HC Deb 14 July 1949 vol 467 cc640-2
15. Mr. Mellish

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of men now serving in the Metropolitan Police Force who joined the Force between 1st July, 1919, and 31st December, 1919, during 1920, and from 1st January to 28th August, 1921, respectively; and the numbers of these men who have now reached 55 years of age and will be retired under the age-limit rule with their pension based on their yearly pay and not subject to the three years' averaging.

Mr. Ede

The answer to the first part of the Question is 250, 327 and 103, respectively; of these men 69, 74 and 20, respectively, have now reached the age of 55; a further 258 will reach that age before 1st July, 1952. The normal age of compulsory retirement in the Metropolitan Police is 55 except for ranks above superintendent, but men who joined the force between 1st July, 1919, and 28th August, 1921, cannot be compelled to retire until they have completed 30 years' service, and officers in this category who are above the rank of sergeant retain ages of compulsory retirement which are later than the normal age. All these officers, however, have the right to adopt the normal age of compulsory retirement if they choose, and so to have their pensions based on their actual retiring pay.

Mr. Mellish

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on the figures he has given, it would appear that in the Metropolitan area there are approximately 147 men who have done 30 years' service, but who, by virtue of the fact that they are not 55 years of age, in order to get the maximum pension, have to serve another three years? In the light of the fact that there are only 147 and that there is some considerable hardship, may I ask my right hon. Friend to be good enough to look at this again, to see if something cannot be done for these men?

Mr. Ede

I do not think the number is as great as my hon. Friend has said, but, of course I could not do something for the Metropolitan Police and not do it for the remainder of the police forces of the country. In the light of the Oaksey Report, I think it is clear that we could not contemplate doing that at the present time.

Mrs. Braddock

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some confusion about the interpretation of Section 51, subsections (1) and (2) of the new police regulations, and that the Liverpool Watch Committee had to postpone a decision in two cases until they could get more information from the Department as to the meaning of the words "compulsory retirement"?

Mr. Ede

I am surprised to hear that there is any doubt as to what the words "compulsory retirement" mean. I had not heard that there was difficulty in Liverpool, but I will examine the matter.

Mr. Mellish

Would my right hon. Friend look at the matter again if the figures for the whole country prove to be quite small, because there is a hardship here, and there was a contract for 30 years' service only?

Mr. Ede

I am always prepared to look at anything which is put before me by the Police Federation, but I am bound to consider the considerations put forward in the Oaksey Report.

Mr. Gammans

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by "in the light of the Oaksey Report"? Surely it is a fact that these men, on whose behalf we are raising this matter, will not benefit in any way by the Oaksey Report if they retire now.

Mr. Ede

They would benefit very considerably by the Report if I made this concession because then they would be entitled, through having served one day after 1st July, 1949, to be pensioned on the rate of pay they drew for that one day only.

Commander Noble

Are we to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman said just now that this point was not raised by the Police Federation? There is no doubt that the men concerned feel very strongly on the point.

Mr. Ede

It was raised by the Police Federation at the Police Council, and in the end they decided that the best thing to do was to accept the Oaksey Report as a whole.