and in circumstances such as the hon. Baronet has mentioned the contributions made to this fund by the constable would be transferred to the other county fund.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat does not deal with the other sums, which are really received from and ought to be earmarked for the county of Dumbartonshire and not for the county of Lanarkshire. What is the use of taking the policeman at the age of forty-five and starting him in a new police force? The Bill says this provision is not to apply in the case of the chief constable, but surely if this Clause is passed at all it should not be limited in this way. It cannot be a good thing to admit a man to the force at the age of forty-five in the first instance, as could be done under this 967 Clause, if, during the three preceding months he had served in the Army or the Navy. I do not think it is a good thing to transfer a man of forty-five from one county force to another, and for these reasons I move the omission of this Subsection.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI desire to second the hon. Baronet's Amendment. It seems to me, on the face of it, that there is no reason why a policeman is fit to begin a new police career at forty-five years of age. The age of forty-five in most professions is considered to be an effectual bar against starting a new branch of your profession. In this case the policeman would not begin service in the new district until he was forty-five, when his physical vigour has aready begun to abate. I hope the hon. Member in charge of this Bill will explain the full bearing of this proposal. I should also like to know why the chief constable is to be dealt with differently? Why should there be a separate provision dealing with the chief constable? Whatever rule is applied to the chief constable should also apply to those of subordinate rank. This measure affords an illustration of the difficulty of interpreting a Bill by referring constantly to the principal Act. If the entire proposal had been set out it would have been much easier to understand.
§ Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERI cannot agree with my hon. Friend's Amendment because I know there is a great desire that the age limit should be extended. There is no reason why a police constable, having nearly reached the age of forty-five, should not be transferred and promoted from one force to another. It may be quite true that a constable is not at his best at forty-five, but he has had all the experience and knowledge gained perhaps in a smaller force or in a country district, and if he desires to be transferred I think it is only reasonable that such opportunities should not be denied him on account of his age. The Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) says he does not see why there should be any difference in the treatment of a constable and the chief constable. May I point out that such a difference has always been made in the Act of Parliament. Under the original Act you could always appoint a chief constable up to the age of forty-five, and it stands to reason that the chief constable cannot be appointed until he has acquired the necessary knowledge, and it is proposed to extend that in this Clause. 968 I do not think the obligation on the pension fund will prove a very serious matter. Undoubtedly where a constable, sergeant, or any other officer in the police force is transferred from one authority to another the responsibility of paying his pension will fall on the authority employing him when he attains the age at which he retires, but on transfer the contributions made to the pension fund by the former authority, together with the proportion of the Exchequer Grant, which is a very important matter, would be transferred to the pension fund of the new local authority, and therefore little or no contribution will be required from the rates in order to take up the burden of the pension at the end of the officer's term of service. I think that disposes of one of the arguments against the proposal advanced by the hon. Baronet. I know cases where transfers of this kind would be desirable and would not otherwise be able to be made, and I am bound to say I do not think any reason has been advanced to justify the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dundas White) in making any alteration in the Bill, and I hope he will adhere to the Bill as it stands.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI should like to support what the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. George Younger) has said. The question, I think, is not quite understood by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and by the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil). I speak subject to correction from the promoters of the Bill, but I do not think the age forty-five was put in for the general enlistment of constables. There are cases where it is desirable to bring in some specially good man for some specially good job, and he might be kept out if he were over the former age limit. A quartermaster in the Army might be very suitable for the position of police constable in some place where it was impossible to fill up the vacancy locally or where possibly new blood was wanted. It is intended for a case of that sort. I do not think anybody in the usual case would be particularly anxious to take constables for general work at forty-five. The local authority will probably be the best guardian as far as the limit is concerned, and in this particular case it might be left to their discretion.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. J. H. Whitley)Does the hon. Baronet wish to press his Amendment?
§ Sir F. BANBURYYes, I should like some answer from the promoters.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEI can assure the hon. Member there is no desire to raise the age generally. The idea is to increase the discretion of the local authorities with a view of getting good men under special circumstances. There is the case of the reservist. I know the hon. Member for the City may meet me by saying that their case is met under Section 25 of the principal Act, but in that Section there is a limitation, and we think that in their case that limitation should be extended and that the age of forty-five should apply to them. The second case is that just alluded to by the Noble Lord (Marquess of Tullibardine). A small town may want to add to its force an experienced man, but under the Act of 1890 he might possibly be excluded by the age limit. It seems very desirable that the age should be extended to forty-five, not for the general enlistment of constables, but in order that cases like that may be met for the general advantage of the force and the county as well.
The point the hon. Baronet took with reference to the pensions being a heavier burden on the county to which the police officers are transferred has been so fully dealt with by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. G. Younger) that I do not think I need add anything to it except to say that even if things were not as my hon. Friend has pointed out, it would surely be a case for the police authority in the county the constable is leaving, the public authority in the county to which he is going, and himself, and, if they were agreed amongst themselves, I fail to see why they should not be allowed to exercise their discretion. I sympathise with what the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) said about legislation by reference. I myself have protested again and again against legislation by reference, but I claim that this Bill contains the minimum of it. I can assure the Noble Lord that I should have been only too pleased to have done what I could to have got the section of the principal Act proposed to be dealt with printed as a White Paper memorandum to facilitate the discussion. I am afraid the promoters would not be justified in accepting the Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am much obliged to the hon. Member for his clear explanation. My hon. Friend (Mr. G. Younger) told me the object was that a constable might be 970 transferred from a small district to another, but that was not the whole object of the Clause. It provides for the enlistment of a man who is forty-five years of age, and that seems to me undesirable. I am as much in favour of the Army and Navy as anyone, but I do not see that three months in the Army or Navy makes one specially qualified for a post of this sort. I admit, however, that the hon. Gentleman opposite has to some extent convinced me by pointing out that the real object of this particular Section is to enable districts in Scotland who have not got very experienced men to obtain—in a quartermaster or somebody of that class—an experienced person to take up a responsible position. I think myself forty-five is rather too old an age, and that the hon. Member would have attained the same object if he had made it forty, but after the explanation which has been given I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
The Sub-section deals with the chief constable. At present, as I understand, the age at which a chief constable is first appointed does not exceed forty-five, and the Bill proposes to alter that by providing that in the case of promotion or transfer of a person serving in the police force to the post of chief constable in the same or another police force the limit of age shall not exceed fifty-five years. I should like to know what is the object of altering the age limit of forty-five. As far as I know, it has worked well, and I see no reason why it should be increased to fifty-five. My hon. Friend (Mr. G. Younger) said chief constables did not gain their experience until they were forty-five years of age or over. May I remind my hon. Friend that Nelson was a post captain at twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, and that he had gained considerable experience before he was forty-five? Again, Napoleon long before that age had also gained a lot of experience, and if the two greatest commanders in the last 120 years—Napoleon on land, and Nelson on the sea—were able to gain this experience before they were forty-five years of age I really fail to see why even in Scotland such a person as a Scottish chief constable should not be able to gain experience before he attains thirty-five years of age, especially as I have always understood that quickness in learning was inherent in the Scottish disposition. There 971 are a good many reasons for objecting to the age limit being increased to fifty-five. It has nothing to do with superannuation, and I really think that in an important position like that of chief constable a man should begin fairly young. After all, fifty-five is nearly the age at which Civil servants are expected to retire.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKNo, sixty-five.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI believe the average Civil servant retires at sixty years of age unless his superior officer considers it desirable that he should go on.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKDoes that apply to company directors?
§ Sir F. BANBURYNo. I observed at the commencement of business that an hon. Gentleman who sat on the Front Government Bench moved for a Return asking information as to Civil servants over sixty-five years of age who still retained their position. Under the circumstances I beg to move this Amendment, and I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman can give me clear reasons why it should not be adopted.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI beg to second this Amendment. The case for it is stronger than that advanced for the preceding Amendment. It can hardly be contended that a man at fifty-five years of age is in a position to begin anything fresh. I do not know why, under the circumstances, there should be any age limit at all. Why should we not allow the local authority, if it so desires, to appoint a man of any age. One does not see why these Amendments are introduced into a Bill which primarily does not deal with this subject at all.
MARQUESS OF TULLIBARDINEI think the explanation is a very simple one. If the hon. Member had read the Clause more carefully he would have understood it. I am not concerned to go into the question of what Nelson or Napoleon did at a particular age. The real point is that this deals with secondary appointment. The idea is that in the case of first appointment the limit should be forty-five. But cases may occur where it might be desirable to transfer to another appointment under a neighbouring authority, and this Clause might prevent it.
§ Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERI hope that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill will not give way. I have a case in mind at the 972 present moment which would not be covered by the Amendment—the case of an inspector whom the local authority strongly desires to appoint as chief constable, but because he is fifty-six years of age he cannot be given that appointment. There probably are many similar cases. I think everybody is agreed that some extension of the age limit beyond forty-five is highly necessary.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEThis Clause is by no means irrelevant to the issues of the Bill, but the proposed Amendment has nothing to do with the age limit of first appointment; it has only to do with the age limit on subsequent transfer, and it certainly seems desirable to extend that age limit in view of the transfer of an officer to another appointment.
§ Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERHe cannot be appointed a chief constable.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEAnd without this amendment of the law he could not be transferred after he was forty-five. The reasons for this Clause have been so fully put forward by the hon. Members who have spoken that it would be taking up the time of the House unduly if I were to go over them again. We think the age might have been put five years higher for a possible transfer, but, on the whole, it seems to me that the promoters of this Bill have taken a wise medium in adopting fifty-five years as the maximum age for transfer. There is, I can assure hon. Members, no desire on the part of the Scottish Office to select old men instead of young men, but it is at the same time desirable that where they want an experienced chief constable they shall not be unduly hampered by an extreme age limit. Under these circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI will withdraw my Amendment in deference to what the hon. Gentleman says, although I think from a large experience that fifty-five is too high. I think there is a tendency to employ people who are too old. At fifty-five years a man has passed his prime, and if you could make the age lower it would be better, especially in the case of the police force, where a man may be faced by all sorts of emergencies such as would not occur in the case of a Member of Parliament or any person in such a position as that.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.