§ Notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, no constable shall, during the continuance of the present War, be entitled without a medical certificate to retire and receive a pension for life except with the consent of the chief officer of the police force to which he belongs.
§ Mr. LYNCHI beg to move, to leave out the words "except with the consent of the chief officer of the police force to which he belongs," and to insert instead thereof the words "But provided in such case that the right to receive on retirement such pension shall not, while the constable continues to serve in the force, be liable to forfeiture except in the case in which a pension when granted is liable to forfeiture under Section 8 of the Police Act, 1890."
The sole object of the Amendment is to prevent any chance of favouritism, whereby one man might be allowed to resign and another man might be prevented. I would like to submit my Amendment to the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman, but, if he can safeguard the position by any words of his own, then I will accept them.
§ Mr. McKENNAI hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. He will see, as regards the last part of it, that there are already on the Paper words meeting his view. I recognise that part of the Amendment to which my attention was drawn on Second Reading by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Beresford) is very important and wide-reaching. You might have the case of a constable who is retained, but whose heart, for one reason or another, is not in it. You do not like to dismiss him, because he may have been a 1327 good servant in the past. I take it that in such a case the chief officer ought to have the right to say, "We do not wish to retain your services any longer." That is the only way in which discipline can be maintained, and I think on the whole, therefore, that it would be better to leave this loophole for the enforcing of discipline, which is contained in the words, "except with the consent of the chief officer of the police force to which he belongs." I do not believe that the power given by these words would ever be abused, but, if they were, attention could be immediately drawn, and would be drawn, to it. Under these circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. BOOTHHuman nature is frail, and chief constables as well as other people may have favourites. I do not know whether the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Touche) puts the matter right. If I can be assured that it does meet the point I will wait until that Amendment is moved, but I want the Home Secretary to realise what gives rise to this point. A man may have come into conflict with his superior officer. It may not be on any serious matter, but they may not get on together and another man may be more of a favourite. The opinion is that while for disciplinary purposes they must obey their chief, yet when it comes to retirement and they are leaving the force to enjoy a pension, the chief constable should not be able to allow his favouritism to apply beyond the service. In this case it practically does. He is able to say when the pension shall begin. That is a point of uneasiness. If there were some authority to which an aggrieved constable could appeal, it would be different. In matters of discipline there should be no appeal. When a man joins the service he must take it for good or bad and he must obey, but when he wants to leave and accept his pension, can any favouritism be shown then? If the Amendment of the hon. Member would meet the case, then I would agree.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. McKENNAI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
Provided that where a constable has given before the commencement of this Act or hereafter gives during the con- 1328 tinuance of the present War written notice of his desire to retire in circumstances which, but for this Section, would entitle him to retire without a medical certificate and to receive a pension for life, his right to retire at the termination of the present War with a pension not less in amount than that to which he would have been entitled had he retired at the date when such notice was given shall not be liable to forfeiture except for such misconduct as would, had he been in receipt of a pension, have rendered the pension liable to forfeiture.This provision has the effect of securing to every constable, who has now a statutory right to retire, his existing statutory right to pension. I believe that these words carry out exactly the purpose-which the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) had in view when he raised the matter on Second Heading. I see that the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Touche) has an Amendment further down with the same object, but with great deference I would say that I have had the advantage of a very skilled draughtsman in the words I have put upon the Paper, and naturally my words, in consequence, are rather better than his. I would prefer, therefore, to have the Amendment in the form in which I have placed it upon the Paper. I do not know that it requires anything more to commend it to the House. I believe that opinion was unanimous that the statutory pension of the constable should be secured to him by this Bill.
§ Mr. TOUCHEI recognise that the right hon. Gentleman's object is the same as my own. I had drawn up my Amendment before I had seen his on the Paper and I cannot claim to have had the assistance of such a skilled draughtsman, whose language it is not always easy for the lay mind to understand. I have put down my Amendment with the object of protecting a constable who has earned his pension and is not allowed to retire. That is the whole point, and what we are all driving at is to amend the Bill so that a man man may go on after twenty-five years with his pension automatically secured to him, and so that if he does go on for twenty-six years he will get the full pension to which he will be entitled at the end of twenty-six years. There is some uncertainty as to whether the Amendment drawn by the very skilled draughtsman is going to have that effect, and 1329 while I do not want to be critical, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to mention very briefly the criticisms which have been made to me.
The feature of his Amendment is that the security of the pension depends on a written notice. That raises a question. If no notice is given, the pension might be liable to forfeiture after the completion of twenty-five years. On the other hand, if notice is given, it may mean that a man may serve twenty-six years without qualifying for the twenty-six years' pension. That at least is a fear. I do not know whether it would be the result, but would he not be in the position of starting again after twenty-five years'? He has taken his pension of twenty-five years by giving notice, and, if he stays another year, will that give him the full twenty-six years' pension? I know that there are some men who are afraid that it will not do so. I do not want to suggest my form of words is better than the right hon. Gentleman's if he can satisfy me on that point. I want to secure that a man automatically gets his pension and is not going to lose the chance of it because he omits to give written notice of it, and also that if he goes on for another year after the twenty-five years he will be entitled to the full pension. I do not think that my Amendment will meet the point of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). I know that there is a strong objection taken to the power vested in the chief constable; but for my part I cannot see the force of it. I think that it is very reasonable. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me whether my words are covered by his Amendment?
§ Mr. McKENNAThat, is a very important point. The undertaking which I gave to the Noble Lord was that the statutory pension which the constable had earned at the end of his twenty-five years should be secured to him, no matter what happened afterward, and I also undertook that he should be entitled to the additional rate of pension in consequence of his having to serve the twenty-sixth year. If these words do not carry out that object, I have not carried out my undertaking. In view of what the hon. Gentleman now says, I will put that specific point to the draughtsman, and if it is not right it shall certainly be put right. It is quite clear that what is intended is the full twenty-five years' pension, with the full statutory rights and obligations, together with the year's pension which he would 1330 obtain if he served another additional year. Does that meet the hon. Gentleman's point?
§ Mr. TOUCHEI am quite satisfied.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. YEOThere still seems some doubt in the minds of the men who are on the point of retiring. When the time comes for them to retire, and the Government calls upon them to continue their service, will they be placed in exactly the same position as men who have already been pensioned and called back to the service? These latter men are receiving, in addition to their pension, a good weekly wage, and the men for whom I am speaking ask that they should be put in exactly the same position as these pensioners. This point is causing a good deal of concern among the men who are becoming eligible for the twenty-five years' or twenty-six years' pension. They intend to retire on that pension, and if they are to be asked to go back to the service for the remainder of the War they think they should be put on the same basis as men who retired ten or twelve years ago, who are in receipt of their pensions, and who are now being called back to the service.
Mr. PERCY HARRISI quite understand the necessity for retaining constables in the service under present conditions, but it seems to me they are giving up a valuable right and receiving nothing in return, because, at the present time, as far as I understand it, a constable who has served twenty-five years is entitled to retire without a medical certificate, and if he has served twenty-six years he is entitled to a full two-thirds pension. This Section provides that the constable shall continue to serve for one-third of his pay, because he is already entitled to two-thirds in the form of pension, towards which he has himself contributed. I do not think it can be considered you are treating these men quite fairly, and, therefore, I hope that the suggestion made by the preceding speaker will receive consideration at the hands of the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. C. DUNCANI think the Home Secretary's Amendment, as far as the wording goes, makes good the point the right hon. Gentleman has promised to attend to—namely, that the constable's pension at the end of twenty-five years shall be made secure. But in making it secure the right hon. Gentleman seems to 1331 have completely left out of consideration the fact that if a man continues to serve for a longer period—say, for twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, or even thirty years—the pension which he ought ordinarily to become entitled to over and above the twenty-five years is not covered in any conceivable way by this particular Amendment. I do not wish to suggest that the Home Secretary desires to evade that point at all, but I think that, in his anxiety to meet the twenty-five years' case he has forgotten about the extra years.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is provided for under the ordinary Regulations. If a man stays beyond twenty-five years he automatically gets the increased pension.
§ Mr. DUNCANWill that apply even when this new Bill is passed and become an Act of Parliament? That is the point about which there is doubt.
§ Mr. McKENNAAnd that is the point into which I have undertaken to make inquiry.
§ Mr. DUNCANIt is the only point which seems to be doubtful, and if the Home Secretary will undertake to cover it I shall be quite satisfied.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.