POLICE PENSIONS REGULATIONS (Hansard, 13 December 1966)

§ Mr. Taverne
I am not entirely sure where I left off in the course of my exciting oration, but if I resume at the wrong place I dare say that no one will have noticed. I think that I had just finished explaining that there were some changes of a minor or clarifying nature in cases where the present wording was not clear. An example of the minor change is one relating to the calculation of pension payable to an officer injured on duty.
In calculating or reviewing such a pension the officer's degree of disablement is taken into account, but under the existing provisions only the degree of disablement arising from the injury which occasioned the grant of the pension may be so considered, even though the degree of disablement is increased as a delayed result of some other injury on duty. New Regulation 107 provides that in cases of future retirement the degree of disablement attributable to any injury on duty shall be taken into account.
An example of clarification is a change in the old Regulation 12A(4) of the 1962 Regulations. This used to provide that the gratuity payable to a widow whose husband's death resulted from an attack or injury received in effecting an arrest 334 should be calculated by reference to the pay of a constable in a police force. The last six words are relevant. At that time the police pay rates were uniform throughout the country. The Police (Amendment) Regulations 1966, granted supplementary pay of £50 a year to constables in the City of London and Metropolitan Police Forces. The new Regulation 14(4) makes it clear that the gratuity shall be calculated by reference to the pay of a constable in the police force of which the husband was a member.
Finally, the House should know that these Regulations, including the changes which I have mentioned, have been drawn up by the Departments in full consultation with the local authorities and police associations concerned and have been agreed by the Police Council of Great Britain.

§ Sir David Renton (Huntingdonshire)
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the clarity of his explanation and congratulate him upon its continuity. I remember a time, before we passed the Police Pensions (Consolidation) Act in 1961, when all current police pension Regulations were in such a state of chaos that there were only two people in the world who both understood them and could find the answer to a question about them. I do not know whether, even now, many could claim to do that, but we have this consolation at least, that anyone who wishes to find out is able, has been since the first consolidation in 1962 and is now able again, to look at the Regulations and find fully and clearly set out what is, necessarily, a complex system of laws. The draftsmen of these Regulations deserve great credit for this remarkable task.
Very often on these occasions the Government spokesman can announce several improvements made, having been negotiated and approved by the Police Council. The hon. and learned Gentleman announced only one of substance, and that is with regard to the aggregation of police service and two other forms of public service. I would regard that as a minor step in the right direction. I have always thought it unfortunate that when a person moved from one part of 335 the public service to another he did not automatically carry all his pension rights with him. To the extent that the Regulations enable that to be done, I welcome them.
Shorly before the debate started, I mentioned to the hon. and learned Gentleman one matter which puzzles me. Under Regulations 62 and 102, there are certain pension transfer rights of which a policeman has the benefit when transferring from one police force to another. The Regulation which contains definitions states that a police force includes an overseas force. To find out which overseas force it may include, we must turn to the definitions on page 59 and to the expression "overseas corps". We find that it means: …any body in which persons such as are mentioned in… the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945…are serving and in relation to which regulations made under section 1(2) of that Act have been made; It is important that the House should know how this affects officers serving in the police force in Rhodesia. A year ago, at the time of U.D.I., the Government rightly said that, in spite of U.D.I. it was important that law and order should be maintained in Rhodesia. That meant that officers already serving in what was then called—I think it still is —the South Africa Police Force, although it has nothing to do with the Union, should remain at their posts and suffer no disadvantage from doing so.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman can assure the House that, if there is any such officer who remained at his post in Rhodesia in response to the plea to maintain law and order, but who later decides that he wishes to come home to this country, which may be his true home, he will not be penalised and will get the benefits of Regulations 62 and 102. I should be grateful for such an explanation.

§ Mr. Taverne
I am grateful for the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his tribute to the draftsmen, of whom I am in some awe. I agree that, despite their efforts, it is still not easy to find one's way around these Regulations. In particular, it is not necessarily very easy to deal with all the 336 cross references like the Police (Overseas Service) Act, 1945, referred to in the definition of "overseas corps".
The ease of transfer in public service has now been generally agreed in principle and will be facilitated by the changes which have been made. In the past, it was a very difficult matter to enact or to pass legislation about, because there was still transfer between forces in this country covered by the contribution system and it was impossible to combine that system with a transfer value system. This difficulty has now been removed. The integration which we would all like to see overall will be much more easy.
I am afraid that I cannot give the right hon. and learned Member a complete answer to his last question, because, to some extent, this depends on legislation for which the Treasury has responsibility. What I can tell him is that the position of any policeman in the Rhodesian Police at the moment has not been affected by the illegal declaration of independence. His position for transfer would be exactly the same as it was before the declaration. On the other hand, whether or not someone in the Rhodesian Police, even before the illegal declaration, could transfer with aggregated pension rights depends on, I think, the Public Office Rules.
These Rules may enable a transfer between the Rhodesian force and the Metropolitan force, with aggregation of pension rights. I am afraid that they do not, however, allow for a transfer between the Rhodesian force and other police forces in this country. In a way, this is the result of a historical accident. At the beginning of this century, a position in the Metropolitan Police was classified as the holding of a public office. For some reason, it was felt that a position in another force was not a public office.
By this strange chance, transfers are sometimes possible, with aggregation of pension rights, from an overseas force to the Metropolitan Police or from some public office to the Metropolitan Police, which are not possible in the case of other forces. I shall certainly look into this matter and let the right hon. and learned Member know the position in relation to Rhodesia under the Public Office Rules. I can assure him that this position has in no way been affected by the illegal declaration of independence.

§ Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, perhaps he would tell us whether somebody who transfers into the Metropolitan Police can then transfer from that force to one or other of the police forces without losing his rights. This might be a way of overcoming the difficulty.

§ Mr. Taverne
I cannot answer that without studying more carefully the Public Office Rules. Transfers between forces present no problem, since, in effect, the transfer value eventually has to be paid by the last force in which a policeman served. I am not sure. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this roundabout way would not solve the problem created by the Public Office Rules.