§ (1) Where a man to whom this Section applies, that is to say:
- (a) a constable (including a re-engaged pensioner) who was serving in a police force on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and eighteen;
- (b) a member of a police force who having been called out as a reservist, or having entered or re-entered, enlisted or re-enlisted in any of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces for the purposes of the present War was on the said first day of September serving in any such force;
- (c) a constable who having joined the police force after the said first day of September has completed five years' approved service,
§ Provided that if the widow is in receipt of a pension payable out of naval, military, or air-force funds in pursuance of any Royal Warrant or Order in Council, then—
- (i) if the pension payable out of such funds is equal to or exceeds the amount proscribed by this Section, no pension shall be payable under this Section;
- (ii) if the pension payable out of such funds is less than the amount prescribed by this Section, the pension payable under this Section shall be equal to the difference.
§ (2) Where a pension is granted under this Act to the widow of a constable to whom a gratuity has been granted on retirement from the police force, the pension shall be payable as from such date after the death of the constable as the police authority may determine.
§ (3) For the purposes of this Section, the expressions "police authority," "police force," and "pension fund," as respects the City of London mean the mayor, aldermen and commoners of the City of London in common council assembled, the city police force, and the superannuation fund.
§ Mr. WILESI beg to move, in Subsection (1, a) to leave out the word "constable," and to insert instead thereof the words "a member of a police force."
I desire to move this Amendment, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend, because it will make it agree with the next Sub-section. In Sub-section (a) it reads "constable," and in the next Sub-section a constable is described as "a member of the police force." I would suggest to the Solicitor-General that to the ordinary lay mind it would be much clearer if you either called him a constable in both Subsections or called him a member of the police force in both. Personally I would suggest that to call him a member of the police force would be best in both instances, and I therefore suggest that here we should leave out the word "constable" and insert the words "members of the police force."
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart)This Amendment is based upon a mere misapprehension. The word "constable" as it is used in the Police Acts includes all ranks—constables, sergeants, inspectors, superintendents, and chief constable. So it is, for example, in Section 1 of the Police Act, 1890, which gives pension rights to every constable in the police force. There has never been any doubt on the point that the rights belong to all ranks. It seems to me that if the present Amendment were adopted the effect, and the only effect, would be to throw some doubt upon the question whether the pension rights under that Act extend to sergeants, inspectors, and the higher ranks. My hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment, based his argument on the ground that in the next Sub-section of this Section the term "member of a police force" is employed. It is employed in that Sub-section for this reason only 3073 that the men to whom it refers are not at the time serving as constables but are serving in the Army or the Navy.
§ Mr. WILESIf my right hon. Friend assures me that it covers all the cases I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, but I may tell him that as it is put in that way a good deal of question has been caused among members of the police force.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir G. HEWARTI beg to move to leave out the words "may, if they think fit," and insert instead thereof the word "shall."
This is a concession which my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary agreed to make, and it is in pursuance of his undertaking that I move the Amendment.
§ Mr. WILESMay I ask my right hon. Friend a question so that this matter may be clearly understood by the police force? It is as to whether it is quite clear that members of the police force who, as often happens, have been serving in different counties, will not lose their pension rights by moving from one county to another or from one borough to another, or from a borough to a county, or a county to a borough. Can he assure me that in cases of this kind the pension will be awarded to the widow without any doubt.
§ Sir G. HEWARTYes, Sir; I understand there is no doubt upon that matter.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. COTTONI beg to move to leave out the words "thirty-two pounds a year, or if the constable had attained a rank higher than that of an inspector."
My object in moving this Amendment is to remove a difficulty of nomenclature. All grades of inspectors in the Metropolitan and City Police forces have, as a matter of fact, a position higher than that of most superintendents of constabularies, but it so happens that the county authorities choose to call their official by the name of superintendent and the result of that will be that the widow of that officer will receive a higher pension than the widow, for example, of a chief inspector of the Metropolitan Police, who will merely count as an inspector. Therefore, the chief inspector will receive a less pension than a superintendent of the county constabulary, although he has been 3074 paid about twice the rate of superannuation contribution as compared with the superintendent of the county police while his responsibilities are greater and his rates of pay higher. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that Amendment, in order to remove a grievance which is much felt in the Metropolitan and the City Police.
§ Sir G. HEWARTAs I understand it, there is really no substance in this suggested Amendment. The hierarchy of the police force is systematized as follows: After the constable the next rank is sergeant, then inspector, then superintendent, and then chief constable.
§ Mr. COTTONThere is the chief inspector.
§ Sir G. HEWARTIf my hon. Friend will pardon me, I will explain. There are some inspectors who are called chief inspectors, but they still belong to the category of inspectors; and the proposal of the Bill is that there should be this rising scale in the case of the widow of a constable, an inspector, and of the higher men. The effect of the Amendment would be that the chief inspector would be lifted to the rank of superintendent, although the chief inspector is not a superintendent, but an inspector.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. WILESI beg to move, after the word "year" ["forty pounds a year"], to insert the words
and in the event of there being no widow, or of the widow dying before any child or children of the marriage have reached the age of sixteen years, the pension, or such proportionate part thereof as the police authority may decide, shall be paid in respect of such child or children until they reach that age.I move this in the absence of the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks). I cannot help thinking that those who were responsible for this excellent little Bill, which will give great satisfaction, have forgotten to include in it the policeman who dies and who does not leave a widow but leaves children. Those, it seems to me, should certainly be included, and there seems to be no excuse for leaving them out. If you are going to accept responsibility for the widow who is left behind, it seems even more important to make provision for the children when there is not a mother left to make or attempt to make proper provision for them. I hope, therefore, my right hon. 3075 Friend the Solicitor-General will accept this Amendment, and I am rather disappointed that I do not see his name at the top of this Amendment. I do appeal to him, in the interests of the children who are coming on to follow in the work of the world, that he will accept this Amendment.
§ Sir G. HEWARTI can assure my hon. Friend that there has not been, as he suggests, any forgetfulness in this matter. The point is that this Bill does not touch gratuities for children.
§ Sir G. HEWARTBe it so. Even if the mother is left the pension of £36 or £26 a year would be to provide for her maintenance. If the widow is not left, she has not to be maintained, and it is hardly to be conceived that the pension which was to be left for her maintenance could go to the children. If the widow is not left, there is no reason, as I understand it, for passing the sum on to the children, inasmuch as the Bill does not affect the existing provisions for children.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. COTTONI beg to move, after the word "year" ["forty pounds a year"], to insert the words
Provided that for the purposes of this Section the rank of a chief inspector in the Metropolitan police force and the City of London police force shall be deemed to be a rank higher than that of an inspector.I desire to move this Amendment because I have not yet abandoned the hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the contention I have already ventured to put forward. I would like to point out to him that the chief inspector in the Metropolitan and of the City Police—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIs the hon. Gentleman going to state the same point that he has already put in Committee?
§ Mr. COTTONYes.
Sir F. HALLI beg to move, after Subsection (2), to add
(3) When a pension has been granted by a police authority before the 1st day of September, 1918, the police authority shall substitute for such pension a pension calculated under the provisions of and upon the same terms as this Act.3076 What I desire to do is to bring the position of the police who have to retire previous to 1st September into the same position as those who leave on or after 1st September, 1918. I welcome this Bill, because I am sure it will be recognised that at last something has been done to provide a pension for the widows and increased pensions for the men themselves. I would like to draw the attention of the Solicitor-General to the fact it is some considerable number of years since there has been any increase which has been granted to the police which carried with it an increase in pensions. The increase in 1917 was given as a war measure, and does not add to pensions. It has been pretty hard on a lot of these men. Immediately after an unfortunate strike occurred there was an increase to inspectors, station-sergeants, sergeants, and constables. I find that the station-sergeants now get the same as inspectors did, that constables get more than sergeants did, and as much as station-sergeants obtained. That seems to prove that at all events it was recognised that some considerable increase should be given to the police. That having been recognised, I venture to hope that at all events the Government will consider that it is necessary at the same time to put the pensions of those who left previous to September on a footing to those who left after. A man resigns on 31st August, another on 1st September. He is placed in a very different position, added to which the widow does not get anything at all of the man who retired on or before 31st August, whereas, I am glad to say, there has been some pension granted to those who leave on and after 1st September. There are cases of those men who had retired who placed their services at the disposal of the authorities and for some reason the authorities were not able to utilise them. I do not want the House to lose sight of the importance of this measure. It is all very well, because it is a quarter to two, to say, "We will hurry this thing." I hope attention will be given to this matter. It is the first time we have got any pension for these men and their widows. If the Government cannot give me everything I have asked for, at all events I do hope that they will give us something additional for the men who were compelled to retire previous to 1st September, 1918.
§ Sir G. HEWARTWhen the arguments of my hon. Friend appear in the guise of a disinterested claim for widows my sympathy 3077 tends to increase. But I must point out that he puts the case against his own argument a little too strongly. He said this is the first time that the House has granted a pensions to the widows of police officers. That is not quite accurate. Pensions to widows of police officers have been granted before. It would be true to say that this is the first time that Parliament is granting pensions to the widows on the generous scale which is provided by this Bill, and in those circumstances my hon. Friend makes complaint that what is done does not go far enough. He asks, as Oliver Twist asked, for more—a request with which most of us are disposed to feel sympathy. But if the Bill is to be made retrospective in regard to widows, one cannot logically stop there. It must be made retrospective also with regard to other pensions, and one cannot logically stop even there. It is not only police officers and their dependants who might say the cost of living has increased, but everybody who is in receipt of a pension granted by the State might offer the same argument. I fear we cannot accept this Amendment. The Bill makes new, and, I venture to think, generous provision, and much as one would like to be generous, I fear that as things now stand it is impossible to go further than the existing provisions of the Bill.
Sir F. HALLThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted at all events the reasonableness of this proposition, if he is not able to grant everything I ask for, which, I admit, was reopening the case of the whole of the pensions. But if there is an admitted grievance and he cannot see his way to give me everything I want, may I press him at all events to say this, that the Government are prepared to place the widows of men who were pensioned previous to 1st September, 1918, in the same position as pensioners who left the Service on and after 1st September, 1918? That cannot be a very important point, and it would cost a few thousands a year. It is not often that one presses an important matter like this, because it must be admitted by everybody that the widow is going to have the sympathy and should get the support of this country after the men have done the best they can for them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that, at all events between now and the Report stage, he will consider the case 3078 of the widows, and see whether it is not possible to do something with regard to them.
§ Captain BARNETTI hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see his way to do something. It seems to me there is a grievance on the part of the widow. It might be possible to meet them without opening the larger questions, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already said are too large to be opened under this Bill.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSOn the Question that the Clause stand part, I very much regret the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend with regard to carrying over of the pension of the widow for the benefit of the children. I hope that on the Report stage the Government will reconsider that, because it seems to me quite clear that if the woman is dead somebody has to look after those children, and the money is needed to pay that person for looking after the children. It would therefore be a very desirable concession if the Government would on the Report stage accept that Amendment. Not a very large sum would be involved, but it would be a very great help in those cases where the woman was dead.
Sir F. HALLI should like to add a word with regard to the children. Surely with regard to the children and the widows who are left under this new scheme, what we ask is that if the pension cannot go to the widow it should go towards assisting in bringing the children up till they are sixteen. It is going to cost practically nothing, and I cannot help thinking that at all events this very small mite might be given by the Government. I hope, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman will say to the House he will consider that between now and the Report stage and lend us some hope that this small donation will be granted.
§ Sir G. HEWARTIf I may add one word in answer to the appeals which have been made to me, I should like to say this. Both of my hon. Friends have assumed that there is going to be some interval between the present stage and the Report Stage. That is not the hope of the 3079 Government. Our hope is that this Bill may be carried into law before this Session comes to an end, and may be passed through all its stages to-night. Therefore the period for consideration is not likely to arise. In regard to the first question my hon. Friend opposite, contrary to his usual practice, appears to have missed the point of what was said. The point was, if the widow is alive, the provision or pension is provision for her, and it is not to be imagined that out of the 10s. a week there would be much, if anything at all, left for the children. If she is not alive, she has not to be provided for. With regard to the second point, the submission winch I sought to make is this: If one accepts the retrospective effect which my hon. Friend desires, one cannot logically stop there. I do not know; my hon. Friend may know what the extra cost might be, but I can assure him it would not be limited to the scope of this Bill, or to this particular proposal. Every orphan of a Metropolitan police officer is at present provided for in the orphanage, or otherwise, and there is very wide provision for such orphans outside London in the other parts of this country.
§ 2.0 A.M.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSThe right hon. Gentleman has not been so successful as usual in taking the meaning. If the widow is left there is 10s. for her and allowances for the children, and she looks after the children. My point was that if she is dead and the 10s. ceases, then there is no one to look after the children and something has to be paid and there is no money to pay that sum. The suggestion I make is that the justification for the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) is that something will have to be paid, and if the 10s. is passed on for the benefit of his children it can be applied very naturally in paying somebody to look after them, so that the provision for the children stands as a provision for the children. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment when we come to the Report stage. It is true that there is not a long interval between this stage and the Report stage, but I am quite sure that if he will consider the Amendment it will not take him long to see that there is a strong case to be made out for this change.
Sir F. HALLI do not think that there can be any difficulty on one point, and that 3080 is that the Government consideration of this Amendment ought not to be adversely affected by the mere question of time between this stage and the next. In the ordinary course of events we might have had a little time between this stage and the Report and Third Reading stages. As far as we are concerned we do not want to hang the Bill up or delay it in any way, though I cannot understand why the Report stage cannot be left over until Monday, so that my right hon. Friend will have a chance of going into the question and seeing what it is going to cost. In my view it is not going to cost much, but by Monday he would be able, perhaps, to tell us whether the Government is prepared to give this small amount in what I think is an exceedingly useful case. As my right hon. Friend has stated, when the mother is dead someone has got to look after the children, and I hope that no excuse will be put forward for not agreeing to this Amendment merely on account of the short time which will be left between now and the later stages of the Bill. At any rate, I hope that the Report stage will not be taken before Monday or until the matter has been gone into.
§ Mr. WILESMay I address one further remark to the Solicitor-General? He has suggested that no orphans have a right to go to the police orphanage—an excellent institution whose work we all appreciate, and which I am sure we are all endeavouring to help. But it is not a question of the rights of these orphans to go to these very excellent institutions. They are only admitted if possible, and what we asked for is lot charity for the police, but that at least some provision shall be made as the right of the children. It should be given to them not as charity, but as a right, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider this, and carry out the appeal which has just been made.
§ Question put, and agreed to.