§ 9. Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce a scheme to compensate police officers or their families injured or killed in the course of their duties.
§ Mr. Giles ShawSpecial provision is already made in the police pensions scheme for police officers who retire as the result of injury on duty and for the dependants of those who die from such injuries.
§ Dr. MarekHow can the Minister sit on the Treasury Bench with equanimity when the Government of which he is a member pursue policies which in recent times have led to an unparalleled increase in crime and violence in our society? How can he sit on that Bench and expect our policemen and policewomen to carry out his laws when they have to rely, if they are injured, on completely unsatisfactory pension schemes and completely unsatisfactory compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? The Minister knows that it is high time that something was done about it.
§ Mr. ShawThe hon. Gentleman must recognise that the pension scheme provisions that are made for the police are substantial. The widow of a police officer who dies as a result of injuries on duty is entitled to a pension of 45 per cent. of her husband's average pensionable pay. If he died in special circumstances, such as attempting to save life, his widow's pension would be 50 per cent. of her husband's pensionable pay. The hon. Gentleman is aware that many other substantial benefits are available to deal with the situation. However, may I take him firmly to task for believing that we should be any the less committed to ensuring that there is proper policing of public disorders, purely because there is the real difficulty of dealing with officers who, on many occasions, face substantial injury as a result of looking after the public peace on behalf of many right hon. and hon. Members and the people outside Parliament.
§ Mr. Bill WalkerWill my hon. Friend, when looking into the matter of police compensation, consider the dramatic changes that are occurring, with the growth of terrorism, in the tasks of our police and others working in the public service?
§ Mr. ShawI share my hon. Friend's concern, and I know that compensation for injuries, which do not necessarily lead to retirement, is a matter for current discussion between the Police Federation and my Department.
§ Mr. LoydenWill the Minister examine the long delays in settling criminal injuries compensation cases? For instance, a policeman injured in the Toxteth riot had not received settlement after three years. Is that situation satisfactory?
§ Mr. ShawI assure the hon. Gentleman that every case that comes before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will be most carefully and speedily dealt with, because we all recognise the importance of ensuring that proper payment is made.
§ Sir John FarrWill my hon. Friend assure me that the malicious damage that has occurred to the homes of police officers in certain parts of the country will be properly considered? Will compensation be given to officers who lose not only their homes but their belongings as well?
§ Mr. ShawI would like from my hon. Friend details of that occurrence. It may be that it occurred in a part of the United Kingdom with which I am not very familiar.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWhat about compensation for families of police officers in Northern Ireland who have died at the hands of paramilitary groups? Why do the Government not interfere with the sourcing of money to fund those groups? What can the Minister say about what happened in The Hague yesterday, when the Home Secretary was approached by Mr. Alan Dukes, the Irish Justice Minister, who asked the British Government to act to ban kidnap insurance as it affects Ulster? What will the Government do about these matters—sit on their backside as usual?
§ Mr. ShawThe first thing that the hon. Gentleman might do is to vote in favour of the prevention of terrorism legislation. He has the effrontery to attack the Government for doing what they have done, when, consistently, the Labour party has voted against that. On the question of my right hon. Friend's motives in consulting other security Ministers on the matter, the hon. Gentleman has made remarks that are scarcely worth even ignoring.
§ Mr. Peter BruinvelsWill my hon. Friend consider the plight of police drivers who, in answering 999 calls or hoax calls, are involved in car accidents? As a result, many of them are off work for many weeks, and some, unfortunately, die. Will the Minister guarantee that payment for the relatives of those police officers, who were doing their best to protect our country, will be speeded up, because many of them are still waiting for such payment?
§ Mr. ShawI assure my hon. Friend that an officer who retires as a result of an injury on duty—and that includes response to calls as described by my hon. Friend—is entitled to an ill-health pension, an injury pension, and an injury gratuity. If totally disabled, he is also entitled to a lump sum payment of five times his pensionable pay.
§ Mr. SoleyDoes the Minister accept that his miserable and evasive replies on this question demonstrate that the Government have no concern for the police other than in words? Is it not a fact that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the private insurance pension schemes available for the police are grossly inadequate for many of the injuries and deaths that occur? Does he not agree that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board takes far too long and delivers far too little?
§ Mr. ShawI understand that when the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) seeks to try to reassert his new-found interest in protecting the police he is looking for ways and means of doing so. I assure him that this Government have done a lot to improve police pay and conditions. I accept that there may be a case for further improvement, but he will recognise that, in relation to public service provision, that which is now available to the police service represents the top that can be paid.
§ Mr. HumeIs the Minister aware, following the question of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), that previously in the House the Prime Minister has agreed with me that the ransom insurance that exists in this country encourages kidnap and ransom? In the light of the Prime Minister's answer, can the Minister say why nothing has been done to—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is very wide of the subject, but the Minister may answer the question.
§ Mr. ShawI take note of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I should like to invite my right hon. Friend to write to the hon. Gentleman about that provision.