HC Deb 07 March 1911 vol 22 cc1028-9

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the retire-merit on pension of fifty-two officers of all ranks from the Metropolitan Police; how many of these are retiring after tweny-five years' service and how many after twenty-six years' service; whether retirement at the end of twenty-six years' service entitles to a full pension; and, in view of the willingness of the men to forfeit the additional pension benefits arising from retirement after twenty-six years, rather than remain another twelve months in the service and risk losing what they have gained, whether he will direct an inquiry to be made into the whole question of police administration and discipline?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill)

The number of men retiring from the Metropolitan Police Force during the first twelve weeks of 1911 is 148. Of these, fifty-two retired on 25th February, the explanation being that on 25th February, 1886, just twenty-five years ago, no less than 150 men were recruited. Of the fifty-two men, forty-two retire after twenty-five years and ten after twenty-six years' service. A constable who serves twenty-five years can retire on a pension of a guinea a week, his full pay being 33s. 6d.; and he no doubt considers that it is to his advantage to take his pension, as his services in the open market will always command more than 12s. 6d. a week, and he will have every night in bed and be free from many responsibilities. By serving twenty-six years, he could get an extra 1s. 6d. a week pension, but this additional sum is not always sufficiently attractive to retain men who consider that they can immediately increase their income by securing outside employment and who have grown tired of night duty.


asked the right hon. Gentleman if he will state under what regulation a subordinate in the Metropolitan Police is liable to punishment for making allegations against a superior; does this regulation equally apply to allegations made by superiors against subordinates; what protection has a subordinate against unfair, false, and confidential allegations made by a superior; whether a revised general order was issued last year which deprives police officers of the right to appeal to the Home Secretary, a right acknowledged by his predecessor in the House of Commons on 23rd August, 1907; and, if so, what reasons have been advanced for such Order?


Any member of the Metropolitan Police convicted of having knowingly made an unfounded allegation of misconduct against another member of the Force, whether superior or subordinate would become liable to punishment—this is the guarantee against superiors making unfair and false reports against inferiors. The General Order referred to merely defines the position and procedure in respect of disciplinary appeals which have existed without change since the creation of the Force.