HC Deb 20 February 1948 vol 447 cc1534-47

(1) Every pension granted under regulations made under this Act is granted, and every pension (whether described as a pension or as an allowance) granted under any of the enactments specified in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act shall be deemed to have been granted, only upon condition that it may be forfeited by the police authority in any of the following cases, that is to say if the grantee—

  1. (a) is convicted of any offence and is sentenced to penal servitude or to imprisonment for a term exceeding twelve months; or
  2. (b) enters into or continues to carry on any business, occupation or employment which is illegal, or in which the grantee has made use of the fact of former employment in a police force in a manner which is discreditable or improper; or
  3. (c) supplies to any person or publishes in a manner which is discreditable or improper any information which the grantee had obtained in the course of employment in a police force; or
  4. (d) solicits or, without the consent of the police authority, accepts directly or indirectly any testimonial or gift having any pecuniary value on retirement from the police force or otherwise in connection with his service in a police force; or
  5. (e) enters into or continues in any business, occupation or employment as a private detective, after being prohibited from doing so by the police authority on any reasonable grounds:
Provided that a pension shall not be forfeited under paragraph (b) of this Subsection unless reasonable warning has previously been given in writing by the police authority.

(2) A forfeiture under this Section may affect the pension wholly or in part, and may be permanent or temporary as the police authority may determine.

(3) Save as aforesaid, such a pension as aforesaid shall not be capable of being forfeited:

Provided that where a pension granted under any of the enactments specified in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act has been forfeited before the passing of this Act, nothing in this Act shall affect the validity of the forfeiture, and the provisions of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, shall apply in relation to the forfeiture as if this Act had not passed.

(4) The preceding provisions of this Section shall apply in relation to the rules and regulations specified in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act as it applies in relation to the enactments specified in Part I of that Schedule, subject, however, to any necessary adaptations.

(5) Section fifteen of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, is hereby repealed.—[Mr. Younger.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Younger

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause, as the Committee already know, was put down to meet the criticism that provisions relating to forfeiture should appear in the Bill itself rather than in regulations. I hope that it will meet the wishes of the Committee in that respect. I do not think there is very much that I need say about it, although both on Second Reading and today there has been some criticism of the fact that there are any provisions of this kind relating to forfeiture. I think the Committee will be of the opinion that particularly in relation to a Police Force, it is necessary and perfectly reasonable that there should be some such forfeiture provision. I think it will also be agreed that no hardship has been known to arise in the past from this type of provision.

In many respects, the new Clause simply repeats what was already in the 1921 Act, but, as was explained on the Second Reading, there are a number of respects in which this Clause will be more favourable to the retired police officer than were the provisions of the former Act. In particular, there was the old provision whereby a police officer was liable to forfeit his pension if he knowingly associated with thieves or reputed thieves, and the further provision under which he was liable to forfeit his pension if he refused to give to the police information or assistance.

The Home Secretary explained on the Second Reading why it was thought right to leave those two provisions out. In the first case, it is rather a vague allegation. Police officers, by the nature of their calling, are apt to be acquainted, if only in a professional manner, with reputed thieves. In the second case, it did not seem proper to put a more onerous obligation upon police officers than already lies upon a good citizen to assist the police in the detection of crime. I would point out that this is in contradistinction to practically the whole of the rest of the new provisions. This is a provision which will be retrospective, and, therefore, existing police pensioners will benefit from the improvements which are being made in this proposed new Clause as against the existing law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Major Bruce

I beg to move, in Subsection I (d), to leave out: or, without the consent of the police authorities, accepts directly or indirectly. The purpose of this Amendment is to bring about a position whereby, if a person who is in receipt of a police pension receives a gift from outside sources, he is not automatically placed in peril of losing his pension. As the Clause now stands, interpreted quite literally, if this Amendment were not accepted, he would be in such peril. I can visualise the circumstance of a police constable, who has been in the force for a number of years, going away, even from the district in which he was formerly employed, and in the festive season receiving a gift of a brace of pheasant or something similar from the local squire, thereby automatically making himself liable to forfeit his pension. I do not think that is the intention of the Clause, but on its strict literal interpretation I think that position might arise.

We have to bear in mind that people, after they have fulfilled their normal tenure of duty in the police force and go into civilian life, are just as liable to be the recipients of ordinary human generosity as anybody else, and I should have thought that the words "solicits any testimonial or gift" in themselves would have been sufficient to cover the purpose. Clearly, if a retired policeman accepts a gift corruptly—and it is against this practice that the actual Clause is devised—although I am not a legal expert in these matters, I should imagine that the passive acceptance in a corrupt way of a gift in respect of past services would in itself amount to soliciting in law.

Mr. Younger

I will take the point that my hon. and gallant Friend has made. I was a little surprised at his suggestion that the word "solicit" if it stood alone without the words which he proposes to leave out, would have the meaning which he placed upon it. The points I would like to make in asking the Committee not to accept this Amendment are, first, that I do not think it is at all likely that the existing words could possibly cause any hardship. I think my hon. and gallant Friend can accept an assurance on this matter. A police constable would certainly not be liable to forfeit his pension merely because he had accepted a gift due to ordinary human generosity and in no way connected with his retirement from or his service in the police force. I think that is a fear which has no foundation on the construction of the words as they stand.

My second point is that if it were necessary positively to prove solicitation, the provision would become unworkable and unenforceable.

Mr. Hale

Let us get this clear. Suppose a police officer, who has served 30 years in a rural village, retires and the population voluntarily subscribe, as they frequently do, a gold watch or a testimonial or a purse of money on his retirement in view of the happy relations which have existed and the way in which he has protected their property. Does my hon. Friend say that if that happened without the prior approval of the chief constable, who may be the very cause of the man's retirement and leaving in advance of his time, the meaning of the Clause would be that the constable could lose his pension, or does my hon. Friend say that he could not?

Mr. Younger

It is clear that consent is required. Of course, in examining matters of this kind one is entitled to quote extreme instances; but, surely, it is opening the door to corruption to a very considerable extent to say that members of the police force are entitled to accept gifts by subscription or otherwise by a large or small body of people without the approval of the police authority.

Mr. Hale

On retirement?

Mr. Younger

Yes, on retirement.

Mr. Hale

It is right that we should get this matter clear. Obviously, the making of a gift to a police constable exercising his duty is open to corruption or bribery or influence. But when he ceases to wear his uniform and when he leaves the village, what objection can there be to generous-minded people saying, "You have been a decent chap, Bill. We would like to give you something, and we will not ask the chief constable first."?

Mr. Turner-Samuels

Supposing someone wants to make a gift to a constable while he is in office but, because it would be unlawful to do so, waits for a suitable moment on his retirement and then proffered the gift. What about a case like that, unless the position were covered by suitable words such as this Clause contains?

Mr. Hale

The ingenious mind of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) could, no doubt, multiply examples of all sorts of manifestations of pernicious peculiarities in the mental make-up of people who may come in contact with police constables. I am trying to deal with the ordinary course of events in an ordinary village.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Younger

I think the danger is that, although all the events we are discussing happen after retirement, it might well be that certain services were asked for by an individual on the promise of a gift after the retirement of the police officer. I would further say, in connection with the hypothetical case posed by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), who said that an oppressive chief constable might himself have been the cause of the retirement, that on my information, the police authority for this purpose is not the chief constable but the watch committee, and there is the right of appeal to quarter sessions in the event of dissatisfaction in this respect.

I do not think that type of very extreme case could possibly arise. I would repeat the very real difficulty I see in the enforcement of the Amendment, if a gift is received in this way and if it is necessary positively to prove solicitation. It is not really a very onerous requirement to say that police officers must obtain the consent of the police authority if they are going to receive a perfectly proper gift—there may conceivably be such gifts in such connection with their past services—and it does not seem to me that the Clause as it stands opens the door at all to any oppression or any wrongful forfeiture, whereas it does seem that the proposed Amendment would make it almost impossible to enforce this particular Subsection.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

Might I put a question on the wording of this Clause? Does not this wording mean that consent must be obtained before the gift is accepted and that consent obtained afterwards will not suffice, but that the pension will still be imperilled? Is it really intended that a police officer on retirement must obtain the consent of the police authorities before he accepts a packet of cigarettes?

Mr. Ede

Of course, that is not meant at all. Even in the course of his duty if he happened to receive a packet of cigarettes a very serious charge of receiving a bribe would not be sustained, but, of course, it is wrong, it is a breach of the regulations. If my Latin were any good I would continue the quotation which begins: "de minimis …." What one seeks to avoid, in resisting this Amendment, is putting the police in the way of temptation, which might occur, of conniving at something on the understanding that a gift will be made in a few months or a few years time when the man retires. The police are subject to very severe temptation in that matter. One may not like the gambling laws, but the law with regard to street bookmaking leaves the man on the beat open to receive very considerable temptation in that sort of way—if somebody wants to act as bookmaker's runner and he drops a hint, "If you will let me have a run for a certain amount of time, you are going to be out of the Force in two years' time and there will be something for you." It is alleged that quite substantial sums have been paid on occasion to let a man run a show like that.

What we desire is to protect the honest policeman from temptation of that kind. Of course, when he is investigating certain other forms of crime, where much more substantial sums are involved, and where turning a blind eye by a policeman might enable some ill-doer to make very substantial sums, it is desirable to make it quite clear that any gift of that kind will place the policeman's pension in jeopardy. That is the kind of thing at which we aim, and I suggest it is very desirable for the sake of the reputation of the force that it should be known that any arrangements of that kind are regarded as completely wrong, and that a convenient avoidance of the mere technicalities of the law while a man is in the Force may still be visited upon him after he has retired.

Mr. Hale

Surely, as it is a breach of the criminal law it is dealt with already on the question of a conviction for the breach of the criminal law. What we are trying to deal with now is the ordinary, commonplace case where the inhabitants of a village want to give a testimonial, say a watch, to a policeman on retirement—the common case, the very simple case. The wealthy bookmaker who bribes a policeman sets him up as a "tic-tac man" at £10 a week. He does not give money; he can get round this in other ways. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the really rare case of wholesale bribery, this Clause will have no effect, because the policeman would not worry about his pension.

Mr. Ede

The village subscription might be kept secret from the constable, but I doubt it myself, because he generally knows pretty well what is going on in a village, and he will know that a list is going round and that subscriptions are being invited. If the people who are organising the subscription do not acquaint the police authorities of what they are doing, I am quite sure that the police constable could see that their ignorance of the state of the law is removed quite easily and a proper application made to the police authority for the policeman to receive that particular testimonial.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

I would like to refer to the question I put to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). I noticed he was at pains to avoid an answer to the question, although he referred in a somewhat loud-voiced way to my ingenuity and received the loud laughter in support of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). As a matter of fact, what the hon. Member for Oldham will not see is the one point that matters in this Clause, and that relates to the question I put to him. Supposing some criminal, or some person knows that by giving a gift to the constable he is doing something unlawful, waits until the constable retires in order to make that gift, I asked the hon. Member for Oldham whether that would not be entirely wrong and whether that is not just the sort of case this Clause is intended to deal with.

Mr. Hale rose—

Mr. Turner-Samuels

I asked the question before and you would not answer it, and now I am not going to give you a chance to do so.

The Chairman

The hon. Member should address the Chair.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

The point about this Clause is a very important one indeed. It has nothing to do with the simple village function of making a collection, or giving some watch as a parting gift or a parting shot to some constable who has retired. That is not the point, because any gift of that kind in appreciation which any villagers desire to make is permitted under this Clause. It is expressly covered in the Clause. The consent of the police authority may, and in a proper case would, be granted. No one is going to suggest that the police authority is going to be so churlish as to refuse that consent in a proper case. The Clause as it stands is obviously put there to prevent a constable doing something which would have been wrong had he done it while he was a constable, and making it impossible for him to wait to do it until he has retired from the force. On those grounds, I think this Clause should be supported.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I do not want to intervene in the conflict between the two branches of the legal profession on the benches opposite, but rather to put another point to the Home Secretary which arises on this Amendment. There is obviously a good deal of force in what the Home Secretary says as to the necessity of providing adequate sanctions against even the hint of corruption in the police force. I think we must all agree with that. However, the forfeiture of pension is a terribly heavy penalty, and it can be approved by this Committee only on really adequate grounds. What worries me is the word "indirectly" in paragraph (d). It says that forfeiture shall be incurred if the gift is accepted "directly or indirectly." I am not very clear what the indirect acceptance of a gift is intended to cover. Is it intended to cover a gift, say, to a policeman's wife or to a member of his family?

Where it can be shown, no doubt, that there is an attempt to get the gift by covert means to the policeman, well and good: forfeiture is rightly incurred. But if the gift is simply a gift to a woman it might yet be argued by a police authority that that was an indirect way of offering a benefit to the policeman. That does open up certain dangerous possibilities. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) pointed out, it is, at least, arguable that gifts obtained before consent is applied for, should prejudice the policeman. But this is one stage further, if a policeman is to risk—even technically risk—losing his pension because somebody gives a present to his wife. I can see some of the considerations, but I am not very clear as to what is the mischief aimed at by this word "indirectly," and I should be grateful if I could be given some reassurance on the point.

Sir G. Fox

I hope the Home Secretary will resist this Amendment and leave the point quite clear so that policemen shall know exactly what the position is; not only to try to stop any possible form of corruption, but also in the police officers' own interest. I know a case in which a police inspector diligently did his duty, as a consequence of which a man was duly sent to prison; and when he came out a year later he went to the police inspector and gave him a small present—a very small present: a pair of nylon stockings, or something like that—and, having done so, he "shopped" the inspector, who lost his job. That was done in a small town with a small police force, and it did not do any good. It is very much better that the members of the Police Force should know exactly what the law is. Reasonable consent will not be withheld, and it is in the interests of the policemen themselves that they should know exactly where they stand.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I hope the right hon. Gentleman did not think that I was in any way dissenting from the object of the provisions of this new Clause. Indeed, I think that on both sides of the Committee the target outlined by the Home Secretary is accepted—the target of this new Clause. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) says it is desirable that this point should be made quite clear to the members of the Police Force. I agree. The hesitation and doubt I feel is whether this wording is really apt to define the target. I think it is not very satisfactory wording.

I should like to see it provided that consent obtained after receipt of the gift would not place the pension in any form of peril. I should also like to see some wording put into the effect that where the gift is made, for instance, to a member of a policeman's family or to his wife, forfeiture will not be operative upon the policeman unless the circumstances show that he really must have had some knowledge that that present was to be made, and that it was thus made possibly circuitously for giving the policeman a bribe. I intervene only to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that these words are capable of improvement, and I request him to give the wording some consideration to achieve what is, I think; the common object of both sides of the Committee, and to make it quite clear to all police officers that bribes accepted by them or their agents after their retirement will incur very heavy penalties.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede

I would point out in the first place that these words are lifted directly out of the Police Pensions Act, 1921. They may be even older than that. They come from Section 15 (1, f) of the Act of 1921. There has been 27 years' experience of their working. As far as I know there has never been any indication that it has not been possible to interpret them reasonably and apply them equitably in the circumstances of the various police forces. I should have thought myself that to delete the word "indirectly" would lay the whole thing far too wide open.

I am in some difficulty about the question of what happens in the case of the wife. One of the things I have had to do in the course of my tenure of office has been to make quite clear to chief constables who have attempted to exercise control over wives of policemen, that they engage the policemen and not the wives. I know that there used to be a difficulty in certain Nonconformist churches because it seemed to be thought that when they were engaging parsons the most important persons to look at were the parsons' wives; and certain parsons had to point out that it was they and not their wives who were going to do the parsons' jobs. The same is very true of the policemen, and I have tried to assert that on more occasions than one. However, one must recognise that, after all, there may be a way of circumventing this if substantial gifts should be made to a policeman's wife in respect of something which the policeman ought not to have done or ought to have done.

I will have these words examined in the light of the practice; because, after all, in 27 years this problem has had to be dealt with, I have no doubt, on several occasions. I would point out that, of course, forfeiture under this new Clause is subject to the right of appeal. If a police officer thinks that his pension has been unjustly forfeited, he can go to the appropriate court of quarter sessions and ask that his pension shall be restored. I recognise the force of what has been said. I am quite sure everyone desires to cover the whole of the mischief to the discipline and character of the Police Force that laxity here might cause. In the light of that, I give the undertaking that I will look at the words to see if it is possible to improve them.

Major Bruce

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his assurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Mr. Hale

I beg to move, in line 21, Subsection (1), after "paragraph (b)," to insert "(c) and (e)."

I think my right hon. Friend will accept this. I do not want to elaborate the matter. What the Amendment seeks to ensure is, that there shall be notice in writing before the exercise of the remedy under this new Clause. Paragraph (c) creates an entirely new offence so far as the criminal law is concerned, and the forfeiture of pension is a very heavy penalty. The Amendment suggests that there should be warning in writing before the powers are exercised. It suggests, too, that warning should be given in writing in the case in which a policeman sets himself up in the innocent business of a private detective. Perhaps there is a stronger case for the second part than the first, because the first part may easily raise serious matters. Many retired police officers commence in business as private detectives, and I am satisfied that this particular regulation is not widely known. In my experience it is a common but rather undesirable practice for police officers, by virtue of their office, to have access to information which they would not otherwise have. However, at least they should be entitled to some notice, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will accept this proposal.

I apologise for not having previously thanked the Home Secretary for what he seeks to do in the Clause, which constitutes a very substantial and much appreciated concession. I was interrupted by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), and having got away from the subject I forgot to return to it.

Mr. Younger

I hope to be able to convince my hon. Friend that it is not appropriate to apply to paragraphs (c) and (e) the proviso which has been set out and applies to paragraph (b). My hon. Friend said he thought there was perhaps a stronger case—I gather he meant for his Amendment—in the case of paragraph (e) than (c). True, from the point of view of protecting the public, paragraph (c) is more important, and the offence under paragraph (e) is perhaps less serious. At the same time, I would draw his attention to words which he did not read out, in paragraph (e): enters into or continues in any business, occupation or employment as a private detective, after being prohibited from doing so by the police authority… He said that many members of Police Forces are not aware that they should not do so. Surely, if they had been prohibited from doing so they would be aware of it?

Mr. Hale

The whole point is that a general prohibition could be a ukase laid down that no member of the Police Force shall start up as a private detective.

Mr. Younger

I certainly do not read it in that way myself. I should have thought this was a question of a particular police pensioner being prohibited by the police from undertaking a particular employment. That was certainly the way I had read it. If I am right in that construction, my hon. Friend might agree that there could be no need for any further notice.

Sir Arthur Salter (Oxford University)

It could be made perfectly clear by saying "after he has been" instead of "after being."

Mr. Younger

We can look at that to make sure that there is no ambiguity. It is certainly my right hon. Friend's intention, that it should be a question of a prohibition addressed to the particular pensioner concerned.

In paragraph (c) there is no such phrase as "after having been prohibited." This Clause, above all, is of the utmost importance to the public because of the very great danger which may arise, end the great hardship involved, if police officers who, in the course of their duties, have obtained confidential information about individuals, firms, or anything else, use such information after retirement in a manner which is discreditable or improper. I do not think this is a thing about which any police officer could be under a misapprehension. After all, a police officer who has been in the service long enough to have retired and to be in receipt of a pension, is not entirely an innocent in these matters. The information has to be used in a manner which is discreditable or improper. Also, as in all other cases of forfeiture arising under this Clause, there is an appeal when the man concerned feels aggrieved. Therefore, I suggest that paragraphs (c) and (e) are on a different footing from paragraph (b), for which this proviso has been specially inserted—a proviso which was not present in the earlier Act. Subject to the undertaking that we will look at the wording of paragraph (e) to make sure that the construction permits what I have suggested we intend to do, I ask my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.

Major Bruce

Will the Under-Secretary give an undertaking also to look at the words "after being prohibited"? At the moment, on the strict wording of the Clause, unless the person ceases business straight away upon prohibition—which, obviously, is not what the Minister intends—he will become liable automatically. That is the reason why my hon. Friend and I have sought to insert the warning in writing. At present, technically the man is prohibited from carrying on the whole thing, which I do not think is what the Home Secretary intends.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

When the Under-Secretary looks at paragraph (e) again—because I think he is right about paragraph (c)—I hope he will look at it, not only from the point of view of making quite clear that the prohibition concerned must be particular and not general, but also from the point of view that the prohibition must itself be in writing. A verbal warning that a retiring police officer should not take up a particular business would be thoroughly unsatisfactory. Provided it can be laid down that the prohibition shall be in writing, I think the difficulty is met. However, an express warning or prohibition—to me, it does not seem to matter which—in writing, directed to the individual in a particular case, is satisfactory and is required.

Mr. Younger

I think I need say no more than that I will certainly take that into account when we are looking at the wording of the paragraph. I do not think the legal construction of the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) could arise. It could hardly be a question of the man being liable to forfeiture if he did not walk out within any given period—an hour or a day. There must be a reasonable time, which would be imported into its construction by any court of law. I doubt if it is necessary to examine that aspect. Certainly, we shall take into account all the points that have been raised.

Amendment negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.