Pensions Regulations (Widows and Dependants) (Hansard, 30 July 1959)

§ 25. Mr. Awbery
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the increasing hazards to Metropolitan police officers in the execution of their duties; and if he will introduce legislation to give more generous treatment, such as is given in similar circumstances in the United States of America, to the dependants of these public servants who lose their lives while carrying out their duties.

§ 36. Mr. Lipton
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will provide more adequate compensation for the dependants of policemen killed on duty.

§ Mr. R. A. Butler
The Police Pensions Regulations governing the amount of awards made to the widows of police officers who die as a result of injuries in the execution of their duty were last revised in 1953, and the basis for their assessment, which received the general approval of the House at that time, still seems to me to be sound.

§ Mr. Awbery
Can the Minister inform us whether the amount received by the widow of the officer who was recently shot is more than she would have received if he had died a natural death? Can he say if he is satisfied that the amount which she will receive will be such as to encourage any other officer to take the necessary risks when carrying out his duty?

§ Mr. Butler
The first part of that supplementary question comes up on a later Question on the Order Paper, and I think I ought to answer it then. The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is that the present basis is the best that we could adopt. It was initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in 1953. The decrease in the value of money is not a ground for reconsideration, since the pension is on a rate proportionate to the husband's pay. Therefore, the basis of this present arrangement is a sound one.

§ Mr. Ede
May I say, as a personal explanation, that I was not responsible in 1953 but I did support the recommendation of the then Home Secretary?

§ Mr. Lipton
Is the Home Secretary aware that despite what he has said, public opinion generally feels that we deal with these cases in a rather mean way? In view of the fact that such cases are fortunately rare, should we not be a little more generous than the present regulations provide? After all, in cases of road accidents or industrial injuries, the unfortunate victims and their dependants are treated much more generously.

§ Mr. Butler
I have compared the police benefits in cases of this kind with other public pension schemes, and, on the whole, I find them to be better. Of course, it is not a subject that I would leave absolutely static, but the present basis is a sound one on which to proceed.
In answer to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I was really paying him a compliment, because the plan in 1953 was based on plans that he left behind him.

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should look again at this matter? The police are not comparable with any other set of people in the country. These are very brave men who have to risk, and sometimes lose, their lives. Should not we look again at the whole question of a more generous provision, when these men lose their lives, for their dependants?

§ Mr. Butler
As I said, this is obviously a matter which must not remain static and which needs continuous review. I entirely endorse the right hon. Gentleman's statement that these are very gallant men whom we should look after.