HC Deb 23 July 1956 vol 557 cc158-64

9.56 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes)

I beg to move, That the draft Police Pensions (No. 2) Regulations, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved. Though in appearance rather formidable, these Regulations, apart from the benefits which they confer, have the effect of greatly simplifying the present system. I shall not refer to them in great detail, unless hon. Members want to ask questions about them, but there are one or two things that I should shortly say about them.

These Regulations do not affect the pensions of retired police officers. They deal with the increases in the awards payable to the widows and children of deceased police officers. They ensure, first, that widows and children whose awards are related to a deceased officer's pay will receive increases equivalent to those provided by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956, and on the conditions prescribed by that Act. Secondly, they simplify the flat rate awards payable to the widows and the children. At present, those awards vary in amount according to the date of the officer's death.

These new Regulations provide for the introduction of a uniform scale which will be payable whatever the date of the officer's death, and the pensioner's personal circumstances, and the new scales, of course, incorporate the increases appropriate under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956, and the previous Pensions (Increase) Acts. The House will note, I hope with satisfaction, that it has been possible to extend this uniform scale to widows whose husbands died or retired before 1st September, 1918, and whom it has hitherto been possible to consider only for certain discretionary awards.

The Regulations give effect to the undertaking which my right hon. and gallant Friend gave in respect of the pre-Oaksey widows. This is a matter which certain hon. Members will recall was discussed at some length in our proceedings on the Pensions (Increase) Bill, and I think it will be found that the results have been satisfactory.

The Regulations provide that widows whose husbands died before 5th July, 1948, and who can at present qualify to receive the equivalent of a National Insurance widow's pension only in substitution for the basic pension shall be in future eligible to receive both awards.

The increases proposed shall have effect from 1st April last, that is to say, they will be retrospective to that date. That is the date from which the increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956, are payable. With those few observations I commend these Regulations to the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

I imagine that the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations can be taken with these Regulations.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart)

Yes, Sir.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Younger (Grimsby)

On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I welcome the Regulations for England and Wales. I am very glad to hear from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department that they contribute, if only in a small degree, to the simplification of a subject which always defeats me whenever I try to master its details. In addition to applying to police widows the benefits of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956, which we would certainly wish to support, the Regulations also deal with some anomalies. I might, in particular, mention the anomaly of the pre-1918 widow, which is now dealt with at long last. We welcome that, and I have to admit that in the past successive Governments have been pressed to deal with it and up to now have refused.

I believe that the new Regulations have been agreed through the negotiating machinery and are generally welcomed, in particular the uniform scale to be applicable to all widows regardless of the date of their husband's death. There is, however, one point of clarification about which I should like to ask the Joint Under Secretary. It is stated in the explanatory memorandum issued from the Home Office with the Regulations that the new uniform scale proposed is 23s., 31s., or 38s. a week according to rank. That works out roughly at £60, £70 and £80 a year. But, attached to the same explana- tory memorandum, there was a table showing what the effect at present would be if the pensions increase was applied to the flat-rate pension for the various categories.

Where the police officer died between 1918 and 1948 it appears from the table that under the existing system the rate might work out for widows of inspectors and chief inspectors at £75 whereas, as I have said, the figure under the new uniform scale is only £70. For superintendents and above, the figure is £93, whereas the uniform scale appears to be about £80. In the case of junior ranks—constables and sergeants—there will be no objection, because the figure under the existing system is stated to be £56 as against £60 under the new one. The other two categories, however, appear liable to receive less. The complications are such that I hesitate to pass judgment, but attention has been called to what might be an anomaly and if it can be explained I shall be grateful.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Robert Crouch (Dorset, North)

I welcome these additional pensions, but I should like to ask one question in view of the fact that I have had to correspond with a Minister on the subject. Do widows receive the increase automatically or have they to apply for the additional pension? I feel that it should be given automatically. One of my constituents has been embarrassed when increases have been made because she had to apply for them. Do widows have to apply to the Home Office?

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I, too, welcome the Regulations. I do not intend to go into any of the details to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) has referred, but I should like to make a few observations. These Regulations are too little and too late. They are insufficient for their purpose. Too little, because they do not take sufficient account of inflation. The negotiations which preceded them were spread over a considerable period, and they do not take sufficient account of the high cost of living which the widows and children have to endure today. They are not only too little, but they are also too late. They are inadequate for their purpose and unjust to the dependants of the members of the police force who have to cope with the present high cost of living.

I do not want to delay the House at this late hour, but I cannot let this occasion pass without lodging my protest against the inadequacy of these Regulations. As far back as Friday, 19th March, 1954, in private Members' time, I sought to raise this matter. Indeed, I had on the Order Paper a Private Member's Motion in the following terms: To call attention to the need to make the Police Forces of Britain more attractive as careers for their members and by this means to bring the police forces up to date and thus put them in a position to deal with crime. It is obvious that one way of making the police forces more attractive as a career would be to take care of the widows and other dependants of their members. It is obvious that suitable applicants will not join the police forces unless they are satisfied that their widows and other dependants will be properly treated.

That was two and one-third years ago, and it is only now, in July, 1956, that these Regulations are brought forward as a belated means of making better provision for these people. In reply to a Question of mine on 26th March, 1954, relating to Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland told me that the Scottish police forces were under the authorised strength for both men and women. It is obvious that they cannot be brought up to their authorised strength unless proper provision is made for their dependants, and that is what these Regulations are trying to do. In reply to that Question, the Secretary of State said: Steps have … been taken by means of a publicity campaign to bring the claims and advantages of the service to the notice of likely recruits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 153.] My submission is that publicity is not enough. There must be, in addition, adequate provision for the widows and dependants. These provisions should have been made years ago and it is late to make them tonight. I shall not oppose these Regulations because they are a step, even though a short and inadequate step, in the right direction. However, this step should have been taken years ago. It is a disgrace that the services of the police were not recognised earlier than tonight.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

These Regulations are made subject to an Act passed in 1956, so that the point does not arise.

Mr. Hughes

I have said all I wanted to say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thank you for letting me get to the end of my observations.

10.9 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

I welcome these Regulations and although it is true, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has said, that these pensions are inadequate, just as most pensions in the country today are inadequate, at least I am sure that the increases outlined in the Regulations will be welcomed by the police force throughout Scotland.

Time and time again in the House we have raised the subject of the position of the pre-1918 widows—the pre-Oaksey widows, as they have been called—and time and again it has seemed that nothing could possibly be done for them. It is excellent that in these Regulations it has been made possible for the first time to have uniform scales for the widows of police no matter in which year their husbands died. For that reason, I welcome the Regulations.

I also feel that, now that justice has been done, it will be heartening to the police in Scotland and will help future recruitment. Whenever Governments attempt to do justice to a group of people, it leads to good relations and helps recruitment. For this reason also, I welcome the Regulations.

I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be able to answer points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), because they apply equally to Scotland.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Deedes

Perhaps I might reply briefly to the questions which have been raised during our short discussion. First, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) that there will automatically be a review now of all the awards already in payment and that the widows will not have to act on their own behalf in this respect.

As to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), to which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has referred, there may be a slight statistical misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the three annual rates as being £60, £70 and £80 respectively. As I understand, they are, in fact, £59, £78 and £98 annually, which, the right hon. Gentleman will see, rather disposes of the discrepancy which it was thought existed.

I would add that the Regulations provide for the introduction of a uniform scale. That being so, different rates on the new scale cannot be strictly compared with different rates on the old ones. To have maintained the old differentials exactly would have been to perpetuate the anomalies which the new scale seeks to remove. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that that, taken in conjunction with the figures, provides a satisfactory answer.

The remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector' Hughes) hardly do justice to what the regulations achieve, nor to the new widows' scheme introduced in April, which provides greatly enhanced awards for the widows and children of serving officers. It is always possible to say that such a thing as this might have been done earlier, but it is also fair to say that it might have been much less generous.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Draft Police Pensions (No. 2) Regulations, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.

Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations, 1956 [copy laid before the House on 28th June], approved.—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]