CLAUSE 1—(Police pension regulations.) (Hansard, 20 February 1948)

§ Mr. Grimston (Westbury)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, at the beginning, to insert: Subject to the provisions of this Act. This is a sort of inverted consequential Amendment. It paves the way for the new Clause which appears later on the Order Paper. It is necessary to put down this Amendment so that we can discuss the new Clause. I do not know whether it would be convenient to have a general discussion at this stage, or whether we should wait until we reach the new Clause, provided that the Government will give an undertaking to make this Amendment on Report stage.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)
It is probably correct to say that the new Clause depends on the insertion of some such words as these, but on the other hand, this Amendment depends on the exact form of the new Clause. There is no question of principle on this matter, although there may be some discussion as to the exact way in which the Bill should be altered. We desire to do two things. The first is that there shall be a complete removal of any doubt as to the legal entitlement of a police officer to a pension. It was felt by some Members that the Bill, as phrased, did not give that specific assurance, and to remedy that I have put down a number of Amendments on behalf of the Government.
In addition to desiring to give that assurance, it is also desired that the Bill should not be so inflexible on points of detail as to make it almost impossible to effect any improvements in the pensions scheme in the future without coming to the House for a complete Measure. That has been one of the difficulties in the past. When it has been desired to make improvements, the only way in which that could be done was by bringing a Bill to the House, with the possibility that a wide range of subjects might be opened up although the Bill itself might deal with a point of detail on which there was agreement, let us say, between the Police Force and the Home Office. That being so, there 1479 has been a natural reluctance to bring forward Bills dealing with small points, which might be capable of almost infinite enlargement.
While desiring to give the assurances that we think the Police Force are entitled to, we desire to retain the flexibility which comes from regulations. We wish to achieve that today, but whether we shall get a balance which will be generally acceptable to the Committee it is too early to say now. Most of the Amendments which have been put down by hon. Members opposite find an alternative method of expression in the Amendments which have been put down by the Government. It may be that at the end of the day it will be discovered that these words will be quite unnecessary, but, in the event of Amendments being made to the Bill necessitating such words as these, I will undertake to put down an Amendment on the Report stage.

§ Mr. Grimston
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman who, I think, has accurately stated the position. I do not think there is a difference of principle between us now. What we are anxious to do is to pull back into the statute as much as possible in order to give assurances to members of Police Forces. I agree with him that we cannot pull everything back, and that when it is desired to make certain improvements, to do that under regulation is a distinct advantage. We wish to put a bottom into the conditions of the statute for the further assurance of police officers, but, having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, and on the understanding that we shall be able to discuss the new Clause on the Order Paper, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Grimston
I beg to move in page I, line 12, to leave out from "forces," to the end of line 15.
This is a drafting Amendment which is necessary to pave the way for the new Clauses—(Age of compulsory retirement) and (Pensions and gratuities of members of a police force), which stand on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). Perhaps we may have a discus- 1480 sion about those new Clauses on this Amendment, Major Milner.

§ The Chairman
Yes, if the Committee have no objection.

§ Mr. Grimston
The ages which have been put down in these new Clauses are those laid down in the White Paper and are in operation at present. We believe that they should be put into this Bill. Up till now the position has been that the ages could not be altered without the matter being brought before Parliament in the form of a Bill. In so far as they will, in future, be made the subject of regulation, we think it will give future entrants to Police Forces less security of tenure, so to speak, than they have had before. I see no reason why, in a case of this sort, the ages should not be put into the Statute, as they were before. The wording is taken from the existing Police Pensions Act.
In discussions on these Clauses I was much impressed, last week, by the amount of feeling which manifested itself among the police in the country at the regulation provisions in this Bill. Uneasiness has been expressed in many quarters that what was formerly a statutory right should now become subject to regulation. Recruiting is a difficult problem for the police these days, and as we want existing members of the police to be free from uneasiness, and to attract future entrants by giving them proper conditions and security of service, we should do everything we possibly can to put the statute right. I do not think I should be going too far if I said that the Home Secretary is now inclined to that view himself. I urge the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether he cannot later accept these new Clauses for the reasons I have just advanced.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)
I would like—

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)
On a point of Order. This Amendment is now law by Section 1 of the Police Pensions Act 1921 and, that being so—

§ The Chairman
The hon. and learned Member appears to be arguing the merits of the case.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels
After I had prepared the ground, I was going to submit that this Amendment was out of Order, and that it could not be accepted because 1481 it is already part of the law. I was trying to justify my point. In the First Schedule on page 7 it is indicated that there is to be no repeal of that particular provision or any other provision in the Police Act until regulations have been made.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is arguing the merits of the Amendment. That is not a point of Order.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels
Very well, I will leave it at that.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)
I support the Amendment, and I ask the Home Secretary to see that this provision about the retiring age goes into the Bill. The question of whether something should be left to regulation or whether it should be in the Bill will crop up over and over again. In supporting this proposal, I would point out considerations which should induce us to put this matter in the Bill, and not leave it to regulation. There is a generalisation to be made here. Whatever does not go into the Bill will be dealt with by a regulation after discussion by a particular body, which is the Police Council. The Police Council is not, in the trade union sense of the word, a representative body, although it has representatives of the Police Force sitting on it.
If the proposal was to leave the regulations to be drafted by a different body from the Police Council, one might view it from a different angle of approach. Other branches of the public service have better machinery than the Police Council. There is the Whitley Council for the Civil Service, and the local government service has a Whitley body. These bodies are representative. If the Home Secretary said, "Do not put it in the Bill because it will be dealt with by a body like the National Whitley Council," instead of the proposal that it should be after discussion with the Police Council one would take a different view. I hope that before long the Home Secretary will allow policemen to have a proper trade union organisation which can negotiate and settle these matters, and not leave them in the hands of, what is in the strict sense of the word, an unrepresentative body like the Police Council.
I hope that all the main provisions of the pensions scheme will go into the Bill. I see no difficulty about that. When we are dealing with civil servants, teachers 1482 or other categories of public employers, we find it possible to put in the statute, not every detail of the pension schemes, but at least the main provisions. One of the main provisions is the stage in his life when an individual becomes eligible to receive pension on retirement. It does make a great difference whether one gets a pension at 40 or 60. The fixing of the retiring age is a major condition of service. In those circumstances, we ought to put the retirement age into the Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary will be accommodating about this. I know that his heart and instincts on this matter are good. He has on other matters put down Amendments to transfer from regulations to the Bill a number of points which were raised in Debate a fortnight ago. I cannot see why this should not be among them. There is good reason why it should be put in the Bill.
I went to Rugby last weekend, which brightened up the old town considerably. While there I talked in the police club with the police about the provisions of the Bill. I found an astonishing degree of apprehension about the Bill. I do not believe that it is in the mind of the Home Secretary to use the weapon of regulations subsequently to be applied, to alter the pension scheme to the disadvantage of the police. I believe that we can rely on their getting not less than the provisions of the 1921 Act. But it is not enough that that should be so. It is essential that the police should believe it to be so. At the moment, they do not believe it to he so. The view expressed to me was that the present Home Secretary was the best Home Secretary we have ever had. That is the view of the police. It is a view shared by me. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is a first-rate Home Secretary, but he will not live for ever, and he will not be Home Secretary for ever. We do not know what use will be made of these regulations by a Home Secretary of a different complexion, a different character, of less genial disposition, and less seized with a passion for justice, than the present occupier of that office.
The police fear that the transfer of provisions of the pensions scheme from Act of Parliament to regulations is the beginning of an effort to get rid of the existing police pensions scheme. I do not believe that is true. 1483 But if any considerable number of policemen feel that way, that is a strong argument for including the main provisions of the pensions scheme in the Bill. This is one such provision. In the Civil Service Superannuation Act the retiring age is laid down as 60. In service after service one could quote the relevant Act and the relevant retiring age, so I cannot see why that cannot be done here.

§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham)
I agree with 90 per cent. of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I recognise that one thing that ought to be in the Bill—and I am all for it—is the existing retiring age. Does the hon. Gentleman approve the figure of 55 for compulsory retirement for sergeants and constables?

§ Mr. Brown
During the war we took the view that because of the shortage of manpower it was undesirable to send a man out at 60. He was capable of making an effective contribution to the nation. The Treasury by regulations enabled men to stay on beyond the normal retiring age of 60 until the age of 65. There is no reason why that should not be done in the Police Force, if necessary.

§ Mr. Hale
The best thing is to do it now.

§ Mr. Brown
If we want to do it now there is still no reason why we cannot have the normal retiring age in the Act of Parliament, and at the same time make provision in exceptional circumstances for moving that age limit up or down.

§ Mr. Emrys Roberts (Merioneth)
Would that be possible? The word in this Clause is "compulsory," and if the Act says that retirement shall be compulsory on attaining a certain age we cannot alter it by regulation.

§ Mr. Brown
There are more ways of killing a cat than by drowning it in cream. We could adopt the method used in the last war under which a man retired at the appropriate age and was then immediately re-engaged as a temporary. That consideration ought not to deter us from putting the retirement age in the Bill.

§ Major Bruce (Portsmouth, North)
I support the Home Secretary in his general desire to be free from the restrictions of the Police Pensions Act, 1921. I think that there is an immediate case that those 1484 factors in the pensions provisions which are likely to be of a variable character over the years should quite properly be the subject of regulations. I do not see how the particular provision which is proposed by the Opposition could come under that heading. It was enacted in the Police Pensions Act 1921, and so far has stood the test of time. In the White Paper which the Home Secretary has issued he notifies that he proposes to put into operation regulations in almost the same terms as those of the original Act. Therefore it would be best if this provision were substantive in the Bill itself.

§ Mr. Grimston
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is really begging the whole question. The Home Secretary has announced what he will do under these regulations, but, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has said, the police are quite satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman, but he will not always be there. The whole argument is that it is better to have security by Act of Parliament than under regulations.

§ Major Bruce
That is precisely the point I am putting in support of the hon. Gentleman. I entirely support his desire in this matter, and I was quoting in support the fact that the Home Secretary, although he said he wished to be free from the confines of the Act, nevertheless himself proposed to re-enact this same point under regulations, which only goes to indicate that the Act itself could not have been particularly restrictive over the 25 years since it was enacted.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) raised the point about the retiring age from the police, and I should like to have some observations from my right hon. Friend as to what the age of compulsory retirement is to be. There is a point of view in the Police Force which says that there ought to be compulsory retirement when a policeman has qualified for his maximum pension in his own rank. The reason for that is very clear. Service in the Police Force, is an extremely onerous affair. The police suffer from many occupational diseases and they work under harsh conditions. A large number of them die at a comparatively young age. The average expectation of life of 1485 a policeman on beat is very much lower than that of the average Member of Parliament, with the result that the Police Force tends to become rather replete with officers, who find themselves unable to carry out arduous outside duties. This necessitates the creation of a number of jobs indoors behind desks and so on, which in the view of many officers of the police tends to clog the prospects of promotion, and does, in fact, militate against people entering the Force. Therefore, I should like my right hon. Friend to say whether he has any views about that matter.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels
I quite sympathise with those who have said that they would like to see filled in the empty spaces of this Bill. The point I want to make, which I made somewhat prematurely before, is that in the meantime the provisions that are being referred to are the law as it now exists. In fact, the whole of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, is the law at the present moment, and will remain the law notwithstanding this particular Bill.
What happens under it is that with the exception of Sections 30 and 35 and the Third Schedule of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, when the regulations are made under this particular Bill the 1921 Act becomes repealed, but there is a special provision here that goes on to say that there are to be consequential provisions made to replace the provisions of the 1921 Statute which have been repealed. I do not say for a moment that the Home Secretary ought not to indicate what these consequential provisions are going to be when the 1921 Act, with the exceptions I have mentioned, is automatically repealed by reason of the making of regulations. As I understand it, meanwhile the present provisions of the Act are to remain because there is nothing in this Bill to put in their place, but as soon as the regulations, which are intended to be tantamount to and to replace the provisions of the 1921 Act, are made, it would be proper to repeal that Act, because it would then become superfluous.
Only one point remains. It is perfectly clear in my submission that what is being sought to be done here cannot be done. This House is going to stullify itself by redundantly seeking to import into this Bill statutory provisions 1486 which now have the force of law. On the other hand, I quite appreciate that those who are anxious as to what is going to happen in the regulations should raise the point, because by the same token as the regulations appear so will the 1921 Statute diappear.
That, then, is the point on which we must concentrate. What will the regulations contain? In my submission this Amendment does not repeal the equivalent provision in the 1921 Act. It does not provide any machinery or words saying that the relevant section in the 1921 Act and which is the law at the present moment is repealed either immediately or when the Bill becomes an Act. Nor does it provide that when the regulations are made that the new law is going to be identical with the sections that have ceased to operate. It seems to me that is legislating confusion. Certainly, it is not likely to have the effect that the Home Secretary and all those interested in this matter want it to have.
I suggest that the proper way to deal with this matter is either to repeal the whole of the 1921 Statute now and import into this Bill the provisions that it is proposed ought to replace it; or the Home Secretary should state quite explicity—I think he goes a long way to do that in the White Paper—that when he makes the regulations which are to repeal the 1921 statute, they will contain identical or better terms than are provided by that Statute.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
It seems to me that the burden of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that we should deny to Parliament as a whole the liberty which every Member of Parliament possesses—of repeating himself.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels
That was not the point at all. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is in a difficulty here. He does not take into account what is going to be the position on this point of redundancy. My submission was and still is that the form of this Amendment is not in order, with all respect, because it is seeking to enact what is already the law, and it seeks to do nothing else.

§ Mr. Emrys Roberts
There are times when I understand the attitude of non-legal Members towards Members of the legal profession. This is one of those 1487 moments. We should get back to the merits of the question, which is really very simple: Should there be provision in the Bill to say when a police officer retires and when he is entitled to pension? If there is any merit in the argument presented by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) it can be dealt with by a small consequential Amendment to the Schedule. We need not worry about it.
I am. in this difficulty: if I do not support the proposed Clause and the Home Secretary does not undertake to introduce a better one on the Report stage, there will be nothing in the Bill. There will be a provision in the regulations which the Home Secretary will produce, on the matter mentioned on page 5 of the White Paper, but the House will not be able to change the regulations. The House has only the right to approve or disapprove of the regulations as a whole, and has no right to vary particular provisions. If the proposed alteration, or some similar alteration, is not accepted, all that will happen is that the Home Secretary will introduce his regulations which will contain an identical provision in regard to retirement, and willy-nilly we shall have to accept or reject those regulations as a whole.
There is always difficulty when we are considering an enabling Bill, a mere framework, and some of us try to import into the Bill provisions we think should be there. The final statute is a hybrid piece of work containing some definite provisions and leaving others to be dealt with by regulation. It would be far better if the substance of the proposed regulations appeared in the form of a Schedule to the Bill. We could then discuss the merits of the proposals seriatim.

§ Mr. Perrins (Birmingham, Yardley)
I add my support to the plea that we should have as much as we can in the Bill itself rather than in regulations. Within my constituency I have a police estate—

§ Mr. Emrys Roberts
Do I understand the hon. Member to say that he has a police State in his constituency?

§ Mr. Perrins
No, Sir, I said a police estate. So long as we have a Government 1488 like the one we now have, we shall never have a police State in this country. I have been surprised at the number of personal letters that individual Members of the Police Forces have addressed to me. They are not the usual agitation type of letter. I could quote from a number of them. I will quote one sentence from one letter. The point it contains is raised in a number of the letters. This particular member of the Police Force wrote: The members of the service have felt a comparative security so far as pensions are concerned, in as much as they were not subject to the whims of successive Secretaries of State. That is a very important and valid point. Before I came to this House I was a trade union official and dealt with the public services. I had to be familiar with the Superannuation Acts. I often had an argument with a member or with the borough treasurer about entitlement to pension, but all the time we knew that the pension conditions were stated in the Acts of Parliament. We knew that the men were covered by Act of Parliament and by superannuation schemes, but even then there were borderline and doubtful cases. What is to be the position if those details are to be only in regulations? My personal experience has been that while men might not have been very happy about their apportionment of pension, they were satisfied when they knew they had been dealt with strictly in accordance with the terms of the Act of Parliament, and no ill will remained on their part.
The inclusion of the terms and conditions in the Act itself would lead to uniformity among people receiving pensions. I hope we shall not have regulations for this purpose. They may call for a report upon a man's service and the report may be somewhat conditioned by the relationship that existed between the constable and his superior officer. The whole of the terms and conditions should be embodied in law, rather than in regulation.

§ Mr. Grimston
The discussion has rather centred upon the age of retirement. I would like to point out that when I started the discussion I referred to two new Clauses. There is another printed on page 11, relating to entitlement. It is equally important that entitlement to pension should be enshrined in the statute.

§ Mr. Ede
As far as the last point raised by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) is concerned, I would say that the proposal standing on the Order Paper in my name is intended to deal with that point and to secure entitlement. I should prefer to argue that point when we come to it.
As usual, hon. Members have made it clear that it is not the existing occupant of this Office who is under suspicion in this mattter but some future occupant. I have heard that point made so often that it considerably discounts the high testimonial that was given to me by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown).

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
I should not like to have it discounted by what has just been said by the Home Secretary. I really should have a bonus share issue, in order to compensate me for any loss.

§ Mr. Ede
I am sure we are anxious to remove any misgiving there may he on this matter in the Police Force. The White Paper makes it clear that the Bill is designed to cover three cases: Compulsory retirement on ground of age; compulsory retirement for any member of a Police Force who is qualified for a two-thirds pension and is required by the police authority to retire on the ground that his retention in the Force would not be in the best interests of efficiency, on the lines of Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1921, and compulsory retirement of a man who is medically unfit for performing the work of a constable. This third case is not covered, unfortunately, by the existing law. It is a gap in the law which we think ought to be filled. The police authority probably has the power, in cases of unfitness, to dismiss the man, but it is doubtful if the man is then entitled to a pension at all. Everyone will agree that it is a very serious blemish in the law. It is an example of the way in which things crop up in the administration of a law, which makes it desirable that there should be a fairly easy remedy for dealing with a weakness when it is revealed.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
Surely, if a gap exists, it should be closed? But is it not the case that every other superannuation scheme in the public service provides for pensions on retirement on the ground of ill health and provides for it in the Act?

§ Mr. Ede
I do not propose to make any general statement with regard to that, because someone may discover some other Act in which there is a similar blemish, or a blemish which would be taken as a parallel. I say that it is a blemish on the existing police pensions scheme and that it is one which I have undertaken, in the White Paper, to remedy by the regulations that I propose to make.
The hon. Gentleman's Clause suffers in itself, by one or two additional defects. It does not deal with that third point. The law would remain exactly the same as it is now, so far as the last point I have mentioned is concerned. While Subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause refers to a retiring pension rate of two-thirds of the annual pay, there is no reference elsewhere in the Bill to a pension at that rate. One of my difficulties with regard to this matter is that I have already announced that, at the beginning of next year, I will appoint a committee to consider the whole question of police pay and conditions of service. I have recently been urged to expedite the setting up of that committee. It would be wrong of me to argue the merits of that at the moment, but, at any rate, there is reasonable cause for saying that this is a matter of some considerable urgency, and that, whenever the committee meets and reports, it is to be hoped that there will be adequate machinery for giving quick effect to any recommendations that they may make for the improvement of the conditions of service.
If this Amendment is accepted, and the hon. Gentleman's new Clause is put into the Bill, it will mean a new Bill to go through the House to deal with any proposed improvements. It is impossible to give any pledge with regard to how the time of the House can be allocated a year or two hence. It might, therefore, considerably hamper the giving effect to the reasonable recommendations of such a committee as I have mentioned. I can help the hon. Gentleman in another way. I am exceedingly anxious to remove the fear that Amendments might be made in what, for want of a better term, I will call a "hole and corner" way, by putting something to be subject merely to negative Prayer, instead of to the method of positive Resolution. The hon. Gentleman has an Amendment later on and I accept the fact that this is a matter which is 1491 causing great anxiety. It would constitute some assurance that the matter would have definitely to be considered by this House if I agree to the positive Resolution as opposed to the negative method. I shall have something to say when we come to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, but nearly all these Amendments involve looking at the Bill as a whole, and I would be prepared to do that.
I do not share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Perrins) with regard to the interpretation of the regulations. A regulation once made is as much law as if it was in the body of the Bill. Suppose, for example, the Police Federation approached me with regard to a particular case, where it might appear that a county treasurer, or the receiver of the Metropolitan Police, had taken an unduly harsh view of what was a man's entitlement. I should not say: "Well, you see, that is only in a regulation and you have not as much claim as if it was in an Act." If it is in the regulation, while the regulation remains, it is as much law, and has to be honoured, as if it is in a statute. I do not think, therefore, that the point made by my hon. Friend in that matter is a valid one. I ask the Committee to consider the fact that we have to promote this Bill in relation to the situation that arises today, owing to the coming into effect of the National Health Scheme on 5th July next. I am sure that no matter when the committee I have mentioned was appointed, it would not be possible for a report to be made which could be the subject of legislation before 5th July next. I have set out in the White Paper what I propose to put into the regulations. It closes the gap, which I have mentioned as being one that ought to be closed. It does, in fact, put into the regulations the ages which the hon. Gentleman asks me to put in.
One of the things I am anxious to secure is that there shall be a reasonable flow of promotion through the service. Drawing an analogy from my own experience in the teaching profession, I know the trouble that arises from a young man, or woman, of considerable ability having to serve for years and years in a subordinate capacity, because the right of promotion is retarded by the number of older people who are ahead of them. I am making neither promise nor threat, but one of the things that may emerge 1492 is that the retiring age for chief constables should be reduced from 65 to 60. I would suggest that there might be circumstances under which that should be brought about, if we are to attract young men of quality and ambition into the service. I do not wish to put some future Home Secretary into the position that, if the time arrives when that ought to be done, it would have to be done by an Act of Parliament. I would suggest that an Amendment of that kind would be very difficult, no matter what Government was in power. It is precisely the kind of thing that might well be done by regulation, provided that it is protected by having a positive Resolution, so that the attention of the House is drawn to the fact when the change is made.
I hope the Committee will feel that, in all the circumstances, it is desirable that the present form of the Bill should remain. I am quite willing to consider any point on which it is desired that a specific assurance shall be given, but I do suggest that, at this stage, it is desirable to leave this matter as flexible as possible, and I hope that the Committee will accept the assurances I have given them with regard to our intentions in the matter.

§ Mr. Frank Byers (Dorset, Northern)
The right hon. Gentleman has asked for greater flexibility to cover any difficult cases, but I feel that greater flexibility will lead to greater fear on the part of the police themselves, because this is essentially a psychological problem. I would like to put this aspect of the problem to the Home Secretary. He has said, and we welcome it, that he is going to set up this committee, but I would like to see the committee set up very early indeed, because I think this is a most urgent matter. When the committee reports, the right hon. Gentleman wants to be free to translate their recommendations quickly into practice, but it is at that point also that he is going to come up against the psychological problem, because it will still be there and the police will want an assurance that those recommendations will be contained in an Act of Parliament.
Therefore, I think the Home Secretary will be deluding himself if he thinks he will remove that psychological fear in the minds of the Police Force by retaining this power to make regulations on the 1493 ground that it is the only way in which it can be done quickly. It may be done quickly, but it will not help to solve this psychological Problem, and if the problem is not solved, he will have to have another Act of Parliament. Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will reconsider this matter before the Report stage, to see if he can give greater security to the people who are going to serve in the Police Force for a long time? On the subject of the affirmative Resolution, there is no possibility of amending it, and it is purely a question of acceptance or rejection.

§ Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)
There seems to me to be a time factor which the Home Secretary has overlooked regarding the regulations which are to be made. They are to be subject to an affirmative Resolution, and, when we introduce rather quick changes, they may upset the planning of their future careers by members of the Police Forces. When there is an Act of Parliament, on the other hand, there is generally a year or so—sometimes only six months—before it comes into force, whereas the affirmative Resolution comes into force at once. The fact that people are given greater warning by Act of Parliament is a further indication of the need for making these proposals subject to an Act of Parliament rather than an affirmative Resolution.

§ Mr. Ede
I have never found that it requires much planning to deal with an increase of salary, and to be told that it is a good thing to have six months' warning, instead of having it done within 40 days, is new. I am hound to say that the difficulty of recruiting is very largely due to the fact that the economic circumstances of other people have so greatly improved. The attractions of security and good pensions and so on that used to belong to the police have now been largely discounted by the way in which these things have been secured by other people. I do not think there is any chance of anything happening to worsen their conditions.
I have been pressed frequently in the past, and my predecessors have been pressed, to deal with the question of widows' pensions. It has been impossible to deal with police widows' pensions because the Secretary of State has no powers, and can only get powers by a fresh Act of Parliament. I 1494 have no doubt myself that something in that direction would have been done, in response to repeated pressure from the Police Forces of the country, if there had been a more flexible instrument by which it could have been done. I suggest to the Committee that, to contemplate two Police Pensions Acts within 12 months or 18 months, is something that hon. Members with experience of these matters will know would be very difficult indeed for any Secretary of State, no matter of what party, to achieve. Sometimes, it is easier to get a little Bill on the programme than it is to get a big one, and when the Chief Liberal Whip has experience of being Chief Whip to the Government, he will find that it is sometimes easier to resist the claims for a little Bill than the claims for a big one.
I therefore ask the Committee to accept the position that we are exceedingly anxious, when we get the opportunity, of dealing with the report of the committee which is to inquire into the whole of these conditions, to do it quickly, and that the form which we have provided in the Bill is a method which enables us to do that. I hope the Committee will allow us to proceed on those lines.

§ Mr. Grimston
I appreciate very much the way in which the Home Secretary has approached this matter, but I am still not happy about it. On the one side, we have the actual desire, expressed on every side of the Committee, to give the police the security of having their conditions enshrined in the statute. On the other side, we have the very reasonable argument of the right hon. Gentleman that that ties his hands, or the hands of any Home Secretary, in making improvements which may be desirable from time to time. This committee is to be set up, and it seems to me that, in the ordinary course of events, by far the best thing to do is to wait until the committee has reported, and then put its recommendations into the statute, but we are here up against the difficulty, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, of the impact of the new Health Service.
May I put this point to him, and hope that he will not think that I do not appreciate the way he has approached the matter? There is undoubtedly this apprehension and fear as to their conditions, and it has been strongly expressed in the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman may not be able to give me an answer 1495 straight away, but would he consider, between now and Report stage, the possibility of drafting something which would give to the police an assurance that their conditions will not be worsened? If he could find some form of words to cover the points made about the psychological problem by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and still leave the Home Secretary the freedom which he desires, I think that would help. Very likely, it will be difficult to do that, and I appreciate that it may not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give a definite answer now. In the friendliest spirit, I urge the matter on the consideration of the Home Secretary, and I hope he will consider doing something on the lines which I have suggested.

§ Mr. Ede
I appreciate very much the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put the point forward, and I will certainly consider the suggestion he has made. One of the proposals we are making is that new entrants to Police Forces shall suffer a reduction of pension at 65, but that they will also make a reduced contribution. This is done because of the coming into operation of the National Health Scheme on 5th July next. The present serving officer has the right of option whether he will take the full benefits under the National Health Act or the reduced benefit. If he opts for the reduced benefit, he pays the reduced rate of contribution as from the time he opts. I certainly could not contemplate putting in an Amendment that would vitiate the condition with regard to the new entrant, as far as the National Insurance Act is concerned, but I will consider whether, apart from that, it may not be possible so to frame this Bill as to make it clear that anything else that worsened the position of a police officer should be done by Act of Parliament, and not by regulation. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have made the reservation in regard to the new entrant and the National Insurance Scheme.

§ Mr. Stubbs (Cambridgeshire)
I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would tell me whether the terms of reference of the committee which he proposes to set up will include consideration of the position of present widows. At the moment the police are not so much concerned about themselves as about the question of the widows.

§ Mr. Ede
I have put down an Amendment to the Bill in connection with present widows which I hope will enable the matter to be disposed of before the committee meets. However, if the committee desire to suggest something further with regard to widows, that, of course, will be within their terms of reference.

§ Mr. Stubbs
Thank you.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
I am sorry to find myself less accommodating than my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston). I must say that I am not happy about this. If one takes the logic of what the Home Secretary has said, in defending the method of regulation as against the Bill, we are travelling a very great distance indeed. He put forward two arguments. The first was that we have to do something about the coming into effect of the new Health Service Act. That is a very fair argument to make. The other argument was that, at some time in the future, he may want to alter conditions in the police service, following upon the report of the committee of inquiry. Let us see where those two arguments take us. The new Health Service Act is not going to affect the police only.

§ Mr. Ede
I inadvertently used the term "Health Service Scheme"; it should be "National Insurance Act."

§ Mr. Brown
I also used the wrong term, but we both mean the same thing. Let us see where that carries us. It will not only alter the position of policemen; it will affect the position of teachers, local government officers, prison officers, and local government servants. Are we to have the same arguments in respect of all the other services, because they will be affected by the new Act? Are the statutory provisions of pension to be removed from them, and passed over to somebody else to make by regulation?
If the right hon. Gentleman rests mainly upon the other leg—that, from time to time, he may want to alter the conditions in the police service—is it not also the case that, from time to time, we may want to alter the conditions of civil servants, and the machinery which regulates the pay of teachers? We have a Whitley Council in respect of local government servants. Are we, because of the anticipation that at some point in the future we may want to alter this, that, or the other, to destroy 1497 all the statutory provisions governing their pensions at the present time? I cannot see the logic of that. I can understand that it is embarassing to the Home Secretary to have to come along with a new Bill; that is always embarrassing; but I submit it ought not to weigh against the creation, throughout the police service, and, by extension, throughout all the public services, if we treated them on the same basis, of a state of uncertainty, insecurity, and doubt about the future of their pension schemes.
12.15 p.m.
I must say that the right hon. Gentleman often convinces me that I am wrong, but, on this occasion, he does not convince me to that effect. It seems to me that the whole balance of the argument lies in retaining the original Bill, but qualifying it in two or three short sentences to cover the points he has made. By a simple Clause in this Bill, we could cover the question of the widows; by another short Clause we could cope with the question of retirement on health grounds, and, in the same way, we could cover the effect of this Bill on the police pension scheme under the National Insurance Act. The contributions under that Act do not seem to me to constitute any case for destroying the whole of the 1921 Police Act, which is, in fact, what we are doing, and providing, thereafter, that the matter should be dealt with by regulation, and after consultation with a body which, with great respect to it, the policeman does not regard as affecting him. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) was so accommodating and had not more of the spirit of Cromwell, who was prepared to die at the last ditch. I feel strongly about this, and think that we ought to divide on it.

§ Mr. Ede
I think the last thing Cromwell wanted to do was to die at the last ditch. I understand that his motto was, "Trust in God and keep your powder dry. Live to fight another day." That, I think, is the line which the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has adopted. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has not done more than reiterate the arguments he made in his original speech. He should really keep himself up to date, because what we propose to do with regard to the police officers under National Insurance has 1498 already been done for the local government service. It has been done by regulation, which was not prayed against in the House.
I have already given what, I am quite sure, can be regarded as an assurance that any regulation I make will not slip through in the same way. I cannot think that the National Association of Local Government Officers was unaware of the regulations being published. I have endeavoured to meet the objections made by the hon. Member, and I will undertake to see whether I can find words that, with the one exception, will entail introducing a Bill if it is proposed to worsen the conditions, in any particular, of the policemen under the scheme. I will make a genuine endeavour to find such words.

§ Mr. Ede
I beg to move, in page it, line 17, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
This Amendment ensures that regulations must be made. A fear was expressed on the last occasion that this was one way in which I could abolish the Police Pension Scheme—that the power to make regulations would be given to me, and that I would just say, "Well, I am too busy, we are not playing." This imposes on the Secretary of State the duty to make the regulations, and I hope that, as far as it goes, the Committee will agree it is an improvement in the Bill.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)
I do not want to seem ungrateful and look a gift Amendment in the mouth, but really, the concession which the Home Secretary has made is very small. All that he is putting into the Bill is an obligation on himself or his successors to make regulations dealing with the five subjects on the top of page 2. There is no provision whatsoever as to the amount of pensions which he shall be compelled to insert in those regulations, and, as I understand it, he would comply with the Bill, as amended, if he made regulations providing for a pension of 1d. per year under those five heads. Therefore, though in principle it is a goad thing for the right hon. Gentleman to bind himself to introduce regulations, it would be a pity if the Committee were left under the misunderstanding that he 1499 has bound himself to do very much. All that he has done is to bind himself to make regulations covering these five subjects. He has not put into the Bill any undertaking to provide adequate pensions under any of those five headings. Before the Committee congratulate themselves too noisily on the concession that they have obtained from the Home Secretary, they should appreciate that it is very small, although very welcome.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels
What the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said is not at all well founded. The Amendment really comes well within the assurance that the Home Secretary has just given. In any case, it is perfectly true that to substitute the word "shall" for "may" is better because the First Schedule indicates quite clearly that the 1921 Act is not to be repealed until regulations are made. Therefore, in any case, even apart from that word, it is obligatory upon the Home Secretary to make regulations before he can interfere with the present provisions. Under the 1921 Act there is a scale: the amounts are there. The Home Secretary has said that if the situation worsens appropriate words will be found to deal with the changed situation. Therefore, what the hon. Member said was absolutely unjustified.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I cannot let those remarks pass. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has suggested that this Amendment would be very much better if the Home Secretary introduced a totally different Amendment on the Report stage. That is hypothetical, and it may well be true, but it is no answer to the point that I have made. I do not wish to detain the Committee, because this is a small point, but this Amendment is in itself an extremely small concession. That is the point, and no amount of reference to other Amendments which are not even yet on the Paper, never mind in the Bill, can get away from that point. It is a very small mouse which this particular mountain has produced.

§ Mr. Ede
I am engaged on a Bill upstairs in a Committee on which there are 20 lawyers. It does not lead to speed. There are only two taking part in the discussions so far, but it is clear that we are running true to form. This was 1500 not claimed to be a big Amendment, and, while it is true that the hon. Gentleman said that he did not intend to look it in the mouth, he did start pulling the lips back. This Amendment is introduced to deal with a difficulty which was pointed out recently. I do not claim more for it than that, but it is to be read in the light of the pledge that I gave on the previous Amendment.

§ Major Bruce
I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, after "die," to insert "or have died."
This Amendment, which I am not at all sure will accomplish the purpose I have in mind, but which I have put down in good faith, seeks to ensure that under regulations which the Home Secretary may make two important classes of people can be covered. The first class of people which I want to be covered by the new pensions regulations is that of people who are classed as pre-1918 widows who at the moment have no pensions at all, despite the fact that their husbands died while serving in the Police Force. I do not wish to go back too much into history. Perhaps the best way of putting the case of the pre-1918 widows would be to refer to the very temperate words of the Combined Report of the Joint Central Committee of the Police Federation of England and Wales for the year 1946–47. There, in quite calm and dispassionate language, is put the case for the pre-1918 widow. Paragraph 59 says: A class of widow which will never be forgotten is the pre-1918 widow. It was on behalf of those actual widows, as well as certain other unsatisfactory conditions, that police took unprecedented action with a view to effecting improvements. The tragedy was that whereas it was decided to grant pensions to widows, the decision became effective only henceforth and not in retrospect, and thus it is that the very widows whose plight caused men to revolt are still without a police pension. Throughout the years, efforts have been made to get the position rectified, but without good result. As the years pass by so a number of unfortunate widows pass on without having received that little assistance which could have been so easily given by any Government, with so little effort and at such a small cost. I do not want to embellish that any further, but I put it to the Committee, 1501 as I put it to the House on the Second Reading, that this is a thing which any Government should now do. The number of widows in this category is now very small. The burden on the Treasury would be very small indeed, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see fit to do something about it.
The second class of person to whom this Amendment is designed to apply, is that of the existing pensioners. As far as I can understand this Bill—and I have not the advantage of hon. and learned Members—it does not apply to existing pensioners. I would like the Home Secretary, while he is seeking to have more flexible powers, to take powers to deal with the position of the existing pensioners. There has recently been a tragic case which surely brings this matter to our minds. Only a short time ago a police constable was murdered on duty in particularly revolting circumstances, and at very short notice his wife and children have lost somebody on whom they previously depended. I would like to know whether the Home Secretary thinks that the provisions which now exist under the 1921 Act, plus the Pensions (Increase) Act, are adequate for this particular widow? It is unfortunate that it very often needs a tragic incident of this kind to throw into relief the plight of so many other widows, very often in similar but not such dramatic circumstances. I may be wrong, and, if I am, perhaps the Home Secretary will correct me, but my information is that the pension which will be awarded to this most unfortunate widow and her children in the circumstances of their loss will certainly not exceed £3 a week. It is for the Committee to decide in their own minds whether, in the tragic circumstances of this particular case—and there may be others—they think this sum is adequate.
12.30 p.m.
This Amendment is designed to cover that kind of case and also those cases of existing widows who are receiving a grossly unremunerative pension. There are many cases at the present time where police widows are receiving no more than the statutory pension of 11s. 6d. a week, plus 40 per cent. under the Pensions (Increase) Act—4s. 7d.—giving a total of 16s. 1d. I am informed that there are also wives of existing pensioners who, in the event of 1502 widowhood, will receive something of that nature, a figure in the region of 11s. 6d. a week, to which the Pensions (Increase) Act will apply, subject to means test. I do not think the existing rates of pension payable to those who are now in the force—that is, to their widows if they die—are at all adequate. Whilst giving the Home Secretary powers—at least I think I am giving him powers under this Amendment—to deal with a particular category, I would like, and I am sure the Committee would like, some indication from him that the regulations he may be entitled to make will be on rather a more generous scale than appears to be envisaged so far in the White Paper.

§ Mr. Hale
I rise to support the Amendment, and I would say at once that I do not share the twice repeated doubts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Major Bruce) as to the effectiveness of my draftsmanship. We are giving the right hon. Gentleman precisely the power he wanted, and I observe with great pleasure that the Home Secretary himself has put down a later Amendment on the Order Paper, at the top of page row, which certainly seeks to extend his own powers in this connection. I think we shall find there is not a very great deal between us. It would be out of Order for me to comment on this later Amendment, or to refer to the other Amendment standing in the names of my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, which is going to help the right hon. Gentleman further upon his way, but I hope it may be permissible for me to say that the utility of our Amendment, of course in connection with the Amendment he himself carried a minute or two ago, is that it is directive, whereas his Amendment as to the later Clause is still only permissive. There is an important distinction in that fact which he may bear in mind.
Dealing with the pre-1918 widows, there is something almost macabre about the thought that we are now seeking to do this tardy justice to a very small and ever diminishing class—so small indeed that the actual cost to the nation would not be as much as the sacking of a single air vice-marshal. It is not that this is going to make a great deal of difference to them, because most of them are drawing some benefit from some other public funds, but at least it will give them 1503 the satisfaction of tardy recognition, and something to which they have long been entitled. This will, I hope, coupled with the later Amendment we are seeking to move, secure for them a bigger meed of generosity.
The right hon. Gentleman in his speech on the Second Reading referred to this matter and I gathered from what he said then that the payments under the National Insurance Act to be made by new entrants to the police force will qualify their widows for a full widow's pension under that Act. I am very grateful for that, I apprehend there will be a qualifying period—[An HON. MEMBER: "Three years."]—and, therefore, there will be a gap in this matter for those policemen who have been debarred from the chance of insuring under any insurance Act up to now. Their widows will not qualify, in the event of the policemen's death between now and the completion of the qualification period, for benefits claimed under this Act. I think the right hon. Gentleman may say that the Amendment is itself covered by a later Amendment, but it might be convenient if we deal with the whole question of widows on this Amendment.

§ Mr. Grimston
While I am entirely neutral with regard to the draftsmanship of this Amendment, I rise to say briefly that I support the principle underlying it and I shall look forward to hearing what the Home Secretary has to say.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart (Fife, East)
I want to add the voice of Scotland on this matter. I have authority—not officially—because I have been asked by the Retired Police Forces' Association of Scotland to put this point, among others. This is an Association which has grown very rapidly in the last year or two and it has grown because the men concerned are beginning to feel that something must be done and they are getting a very considerable measure of public support throughout Scotland. I am told the membership of the Association is now over 2,200 and, when the right hon. Gentleman bears in mind the relatively small number of policemen in Scotland, that is a testimony that this is a matter of great importance to these men.
Their concern, they tell me, is partly with the question of widows, and here 1504 it seems to me there is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with his own later Amendment, to assure these men, and the widows that the widows of the past will really be taken into account. It is not necessary for me to develop this point, because it has been put very well by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. We have all been greatly moved by the incident of the last few days. This House cannot permit a national incident like that—because it has been a national incident—to pass without taking it into account, and the only proper way to take it into account is to ensure that the case of the unfortunate woman and her children shall be dealt with properly. We are living in an age when we are trying to bring comfort to the great mass of the citizens, and to improve their standard of life, and this particular class of person deserves the special attention of the House. I very warmly support the Amendment.

§ Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)
I wish to urge upon the Home Secretary the claim of these widows. Looking at the White Paper one notes the provision which it is intended to make for widows of existing policemen. I think, therefore, one is more apprehensive, as there is no reference in the White Paper to these pensions for the 1918 and pre-1918 widows and for widows of officers who have been killed or who have died in the service, when one sees that it is necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to put down certain Amendments of his own. I am very doubtful whether these Amendments are sufficient to meet the point.
Why should it have been necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to have second thoughts on this matter at all? When he introduced the Bill, did he have any intention of meeting the position of these elderly ladies? Was this really entirely a second thought on his part, or was he intending to do this in some other way, although it is not referred to in the White Paper? I am very much in support of his having the powers which it is intended should be given to him by the Amendment. It is not necessary to stress any further the plight in which these elderly ladies very often find themselves, but I think it should be mentioned that, in a 1505 large proportion of the comparatively few cases that do exist, these widows will not be entitled to benefit under the National Insurance Scheme because they will fail to qualify for it, so that they will have nothing to rely on at all except such provision as may be made for them by this Bill or the regulations made under it. I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to give some categorical and favourable assurance with regard to these matters.

§ Mr. Perrins
I want to focus my right hon. Friend's attention on two particular features. There are the pre-1918 cases for whom no provision was made. If my right hon. Friend by this Measure makes provision for them out of public funds he will also be saving on public funds. These pre-1918 widows have to live. It is a matter of concern to many of them that they have had to go to public assistance. What provision my right hon. Friend makes for them by this Measure out of public funds will be saved on other public funds.
The second feature is the real need of these people. Under the Act of 1918 the widows have a pension of £30 a year. By wartime provision made for them they receive another 4s. a week. For the sake of argument and simplicity, let us assume that they have £1 a week. The policeman's widow with £1 a week suffers much more hardship and inconvenience than other widows with a similar income. Widows usually are able to take over the tenancies of their husbands' houses. The law provides for a transfer of property to widows. Police widows, however, are placed in circumstances rather similar to those of the widows of agricultural workers, in that, on the death of their husbands, they are forced out of their houses, because the houses go with their husbands' jobs. I do not know much about what conditions are in this great City of London, but I know that it is extremely difficult in the provinces for widows to rent premises at less than 16s. or 17s. a week. I shall not labour the point further, because the case is a fairly obvious one. I do hope that it will be sympathetically considered by the Home Secretary.

§ Mr. Ede
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) asked me some questions about the history of this matter. When I bring a Bill before the House of Commons I endeavour to listen 1506 to the arguments that are adduced with regard to it. On the Measures I have introduced I have always shown myself willing to consider the arguments; and when the arguments have appeared strong I have always endeavoured to make what has seemed to me to be proper concession to the views of hon. Members, either in Committee or on Report stage. I listened to the arguments that were adduced a fortnight ago, and it was quite obvious that, in spite of what had happened subsequently to the Report of the Snell Committee, there was a feeling in the House of Commons that this matter ought to be dealt with. Therefore, I have endeavoured by an Amendment I have down, and to which reference has been made, to deal with it.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) are running a series of Amendments in cyclic order. I gather from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham that while there may be many voices, his is the hand which drafts.

§ Mr. Hale
There are certain Amendments down in that "cyclic order" for which I certainly do not take drafting responsibility.

§ Mr. Ede
My hon. Friend took responsibility for the drafting of this one. Unfortunately, I cannot, like the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) be impartial as to draftsmanship; and I am advised that this Amendment would not do what its movers seek to do. The wording does limit provision to the widows of persons who have died whilst serving as members of the Police Forces, and does not extend it to cases where the women's husbands have already retired; and consequently it is inconsistent with Clause 2 (1), which deals with application of the regulations. After all, the main plea—the emotional plea—has been for the pre-1918 widows, the widows of people who have died prior to the coming into force of the regulations which have not yet been drafted. I am anxious to take powers that will be as wide as possible, and I have put down an Amendment to Clause 2, an Amendment which, I am advised, would cover every policeman's widow existing at the time of the 1507 passing of the Measure. I hope it will enable me to deal with widows between 1948 and 1951.

§ Mr. Renton
I think the right hon. Gentleman's statement has to be amplified to this extent, that it does not deal with the widows of policemen who married after retirement or who remarried after retirement.

§ Mr. Ede
I am not at this stage going to argue my Amendment to Clause 2. That would be going too far. What I am trying to point out is that the Amendment now before the Committee would not, in fact, achieve the objects my hon. Friends have in view. I suggest that we shall find when we come to my Amendment that, at any rate, it covers all the points so far as my having powers is concerned. I would suggest, therefore, that this Amendment should be withdrawn. When we come to my Amendment I shall have an opportunity of indicating its range and scope.

§ Major Bruce
I would point out to my right hon. Friend that I claim only credit for the inspiration of the Amendment, not the drafting. In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. William Wells)
I call the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) to move the next Amendment, in page 2, line 21. I would suggest that this later Amendment, and the proposed new Schedule (Scales of Pensions), could very conveniently be discussed at the same time.

§ Mr. Grimston
In view of the undertaking that the right hon. Gentleman gave a short while ago, that he was going to look into the possibility of putting a statutory bottom into the provisions, I would not propose at this stage to move the Amendment.

§ Mr. Ede
If the hon. Gentleman would formally move his Amendment it would give me an opportunity to make a statement.

§ Mr. Grimston
I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert: Provided that the scale of pensions made in any such regulations shall not fall below the rates provided in the Schedule (Scales of Pensions) to this Act

§ Mr. Ede
I am obliged to the hon. Member for meeting my convenience in this matter. At the moment a committee of the Police Council is considering the issue raised in the proposed Schedule. As will be seen from the Schedule, a complicated piece of Parliamentary work is involved in dealing with the problem. I am informed that the report of that committee is likely to be received fairly soon, and that it will recommend certain improvements in the scale. One of the difficulties of putting the scale into the Bill would be that, when the Bill is passed we should need another Bill to carry out the improvements which I anticipate will be recommended. While the hon. Member will understand that what I said on his previous Amendment governs my relationship to this Amendment, there is an even stronger reason for not getting this matter stereotyped in the Bill at the present moment.

§ Mr. Joynson-Hicks
As the Committee has undoubtedly noticed, there is a remarkable, no doubt coincidental, similarity between the proposed Schedule on the Order Paper and the Schedule in the appendix to the White Paper. Could the Home Secretary tell us whether it is still his intention, notwithstanding what he has said, to introduce by regulation the Schedule in the White Paper, or whether he will leave the whole matter over, and subsequently introduce a regulation covering whatever proposals the committee may report, and which he may accept?

§ Mr. Ede
It will all depend on the date of the report. Obviously, it will be necessary to have regulations re-enacting the existing Schedule if no report has been made at that time. If the report is received between now and the publication of the regulations I might be able to include the recommended Schedule in lieu of the one now found in the Police Pensions Act, 1921. It is all a question of timing. There will be a Schedule, so nobody will lose his rights merely because, for a few weeks or months, no scale of entitlement has been published.

§ Mr. Grimston
I am obliged to the Home Secretary. I think this falls within the undertaking he gave, and which I need not repeat.

§ Mr. Ede
Yes.

§ Mr. Grimston
When I put down this Amendment I realised that these negotiations were taking place, and I anticipated there would be a difficulty here for that reason. Provided that between now and Report the Home Secretary will, as he says, examine the question of giving some sense of security that future conditions shall not be worse than they are, I am perfectly content to let the matter rest. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Ede
I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out from "provision" to "as" in line 26.
I have put my name to an Amendment which was put down by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and his hon. Friends, as an indication that we accept it. It is necessary to make this Amendment in order to clear the ground for discussion later.

§ Mr. Grimston
I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert: (4) Where—

(a) a pension or allowance after being granted has subsequently in pursuance of this Act been declared to have been forfeited; or

(b) any person claims as of right a pension, allowance or gratuity under this Act, and the police authority do not admit the claim; or

(c) any person claims as of right a pension, allowance or gratuity under this Act larger than that granted to that person;

the person aggrieved may apply to the police authority for a re-consideration of the case, and, if aggrieved by the decision upon such re-consideration, may apply to the next praticable court of quarter sessions for the county within which the member of a police force concerned last served, or if he last served in the police force, of a borough having a separate police force and a separate court of quarter sessions, then to the next practicable court of quarter sessions for that borough, and that court, after inquiry into the case, may make such order in the matter as appears to the court just; but nothing in this section shall confer a right to appeal against the exercise of any discretion, or against any decision which is declared by this Act to be final. (5) An appeal shall lie on a point of law from any decision of quarter sessions under this section to the High Court in accordance with rules of court, and the decision of the High Court shall be final, but in all other respects the decision of quarter sessions shall be final. As the Committee will have seen, the Home Secretary has put down a proposed 1510 new Clause {Appeals). I am very glad to note that he has met the wish expressed on Second Reading, that the right of appeal should be put into the Statute. The provisions contained in our Amendment have been lifted out of the present Act. The question, therefore, resolves itself into this: We both seek to do the same thing, and the question at issue is the method. Having gained the principle that the appeals are to be written into the statute, I have no very strong feeling about the method, but I formally move this Amendment because, before making up my mind, I should like to hear the Home Secretary's explanation of why his proposed Clause is a better method of achieving our object than that contained in the present Act. Perhaps, for the convenience of the Committee, the Home Secretary might be allowed to explain the difference. I am sure that would be agreeable to us all.

§ Mr. Ede
In this matter our respective objects are the same, but there are certain points in which the hon. Member's Amendment is defective when compared with the proposals contained in the new Clause which stands in my name—(Appeals). This Bill repeats Section 17 of the Police Pensions Act, 1921. For instance, the Amendment makes no provision for specifying which is the appropriate quarter sessions in the case of the Metropolitan Police Force and the City of London Police Force. Obviously, these are drafting points which only a Government draftsman can really pick up. The Amendment does not deal with the complication of the force established under the Police (Overseas Service) Act. It provides that there should he no right of appeal against decisions made under the Act, which are declared to be final. It omits any application to Scotland, and makes no provision for dealing with medical appeals. I suggest that in those particulars the new Clause which I have drafted and put on the Order Paper makes the necessary amendment to this Bill in adequate terms. I am accepting the principle of the points raised in the discussion we had a fortnight ago, and I suggest that it would be better if this Amendment were withdrawn, and we had our discussion on the issue when we reached the new Clause.

§ Mr. Stubbs
Why should a policeman who is drawing his pension be punished 1511 because he commits some offence contrary to the regulations? That principle applies nowhere else. The man is drawing a pension for which he has paid, and to which lie is entitled. Why should he forfeit that pension because he does not comply with the regulations? That principle applies in no other direction, and I do not see why it should apply here.

§ Mr. Ede
My hon. Friend must remember that the policeman is not the only person who suffers forfeiture if he contravenes the conditions under which the pension has been granted. A policeman is in a very advantageous position in regard to pension as compared with most other members of the community. He is also in possession, as a result of his professional life, of a great deal of information about his fellow citizens, and it is very necessary to ensure that this information shall not be disclosed when he leaves the Force to the detriment of all concerned. I would also point out that the number who suffer forfeiture of pension under the existing law is very small indeed compared with the total number of pensioners. It is essential to have powers to deal very severely with any departure from the standards we have a right to expect from ex-Members of these Forces.

§ Sir Peter Bennett (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
I take exception to one remark which was made, and that is that a man has paid for his pension. That is not the case. He pays for only part of his pension, and the other part comes from public funds. That point should be borne in mind when statements of that sort are made.

§ Mr. Grimston
In view of the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Grimston
I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert: (7) The application of this Act to the City of London police force shall not prejudice any right possessed at the date of the passing of this Act by any member of that force. I have been advised that as the Bill stands the rights of members of the City of London Police Force may be prejudiced. I can best illustrate this by quot- 1512 ing an example. It is the case of a superintendent in the City of London Police Force. It appears that his pension will be considerably reduced under this Bill if he remains in the Force after the appointed day and retires or is retired unfit before September, 1950. Under Section II of the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1920, he had the right to a pension of two-thirds of his pay after 36 years service, without any qualification as to the three years' average pay basis. By Section 26 (4) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, this right was amended. He could have elected to have the latter Act applied to him, and if he had done so, he would have had to serve 30 years for the full two-thirds pension, and be subject to the three years' average pay basis.
This man decided to remain under the City of London (Various Powers) Act, at that time realising that he was running the risk that if he were retired unfit he would not be entitled to a pension until he had completed 15 years' service, whereas under the 1921 Act he would have received a pension after 10 years' service. In a case where a man has survived this risk, he cannot now, under this Bill, have the fruits of the decision he took at that time. This Bill will deprive him of his "winnings," to use a metaphor. It may be that this is provided for in the Schedule, but I have put down the Amendment to show that a man is obviously being unjustly treated if he is deprived of rights which he now possesses and only possesses because he took a deliberate risk in acquiring them some years ago. This Amendment was incorporated in the 1921 Act specifically to preserve the right of members of the City of London Police Force. Perhaps the Home Secretary will have a look at this again to ensure that these rights are preserved.

§ Mr. Ede
I think the case which has been quoted is covered by the undertaking given that we shall preserve all the rights which were in existence on 28th July, 1921. We know of the case, and provision is to be made in the regulations to cover it. The words of this Amendment have been lifted out of the old Act. They were inserted in that Act to cover a very different matter. They were inserted to safeguard the position of the then City Commissioner who was drawing a pension from Liverpool, and they had the 1513 accidental effect of preserving the rights of other members of the City of London Police Force. The City Commissioner had a pension from Liverpool, and he did not want anything to be altered in that respect by the provisions of the 1921 Act. I do not think it is necessary to put in these words, but I will have the position examined again. So far as the payments are concerned, they will be governed by the pledge I gave earlier in the Debate, because if it is a case where man's position will be worsened, then it comes within that category.

§ Mr. Grimston
I raised this case, which is an exceptional one, because I did not wish a case of hardship, however small, to slip through. In view of the general and specific assurances of the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Grimston
I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, to leave out Subsection (7), and to add: (7) No regulations shall be made under this Act unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. I do not wish to detain the Committee on this Amendment, because the Home Secretary has already indicated that he will adopt this procedure. The principle has been accepted, and it is now a matter of machinery.

§ Mr. Ede
I have given an undertaking in regard to this matter. This Amendment does not take into account the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act, and it will therefore be necessary to put in some words to cover that point. I undertake to put down an Amendment on Report stage to carry out my pledge, which will also take that Act into account.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The Home Secretary has come a good way in accepting the affirmative Resolution procedure, and I am certain that Members on both sides of the Committee are very pleased that he has done so. But there is still a difficulty which will arise, at any rate when the major regulations are tabled. Under this procedure there is no means of Members who feel strongly about a particular regulation having any chance of amending it. May I put this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman: that when it is 1514 intended to table the first major set of regulations some procedure should be devised—possibly by means of a Debate on the Adjournment—to enable opinion in the House to crystallise on particular points before it is too late for Amendments to be considered. When the regulations are actually tabled there is no possibility of amending them.
Looking at the White Paper, it is quite clear that there are many points which Members on both sides will want to discuss. They may want to move Amendments on some of the regulations without wishing to take upon themselves the responsibility of moving the rejection of them all, most of which they will probably think very good. I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to produce a general innovation in Parliamentary procedure—although I would like to urge that upon him on an appropriate occasion—but to discuss with the Leader of the House the possibility of providing a Debate, in advance of the formal motion to approve the regulations, so that opinions can be expressed on particular points in time for him to consider them and, possibly, incorporate them in the regulations. That, I admit, is a poor second best, but it is a second best. I am a little alarmed at the possibility of regulations being dumped upon the Table, and being faced with the alternative of throwing them out altogether when all we might wish to do is to amend a small paragraph. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some encouragement on these lines, and will consider giving the House a chance of urging detailed Amendments.

§ Mr. Ede
In vain is the snare set in sight of any bird. I sympathise with the difficulties of the hon. Member. I often felt as he does when I sat on the other side of the Table, and I met with surprisingly little sympathy from those who then sat on this side when I urged the point which he had just made. I desire, in this matter, to ascertain the general view of the House; it may not be possible to do it in the form in which he suggests it should be done, and I can give no promise that that can be done, but I will seriously consider any representations made to me before the regulations are drafted, and while they are being drafted. How far it will he possible to provide for a discussion other than the normal one is not for me 1515 to say, but I invite any Member who is interested in this matter to make representations in the light of the White Paper, which is virtually the first draft, in non-technical language, of the regulations. It indicates points that will be raised, and the spirit in which they will receive attention. If anyone likes to communicate with me about any point raised in the White Paper I undertake to give it impartial consideration.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and it might be helpful if he could say how much time there will be available for representations to be made to him. If he could give a hint of the date by which he proposes to table the regulations I believe it would be helpful.

§ Mr. Ede
I want them to become effective not later than 5th July. That is the latest date. I undertake to give consideration to any point submitted to me between, let us say, now and Easter. I hope that that will enable me to receive representations while the regulations are still in a fluid state.

§ Mr. Grimston
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has put his finger on one of the difficulties in our procedure in connection with regulations. There is no doubt that having the affirmative procedure is a great advantage. It means that the Government, through the Business which they announce each week, will have to make the matter more widely known; people will know that there is to be a discussion about it, instead of having to rely on someone hunting through the Order Paper to see whether a Member intends to pray against a certain statutory rule and order. This is more likely to give the impression that Parliament has a tighter hold on the matter than the other procedure. Whether or not that is so—and I believe it is—the impression will be conveyed. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the form which this Amendment takes in connection with the Statutory Instruments Act, and his undertaking to introduce proper words on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Major Bruce
I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add: (8) Any regulations made under this section shall provide that any pension or additional allowance granted by virtue thereof shall not be subject to any diminution by reason of the recipient or intended recipient thereof having any other source of income. It would perhaps be prudent on this occasion to put forward a modest disclaimer in regard to the legal draftsmanship of this Amendment. It is designed to remove what has become known in ordinary circles as a means test in relation to an existing pension. I am advised that any increases to which police widows may become entitled under the Pensions (Increase) Act are subject to a means test, that is to say, that although a widow is not debarred from receiving the normal basic pension to which she is entitled under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, nevertheless, any increase in pension is prejudiced by her earning more than a certain sum. The majority of widows in this category are of working age, and we feel that in the circumstances now obtaining a means test—and I do not wish to use the term in a sinister fashion—should be abolished.
While we were discussing the last Amendment there was an interjection from the Opposition benches by an hon. Gentleman who was concerned that the sentiment should have been expressed on this side of the Committee that there was a certain entitlement to pension, a certain inalienable right to pension, because the person concerned had earned it. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be dismayed about that, but it should be borne in mind that pensions under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and any pensions which may be enacted hereafter, are all part of the conditions of service, and have to be taken into account within a much wider context. The total remuneration of a person employed in the Police Force consists of a weekly wage and allowances and the pension is an ingredient in his overall remuneration during his working life. It is a fact that the Home Secretary considered earlier in the proceedings today, that the members of the Police Force accept lower rates of remuneration for the ordinary work they do than are obtainable in outside industry.

§ Mr. Ede
I did not admit that. I said that in former days the police service had 1517 certain great advantages in receiving pensions at an early age which other people did not have. That comparative advantage has now very largely disappeared.

§ Major Bruce
I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for reinforcing my argument for the abolition of former conditions which, in some circumstances, impose a means test. He said earlier today that the conditions in the Police Force, by reason of which wages remained static, whereas wages in industry had gone up, placed the police in an unfavourable position in certain instances.

§ Mr. Ede
I did not get on to the question of wages. I was dealing with the conditions that at one time sharply differentiated policemen from most other people earning about the same incomes, and I pointed out that owing to the improved social services this no longer existed.

§ Major Bruce
That does not detract from my point.

§ Mr. Ede
My hon. and gallant Friend is claiming that I made the point. He is making the point. He is not entitled to claim that I made it earlier today when I did not.

§ Major Bruce
I apologise if I have misrepresented my right hon. Friend. I think that the policeman has a moral right to regard his pension as something which should become his own, and which he has part-earned during his service. It should not be mitigated by reason of the ultimate beneficiary being able to earn an income from outside. There are wives of existing pensioners. Their position calls for consideration under this Amendment. The Pensions (Increase) Act if applied to the wife will also mean that, if her husband is not an insured person under the National Insurance Act, 1946, or has not the opportunity to become eligible, her increase is subject to a means test. These are anomalies which should be removed.

§ Mr. Hale
I support the Amendment. I express regret for any diversionary attacks which I may have made on the right hon. Gentleman on previous occasions in connection with the police force. I am reminded of the learned judge who was asked if he ever doubted. He said, "No, I never doubt. I am frequently wrong, but I never doubt." I am occasionally wrong, but I never doubt. I submit that on this occasion I am not wrong. As a 1518 party we have been opposed to any question of a means test. We have confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's enlightenment on these matters, so there is little we require to say on an issue like this. He protected himself in advance from the attack that some of these payments are made by virtue of the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act and not paid under these regulations. This Amendment may not meet the situation we desire it to meet, but when one drafts an Amendment on the Order Paper in Committee in vacuo without regard to the type of regulation that may emerge, all one can hope to do is to put the issue before the right hon. Gentleman and rely on his kindness. We know that if he is prepared to accept it in principle, he will provide the necessary lettering to embrace all the issues concerned. This is an issue which will not cost much money. It raises a matter of real importance, of genuine sentiment and is a very definite Socialist issue.

§ Mr. Ede
This Amendment would have one effect with which neither its proposer nor its supporter has dealt. It prevents the carrying through of the main purpose of the Bill, namely, to make a difference in the scale of police pensions when the National Insurance Scheme comes into effect. One effect of the Amendment may be that a person may claim to pay a decreased contribution and when the time comes to draw benefit quote this Amendment to prove that he is entitled to the full benefit. That, I am sure, is not the intention of my hon. Friends. That is fatal to the Amendment. I do not think it would be fair to deal in this Bill with the general question under the Pensions (Increase) Act. If the police were dealt with in this way, there is no reason why other people, such as postmen and teachers, whose pensions are subject to the workings of the Pensions (Increase) Act should not also he dealt with in the same way.

§ Mr. Hale
I am prepared to give an undertaking that my hon. Friends and I will watch all Bills dealing with these matters and move similar Amendments.

§ Mr. Ede
That is precisely what I feared. This is a point that should not be argued with me but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

§ Mr. Stubbs
Why not make a start now.

§ Mr. Ede
I am not able to accept the Amendment on the lines advocated. I regret that it is not possible for me to say more in reply to the Amendment.

§ Mr. Byers
I would ask the Home Secretary to look at the situation into which we are getting over the question of the means test. That is not only a Socialist issue but also a Liberal issue. I suggest that we shall be met with this argument every time that we put forward this suggestion. I can see the Minister of Education saying, "We cannot accept this because if we do we should have to do the same for the police." Have the Government given serious consideration to the general issue raised, which is in line with this particular issue? It does not just affect the police. It affects teachers, civil servants and many others. Has this matter been considered by the Cabinet? If not, is it not time that it was? Are we to be met with this refusal departmentally every time we suggest that a start should be made with this issue? It is time that we had a clear-cut decision of principle on the point raised by hon. Members opposite. I would press strongly for its reconsideration. I have always been against this particular type of means test.

§ Mr. Hale
I am sorry to detain the Committee further, but I am anxious not to challenge a Division on this particular issue, because my right hon. Friend was so accommodating in giving us other concessions for which we asked. At the same time, it is idle to deny that on this issue some of us feel very keenly and sincerely. I would be grateful to my right hon. Friend if between now and the Report stage he would apply his mind to the one problem which is raised here. I appreciate the difficulties, but the problem is the payment of supplementary allowances. We have got to the time when we begin to use euphemisms to cover the real facts. A distressed area becomes a special area, unemployment pay becomes benefit, and a cost of living allowance becomes a special allowance. The point of this Amendment was to bring a meagre pension of no up to more generous proportions which would meet the increased cost of living. If that is now to be reduced because of another source of income it is fundamentally antagonistic to our principles on this side of the House. I am sure my right hon. Friend appreciates these points and will give them consideration.

§ Mr. Ede
I am hoping that as a result of powers which I will be taking later on the £30 pension will be a considerably larger pension. I cannot undertake that on this Measure I shall interfere with a Measure which was passed only last year dealing with increases in these statutory pensions. I am hoping by this way to get round the point my hon. Friend put to me with regard to these specific pensions, and I hope it will result in making them more generous pensions.

§ Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)
As I came in I heard the Home Secretary referring to the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Would not he consider having a talk with the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to see if something could be done on this question, because there is a very strong feeling whenever the matter of the employment of a means test arises. It would be very good of the Home Secretary if he would say he was prepared to have a talk with those colleagues of his to see if something could not be done in this particular Bill to eliminate the possibility of a means test.

§ Mr. Ede
I cannot be used as a stalking horse for the Treasury. I have endeavoured to get round the particular issue in the way I have indicated. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has expressed, in flattering terms, his views of my generosity, and I might find myself in a difficulty if someone said to me, "You have given one concession, and I ought to have the other as well."

§ Mr. Hale
I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add: (8) Any pension payable to a dependent widow of any person who shall die or shall have died while serving as a member of a police force shall be at a rate of not less than such widow would receive under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1946, if her husband had been a fully insured person under the provisions of that Act. The purpose of this Amendment is to try to get some more elucidation. We felt that the time had come when there had to be some basic minimum below which no pension should go. It seems to us that the obvious figure was the basic minimum of the National Insurance Act. I do not want to give the impression that my right hon. Friend has changed his mind, but the Act originally did envisage 1521 more generosity in these matters. Our suggestion is that this has quite a number of advantages. Firstly, it goes far to wipe out the rather marked anomalies between pensions in the variation of rank; and, secondly, it seeks to bring other pensions up to that basic figure which we regard as the low minimum, and below which no pension should go.

§ Mr. Ede
I am bound to say that this Amendment does not cover all the cases I want to cover. It is limited to the case where the husband dies while serving as a member of the Police Force, and the widow of a man who died after retirement will not benefit. All widows in the future will be entitled to appropriate benefit under the National Insurance Act or the Industrial Injuries Act and to a police pension as well, but the Amendment does not say anything about a widow's benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act. In regard to that case it can only mean that in addition to getting the appropriate benefit under the National Insurance Act she will receive the same benefit from the Police Fund. That is to say, she will receive a duplicate benefit from two sources.

§ Mr. Hale
My right hon. Friend must remember that we have never had the full details of how the National Insurance Scheme will work on a part-time basis, and whether a higher sum will be payable from that fund or the Police Pension Fund. I rather suspect my right hon. Friend of having used the argument against me in two different ways in connection with these two Clauses.

§ Mr. Ede
That is part of my difficulty. My Amendment is down to a later Clause, and if I start explaining that on Clause I might find that it will be ruled that the discussion has already taken place. I am trying to preserve for my hon. Friend as well as myself opportunity for a full discussion when we get to the Amendment that I have put down to Clause 2. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that what I have put down is so wide in its scope that it will enable most of the things that are in the spirit of this Amendment to be done, whereas, in fact, this Amendment—I am not complaining about it or attempting to make fun of my hon. Friend —by its very wording and the position it occupies in the Bill would impose some limitations on the action I propose to take under Clause 2, and would work to 1522 the detriment of the pensioners. That is the objection I have to this Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friend will be able to withdraw it so that we can deal with the whole issue on the appropriate Amendment to Clause 2.

§ Mr. Hale
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. My right hon. Friend's Amendment was added to the Order Paper after ours and we did not see it.

§ Mr. Grimston
I do not want to detain the Committee very long, but the Home Secretary was suggesting just now that representation with regard to the regulations should be made between now and Easter. This is not an occasion for making representation on small points, but there is one which I want to mention. The regulations envisage that serving officers will be able to choose whether they shall go on paying their full contributions and receiving their present rates of pension, or whether they shall have them partly reduced on the coming into force of the National Insurance Act. In the former case they shall get both benefits in full. The Home Secretary is proposing that the new entrants shall not have that choice, but shall only come in on the basis of paying a reduced contribution, which will be the National Insurance contribution, and the whole pension that they can get is to be the sum of the two but not much greater, if anything, than the police used to get under the Police Pension Fund.
I have had representations made to me that it is not altogether correct to say that it is the general view that new entrants would prefer that course, because otherwise they would be called upon to make too large a contribution for pension out of their pay. I suggest to the Home Secretary that he should again consider whether to give the option to new entrants after the date, as well as to existing members of the Force, at any rate, to see how it works. It may be open to argument whether we shall have men serving in the same station on different scales of pension according to the way in which they have opted. We shall get that, anyway, and that argument is not valid against giving 1523 some option to new entrants. I would therefore ask the Home Secretary to consider the matter again. It has been represented strongly to me that there is considerable feeling that police officers should be able, if they wish, to opt for both pensions. There are other small points in regard to the entrance age under 20. We shall also have a further opportunity of discussing the position of the widows. I do not propose to go into either point at the moment. I should be very grateful if the Home Secretary would give further consideration to those points which I have particularly mentioned.

§ Mr. Ede
I certainly undertake to give consideration to the matter, but no one can really speak for the new entrant because we do not know who he will be. It is true that for a time, people will be on different rates of pensions but they will steadily work out of the Force. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there might permanently be in the Force people drawing different rates of weekly pay actually put into their hands, and ultimately entitled to different rates of pension. I will consider the matter.