HC Deb 08 February 1971 vol 811 cc219-35

12.42 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples)

I beg to mow, That the Police Pensions Regulations 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved. These Regulations bring together in one instrument the provisions of the Police Pensions Regulations, 1966, and the nine subsequent amending regulations. Like the former regulations, they apply in England and Wales and in Scotland. In revoking the various superseded Regulations and restating the provisions in consolidated form, they provide a comprehensive pensions scheme for the past as well as for the future. I would emphasise that the rights of existing pensioners are fully safeguarded and are not in any way affected by the consolidation. I hope that as a consolidating measure, these Regulations will be welcomed by the House.

A number of matters have been raised with me by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.

The opportunity has been taken in this consolidation to incorporate three quite substantial improvements into the Regulations. The first two of these improvements concern what is known as the augmented award for the widows or children of police officers who die as the result of injury received in the execution of duty in certain special circumstances.

An augmented award is payable under Regulation 14 of the 1966 Regulations if the officer's death was the result of an injury received in the execution of duty where, in the opinion of the police authority, he was attacked in a manner likely to cause death, or he was effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody, or he was attempting to save or prevent the loss of human life. All these conditions turn upon the police authority's opinion of the circumstances.

The view is taken that Section 5(1) of the Police Pensions Act, 1948, rules out an appeal to a court of Quarter Sessions—or, in Scotland, the Sheriff—except on the narrow question whether the police authority was or was not of that opinion. The forming of an opinion is a condition precedent to any entitlement arising.

The Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulation, 1969, which added to Regulation 14 the provision relating to the saving of life, came under criticism from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and in the House of Commons on the ground that there was no effective right of appeal against a police authority's decision not to award a pension; nor was there provision for the review of an earlier decision not to grant an award should further evidence become available.

The Police Council has recommended that police authorities should be afforded discretion to enable them to make awards in cases where death results from injury received otherwise than in one or other of the circumstances to which I referred earlier, but in analogous circumstances where, in the opinion of the police authority, it would be inequitable if the augmented award were not payable.

Draft Regulation 32 has regard to both of the matters to which I have referred. First, with regard to appeals, a justiciable issue arises where it is claimed that one of the conditions set out in draft Regulation 32(1)(a), (b) or (c) is satisfied. Regulation 32(1)(d) preserves some flexibility in cases in which the evidence is inconclusive by providing for an augmented award where the police authority is of the opinion that one of the conditions set out in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) may be satisfied and that it is appropriate that the Regulation should apply. Secondly, to meet the recommendation of the Police Council, draft Regulation 32(1)(e) provides for the payment of an augmented award where none of the conditions specified in subparagraphs (a) to (d) is satisfied but where the police authority is of the opinion that the circumstances of death were such that it would be inequitable if the award were not granted. This further discretion is not intended to cover all cases of death arising from duty. It will be for the police authority to judge in each case whether the circumstances of death were no less compelling than those specifically prescribed in the regulations.

Draft Regulation 32(5) contains transitional provisions applicable to existing cases. Draft Regulation 43, which concerns the grant of an augmented award to dependent children, contains changes consequential on those made in draft Regulation 32.

I am sure that the House will warmly welcome these improvements in the provisions for payment of augmented awards on those very sad occasions when policemen in the execution of their duty lose their lives in particularly hazardous circumstances.

The third improvement to which I would draw attention appears in the provisions for transferring pension rights between the police service and other employments.

The arrangements for preserving pension entitlements on transfer have so far applied only to transfers between the police service, on the one hand, and the civil service and metropolitan police civil staffs, on the other. These arrangements have been reaffirmed in the 1971 Regulations; and they have been extended to cover various other employments in the public sector. The employments involved are those shown in Schedule 6 to the Regulations.

It only remains for me to say that these Regulations, including all the changes made in them, have been drawn up by the Home Departments in full consultation with the local authority and police staff associations and that they have been agreed with the Police Council for the United Kingdom.

12.51 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan (Cardigan)

I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Minister of State for having, with his usual courtesy, given us an outline explanation of the content of these Regulations.

Since the Regulations consolidate nine Statutory Instruments which have governed the position in this sphere since 1966, it is natural enough that there should be broad agreement between both sides of the House about the major part of them. It is a great advantage to have such consolidations occurring every five or six years, so that we are able to have all the Regulations within one volume. But for some years yet it will be necessary to compare the new Regulations, if the House accepts them, with corresponding provisions in earlier Instruments.

The Opposition welcome the few improvements which the new Regulations contain. In particular, the provisions which provide for the transferability of pensions are welcome. It is obvious from Schedule 6 that there is a wide range of bodies within which transferability now becomes possible.

There are one or two questions of detail which one could ask in this matter. Why, for example, are the Central Electricity Generating Board and the National Coal Board included, but the British Railways Board, for some inexplicable reason, omitted? I assume that before long we may see Rolls-Royce included in the Schedule, together with any other companies which might be the subject of theological conversions on the part of the Government. It would, I think, be of convenience to the House if the Minister could give some indication of what further developments there will be in relation to widening the area of transferability in the near future.

It is no secret that the staff side of the Police Council has asked for considerably more than has been conceded by the Government in the new Regulations. I do not intend to go into detail, but my hon. Friends may wish to touch on one or two matters in this connection.

There are two points which are worthy of mention. The first is in relation to the commutation of pensions. At present, this right applies only to pensions payable on retirement after 30 years' service, and I am sure that many Members consider that it would be proper to extend this right to all pensions.

The second point arises in respect of war service. If a person was employed as a police officer before the outbreak of war in 1939, the years during which he served in the Armed Forces are counted as reckonable service for the purposes of pension, but if a person joined the police service immediately after the war, his years of service in the Armed Forces are not counted in the same way. It is considered by the Police Federation and by the staff side of the Police Council that it would be fair and equitable to treat persons who joined immediately after the war in the same way as those who joined the force prior to the war.

Perhaps the Minister of State could explain the meaning of the words in Regulation 15 (e): A reference in these Regulations to relevant service in the armed forces shall be construed as a reference to— … (e) in relation to a serviceman (1939–1945), service in the armed forces up to such date as the Secretary of State on the application of the police authority of his former force may in his case have fixed. It appears that it is an arbitrary matter almost for the police authority to decide, and for the Secretary of State ultimately to pronounce upon. It seems repugnant to common sense that such a lack of uniformity could be possible in this connection, but there may be a simple explanation for it.

In addition, perhaps I could mention very briefly the case of a police officer who has served in the force for only a few years and who is forced to retire prematurely on account of ill health, or who dies after a few years of service. As the Home Secretary and the hon. Gentleman know, it is the subject of a campaign by the Police Federation that where a person has served for not less than 10 years, but has not served for 20 years, it would be reasonable to grant that officer a credit of 20 years' service. It would mean that the sum paid monthly from a police officer's pay would be more and more regarded, in part at any rate, as an insurance against such an eventuality, and I do not think it would be unreasonable if the Home Secretary and the hon. Gentleman were to consider that a reasonable amendment to make in the very near future to the Police Pensions Regulations.

I am sure that in mentioning those few points, which we regard as necessary improvements to the police pensions structure, we are in no way being irresponsible. It is surely a matter of agreement between both sides that the attractiveness of the police service in years past stemmed to a great extent from the substantial differential which was apparent in police pensions compared with pensions in so many other occupations. Happily, due to more progressive tendencies in society, such differentials are no longer at the same level.

This is a disciplined service, with tight conditions of service, becoming less attractive in that respect than other occupations. At the moment, the police forces of England and Wales are over 10,000 under strength and it is highly unlikely, even with the best efforts of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that that gap will be closed. There is every reason, indeed, to fear that it will become substantially wider in years to come.

Therefore, I am sure that the Opposition are correct to lay stress upon the need not only for a substantial increase in police pay but for a substantial improvement in police pensions as well. It is only in this way that this arm of the public service, which is so essential to the maintenance of law and order, will be properly strengthened.

I should like to end on a congratulatory note, in relation to Regulation No. 32. When we discussed this matter in the debate on the Police (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations, in December, 1969, I thought that the House was confronted with the insoluble dilemma that, on the one hand, it was necessary, to preserve flexibility, for police authorities, in dealing with cases in which it might be doubtful whether the case actually came within the classical canons of rules as defined in the then Regulations, and on the other hand it was necessary to preserve what it had obviously been intended to give to a claimant in such circumstances by Regulation No. 5 of the Police Pensions Regulations, 1948—the absolute right of appeal to quarter sessions.

But I heartily congratulate the Home Office legal advisers and the parliamentary draftsmen on having managed to allow the House now to give its sanction to Regulations which combine both benefits and to do so in a most subtle way. Therefore, the Opposition welcome the improvements, such as they are, but we ask the Government to apply their mind to the far more substantial improvements which are necessary. It is a pity that this process of consolidation, which we presume will not be planned again for some years, has been allowed to go by without making the fullest use of this opportunity.

1.3 a.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)

At this monotonously late hour, I should like to ask one question and make one observation. The question concerns the transfer of pension rights. Many categories can do this, but there is no mention of the Armed Forces. When recruiting is so difficult for the police force, it would surely be a good idea to have some continuity of service conditions between the two, and Servicemen, at the end of their engagements, should be encouraged to enter the police force. Also, what is the reason for the extraordinarily restricted definition of Servicemen in Regulation 89, merely as a policeman who has at some stage served in the Armed Forces?

I suggest that the pay and pensions and conditions generally in the police force should now be in a special case. I hope that the Government will not be inhibited by any fears about comparability of wage claims or industrial disputes.

1.5 a.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks (Bristol, South)

The date of the coming into operation of this Statutory Instrument coincides with the introduction of decimalisation. I therefore wonder whether things have not been rushed a bit. There are substantial improvements which many of us would like to see, and I hope the Minister will keep an open mind on those matters.

Reference has been made to the new occupations which are being added in Schedule 6 and to the position of non-comparable employment, and I shall not, therefore, touch on those matters now. However, we ought to bear in mind that, as we are thinking of decimalisation, there is the possibility of our joining the European Economic Community, and this will mean an increase in the number of jobs which may arise—for example, membership of Interpol. As there will be free movement within the countries, so also there will be free movement of the criminal fraternity, and the reduction of customs barriers will mean much easier transfer of stolen goods and money. This will mean a far greater number of short visits and possible interchanges between the police forces of the various countries.

I should like to feel that as these Instruments are revised from time to time, there will be no deleterious effect on the standards of the British police because hon. Members will know that, for instance, on the question of retirement, in almost every other European country, apart from France, the retiring age is 60 at least, and in some cases it is even later.

There is a reference in paragraph 12 to police cadet pensions. I should like to know whether there is any news of progress with regard to the Police Cadet (Pensions) Regulations. If these are not yet finalised, will the Minister at this late stage consider extending the benefits to cadets under the age of 18? I understand that the argument is that they are not engaged on outside duties, but I cannot believe that inside duties are always free from risk. It is possible to imagine circumstances in which there could be a struggle inside a police station with a violent prisoner. Also these young lads attend public occasions such as football matches, and if some of their older colleagues should become engaged in crowd problems, involving violence, it is asking a lot of these young men to stand aside and not go to the aid of their colleagues.

I believe that the greatest thing that we can give to the police force is peace of mind, not only for themselves but for their families. I was therefore sorry to see in paragraph 12, dealing with injury received in the execution of duty, that there is no improvement on the previous Regulations.

I raise this point because recently a case came to my attention of a young constable who had made a non-periodic inspection of private premises and he had an accident on the premises, as a result of which he sustained an injury which eventually led to his being disabled out of the force. He is now working as a civilian inside a police station, but his prospects compared to what they were are very seriously damaged. The Federation has done all it can for him.

He did not bring his case to my attention with any thought that he might get it reopened and get some gain from it. His principal motive was that he was desperately concerned about his colleagues still in the force going out for a scheduled duty and having this uncertainty in their minds as to how they stood should they be involved in the same sort of circumstances. He gave me in correspondence the case of Central Railway v. Bates, 1921, and I believe that this whole business is still built on a number of decided cases. Some way should be found to give the police a greater sense of security and a greater feeling that they will not find themselves in this sort of dilemma should they come to grief when on duty. He told me that when there is a break-in the first question invariably is: who checked the premises? This aspect should be looked at very closely. There is a widening of police duties. Only recently we discussed the Fire Precautions Bill, under which inspectors may, if they have reasonable cause to think that they may be impeded in the execution of their duty, take a constable in with them. The constable then becomes at risk in the way I have mentioned, and just as there is the worry at the back of a man's mind about this sort of thing every time he goes on duty, there is the further worry, very often unspoken between a man and his wife, of whether he will meet with much more serious injury or possibly with death.

Schedule 3 deals with widows' pensions. While I agree that there has been a substantial advance here, in this day and age we could very well think of the younger man who is unfortunate enough to lose his life. Surely to goodness, we can say that there should then be a presumption of 20 years' service in assessing his widow's pension rights. We hope that there will be very few cases of this kind and that they will be far between, and it seems a very small price to pay for the tremendous peace of mind that would be bestowed on officers and their families.

There is a minor point. Paragraph 30(4), in page 26, deals with the case of police widows who are not covered by the provisions of the 1948 National Insurance legislation. How many of these good ladies are involved? It seems so trifling to worry about their getting an extra couple of pounds that I should have thought that this was a case where some sort of ex-gratia gesture could have been made in the same general spirit of the Government legislation.

I join in welcoming the Regulations. I hope that they will give peace of mind to those concerned, and that in the very near future there will be improvements of the kind that have been mentioned on both sides.

1.13 a.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris (Manchester, Openshaw)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on these important Regulations, which affect a group of dedicated public servants to whom the nation and the community in general owe a great deal. I was grateful for the lucid manner in which the Minister of State, Home Office presented them, but I hope that this atmosphere of almost complete approbation does not encourage either the hon. Gentleman or the Home Office to be complacent. Many people both here and in the country feel that although the Regulations envisage improvements in the scale of pensions the proposals are in some cases negative, and might even be thought to be almost parsimonious.

One feature of the Regulations to which I draw special attention is the constant reiteration of the phrase the policy at thority may, in their discretion". Possibly the best illustration occurs in Regulation 47: Where a member of a police dies while serving as such and no other award is payable under these Regulations, the police authority—(a) may, if in their discretion they think fit. … This phrase should be scrutinised more closely. As the Minister of State said, the police authority will express an opinion in these cases where men have given their lives in pursuing their duties as police officers. I say that in such cases discretion should not rest with the police authority. I accept that police authorities are composed of many worthy individuals, but if authorities are given discretion in some cases they will exercise it. Where a police officer loses his life in pursuing his duty and serving the community, his widow and dependants should have a statutory right to a scale pension worthy of the service he has rendered the nation.

I have noted the statements that in these circumstances a widow or dependant might receive an augmented or special pension. As will be seen from Regulation 32 on page 80, even an augmented pension is by no means overgenerous. The reference is to half of an officer's pensionable entitlement: Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the weekly amount of a widow's special pension calculated in accordance with this Part of this Schedule shall be equal to a half of her husband's average pensionable pay for a week. That is a not over-generous scale of pension for the widow of an officer who has given Es life in the service of the nation. I recognise that the Minister may well say that she will receive, in addition, a gratuity. I have been interested in this point for some time. Over the years I have collected some of the reports about policemen who have lost their lives or been seriously injured in incidents. I was moved by the tragic circumstances in which Inspector Barry John Taylor lost his life at Pudsey on 15th February, 1970. Inspector Taylor lost his life in the tragic circumstances where an automatic burglar alarm called the police to the premises of a mill in Pudsey at 12.40 on that day. Four officers, including Inspector Taylor, went to investigate and found a Mr. Riley shot dead in his office. Inspector Taylor went to the rear of the building and confronted a man with a sawn-off shotgun. A shot was fired and Inspector Taylor fell back into the arms of one of his colleagues. He died in hospital. It is sad to relate that Inspector Taylor was 30, married, with two young children.

Against the background of these circumstances I do not think that it could be claimed that the rates and scales of pensions envisaged in these Regulations are over-generous. Hon. Members may well take the view to which I have already given voice, namely that the scales can be improved upon and that they might be thought to be niggardly and parsimonious.

In December 1969, Detective Constable Angus Mackenzie was shot in Glasgow. Can it be said that these pension proposals are generous against the background of the service which he rendered to the community? In August, 1969, a London Policeman, Constable Michael Davies, was stabbed to death at Queensmere, a large pond on Wimbledon Common in South-West London. In that case a worthy local resident, Mrs. O'Connell, a member of the Wandsworth Borough Council, inaugurated an appeal for P.C. Davies' family. But is that the way to look after the widows, children and dependants of police officers who have lost their lives in pursuit of their duty? Ought we to leave it to public subscription, a whip-round in the "local"? On the contrary, we ought to give proper rates of pension as an entitlement.

I could cite many more individual cases—for instance, the three policemen who were shot in London in 1966—of police officers who have been injured and lost their lives in pursuit of their duty, but I shall take up no more time. I leave this thought with the Minister. These officers are entitled to the generosity of the nation which they serve, and I hope that the Regulations are only a beginning of our recognition of the contribution which they give.

1.23 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

I wholeheartedly support the Regulations, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), I consider that the Government—I mean all Governments, and I make no party point—are most ungenerous towards these essential servants of the nation. Civil servants can have their non-contributory pension. Policemen have to pay about 6¼ per cent. towards their pension. We all agree that the police are underpaid, undermanned and overworked, and the salary now being discussed and negotiated is inadequate.

Let us see that the police are treated like civil servants. Let them have a noncontributory pension scheme similar to the Civil Service scheme for gratuities and other benefits.

I do not believe that there is any other section of Government employees who are so shabbily treated. Admittedly, Members of Parliament are even worse treated than the police, but that is no reason why we should treat the police shabbily. We are responsible in both cases, but, unlike us, the police are not able to come to the House to argue their case.

Later this week, we are to have an opportunity to discuss giving a pension of £5,000 a year to a very honourable gentleman who has given great service, but only for 5½ years. I understand that later this week the Government are putting down a Motion so that I can discuss this at great length. I will then have the opportunity of comparging how Governments can act quickly to give large sums to people who—and I say this with the greatest respect—are not so worthy and so much entitled to the money as these people of whom we are talking.

It was said quite rightly that no one would object to the police getting adequate salaries and there would be no question of comparability. I agree with this generally but there are other State servants who are just as important as the police. There are the firemen who also do a good job and often sacrifice their lives. They are not as fairly or reasonably treated as they might be. I ask that these people be given a better crack of the whip than they have so far had. Let us give them the same kind of consideration we give to other State servants.

I read in this week's Sunday Express, I think, of three or four police officers who had been on a charge and found not guilty but were told that they had to get out of the force or their pensions might be affected. If that is a true report it is a shocking thing. If these policemen —exonerated, without a stain on their characters—were subject to that kind of blackmail I hope that the Minister will look into it. This week an Order is to be laid dealing with the payment of suspended policemen. It is a terrible thing that a member of a police force, before he is found guilty, should be suspended without pay or on two-thirds pay. I hope that we will give to police officers the same conditions as we give to civil servants.

1.28 a.m.

Mr. Sharples

With the leave of the House. I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his arguments and deal with the case he has raised. It is always difficult to reply on personal cases in such a debate. I will look at the point he has raised.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) for the welcome he gave to these Regulations. We have, as it were, exchanged seats in the House since the General Election. I certainly took his point about trying to issue guidance in sorting through the Regulations, particularly as one amending Regulation follows another. I will examine the points to see whether anything can be done. The hon. Gentleman talked about the provisions for widening the scope of those employments contained in Schedule 6 and he particularly asked about British Rail. The position about British Rail is that discussions are going on. There is no reason why other organisations of that kind should not be added. They can easily be added to the list.

The hon. Member also asked about the commutation of pensions for people with under 30 years' service. I should like to consider that point. I note what the hon. Member says. His next point concerned Regulation 15(e). He asked for an explanation. This is pure consolidation. I looked up the 1966 Regulations and I found this provision in Regulation 109, word for word. It is derived from Section 4(1) of the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act, 1944. Policemen can count wartime service in the Armed Forces only up to a date fixed by the Secretary of State. The reason is that some men served in the Forces after the date at which they could be released. Where a man did so for his own purposes rather than in the national interest there would be no justification for his being allowed to count the extended period in the Armed Forces for police pension purposes.

The hon. Member asked about awards for service of those who served less than 25 years. He will know that details of the awards for short service are contained in draft Regulation 21 of the associated Schedule—Schedule 2, Part II. The award consists of a gratuity for those with service of less than 10 years and a pension where service is 10 years or more.

The next point raised by the hon. Member concerned ill health pensions. I understand that the enhancement of service for pension purposes after retirement on ill health grounds is a matter which could be considered in the review of pensions that the Police Commission is likely to undertake in the very near future.

The hon. Member asked about the counting of war service for pension purposes. He will know that this matter has been under consideration on many occasions. l have little doubt that he had to consider it when he occupied the position that I now hold. A proposal that half such service should count received consideration in 1947, but it was not conceded because the local authority associations strongly opposed it. In 1952 the Oaksey Committee on Police Conditions of Service recommended that the war service of new entrants should not be pensionable. I understand that the matter has been raised on many occasions under both Governments, but I should be misleading the hon. Member if I were to hold out any hope of there being much likelihood of a reversal of the position.

Mr. Elysian Morgan

I am not sure whether I dealt with the matter during my tenure at the Home Office, as a junior Minister, but does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is particularly unfortunate that at a time when persons employed by central Government bodies allowed this period of war service in these circumstances to be counted towards pension local government bodies succeeded in making an exceptional reservation in relation to police service? They are out of step with the general pattern in this connection.

Mr. Sharples

I appreciate the hon. Member's point, and also the views of the Federation, but for reasons that I think the hon. Member understands I should be misleading him and the House if I held out much hope of a change.

The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks), raised the question of awards for police cadets. If the present Regulations are approved by Parliament this evening it is my right hon. Friend's intention to make Police Cadet Pensions Regulations which will come into operation for parliamentary purposes on 22nd February of this year and become fully operative on 1st April of this year. They will apply, with modifications, certain provisions of the Police Pensions Regulations to police cadets aged 18 years or more.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South, also raised the question of decimal currency. I can tell him that, as he knows, the Regulations now before the House are expressed in terms of decimal currency, and the roundings have been made so that they do not operate to the disadvantage of any pensioner.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) referred to the question of service in the Armed Forces. Service in the Armed Forces is not transferable. Because of the incompatibility between Forces' pensions schemes and other pension schemes there are no transfer arrangements between Armed Forces' and any other public service pension schemes, and I am afraid that it would not be possible to act in the way he suggests.

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member for Bristol, South, the number of widows not covered by National Insurance pensions. I have not been able to find out the information in time.

Mr. Michael Cocks

I appreciate that it is a little unfair to ask at this time of night, and it would not be reasonable to expect, the hon. Gentleman to produce the figures now, but would he, as a matter of interest, look at this, because I think the number must be small, and it seems a pity to put it in black and white, as it were, that we are not going to give to them?

Mr. Sharples

Certainly I will look at it, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), said he hoped the reception the Regulations had had would not encourage the Home Office to be over-complacent. I can assure him that we are never complacent in considering matters of vital interest to the police and the public service. No Home Office Minister could ever be complacent in dealing with these matters.

He referred to the question of augmented pension and said it was not overgenerous. Of course it is not overgenerous. No pension in these circumstances could be over-generous, no matter what the amount. He referred to the actual amount of the pension. I am sure the House realises that, in addition to that, there is an award of £3,000 as well.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to Regulation 47(1)(a). It is quite true that under paragraph (a) gratuity to a dependent relative not exceeding the policeman's pension contribution is a discretionary award, but I would draw his attention to Regulation 47(1)(b) which says that there must be paid so much of the policeman's contribution as has not been paid out by way of gratuity under Regulation 41(1)(a). The discretion conferred by the paragraph to which the hon. Gentleman referred therefore only determines the person or persons who receive gratuity, not the total sum which must be paid by way of gratuity under the Regulations. I hope that that clears the point, which is complex.

Mr. Charles R. Morris

It is indeed complex. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The point I was making was on the phrase "in their discretion", which permeates the whole Regulations. If the Regulations go through discretion reposes in the police authority on a number of issues within the Regulations. Is it right that the police authority should be given this all-embracing discretion?

Mr. Sharples

I think that that is a matter of opinion. My own feeling is that in the kinds of cases where discretion is given to the police authority, cases where discretion is given as to how the money is divided, it may be very much easier, in many cases, and the result possibly much more generous in some cases, if discretion is given to the police authority. Where we are dealing with the kind of situation which we have been discussing this evening, my own feeling is that if we tie things too rigidly we may sometimes not get the generosity we might otherwise have got. I think police authorities, on the whole, look at their role asking to interpret generously. Having said that, I hope the House will agree to pass the draft Regulations. I am grateful for the manner in which all hon. Members who have spoken in this short debate have taken the Regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Police Pensions Regulations 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.