I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, at the beginning, to insert:

"Subject to the provisions of this Act."

It is probably correct to say that the new Clause depends on the insertion of some such words as these, but on the other hand, this Amendment depends on the exact form of the new Clause. There is no question of principle on this matter, although there may be some discussion as to the exact way in which the Bill should be altered. We desire to do two things. The first is that there shall be a complete removal of any doubt as to the legal entitlement of a police officer to a pension. It was felt by some Members that the Bill, as phrased, did not give that specific assurance, and to remedy that I have put down a number of Amendments on behalf of the Government.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman who, I think, has accurately stated the position. I do not think there is a difference of principle between us now. What we are anxious to do is to pull back into the statute as much as possible in order to give assurances to members of Police Forces. I agree with him that we cannot pull everything back, and that when it is desired to make certain improvements, to do that under regulation is a distinct advantage. We wish to put a bottom into the conditions of the statute for the further assurance of police officers, but, having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, and on the understanding that we shall be able to discuss the new Clause on the Order Paper, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move in page I, line 12, to leave out from "forces," to the end of line 15.

Yes, if the Committee have no objection.

The ages which have been put down in these new Clauses are those laid down in the White Paper and are in operation at present. We believe that they should be put into this Bill. Up till now the position has been that the ages could not be altered without the matter being brought before Parliament in the form of a Bill. In so far as they will, in future, be made the subject of regulation, we think it will give future entrants to Police Forces less security of tenure, so to speak, than they have had before. I see no reason why, in a case of this sort, the ages should not be put into the Statute, as they were before. The wording is taken from the existing Police Pensions Act.

I would like—

On a point of Order. This Amendment is now law by Section 1 of the Police Pensions Act 1921 and, that being so—

The hon. and learned Member appears to be arguing the merits of the case.

After I had prepared the ground, I was going to submit that this Amendment was out of Order, and that it could not be accepted because it is already part of the law. I was trying to justify my point. In the First Schedule on page 7 it is indicated that there is to be no repeal of that particular provision or any other provision in the Police Act until regulations have been made.

The hon. Member is arguing the merits of the Amendment. That is not a point of Order.

Very well, I will leave it at that.

I support the Amendment, and I ask the Home Secretary to see that this provision about the retiring age goes into the Bill. The question of whether something should be left to regulation or whether it should be in the Bill will crop up over and over again. In supporting this proposal, I would point out considerations which should induce us to put this matter in the Bill, and not leave it to regulation. There is a generalisation to be made here. Whatever does not go into the Bill will be dealt with by a regulation after discussion by a particular body, which is the Police Council. The Police Council is not, in the trade union sense of the word, a representative body, although it has representatives of the Police Force sitting on it.

I agree with 90 per cent. of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I recognise that one thing that ought to be in the Bill—and I am all for it—is the existing retiring age. Does the hon. Gentleman approve the figure of 55 for compulsory retirement for sergeants and constables?

During the war we took the view that because of the shortage of manpower it was undesirable to send a man out at 60. He was capable of making an effective contribution to the nation. The Treasury by regulations enabled men to stay on beyond the normal retiring age of 60 until the age of 65. There is no reason why that should not be done in the Police Force, if necessary.

The best thing is to do it now.

If we want to do it now there is still no reason why we cannot have the normal retiring age in the Act of Parliament, and at the same time make provision in exceptional circumstances for moving that age limit up or down.

Would that be possible? The word in this Clause is "compulsory," and if the Act says that retirement shall be compulsory on attaining a certain age we cannot alter it by regulation.

There are more ways of killing a cat than by drowning it in cream. We could adopt the method used in the last war under which a man retired at the appropriate age and was then immediately re-engaged as a temporary. That consideration ought not to deter us from putting the retirement age in the Bill.

I support the Home Secretary in his general desire to be free from the restrictions of the Police Pensions Act, 1921. I think that there is an immediate case that those factors in the pensions provisions which are likely to be of a variable character over the years should quite properly be the subject of regulations. I do not see how the particular provision which is proposed by the Opposition could come under that heading. It was enacted in the Police Pensions Act 1921, and so far has stood the test of time. In the White Paper which the Home Secretary has issued he notifies that he proposes to put into operation regulations in almost the same terms as those of the original Act. Therefore it would be best if this provision were substantive in the Bill itself.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is really begging the whole question. The Home Secretary has announced what he will do under these regulations, but, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has said, the police are quite satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman, but he will not always be there. The whole argument is that it is better to have security by Act of Parliament than under regulations.

That is precisely the point I am putting in support of the hon. Gentleman. I entirely support his desire in this matter, and I was quoting in support the fact that the Home Secretary, although he said he wished to be free from the confines of the Act, nevertheless himself proposed to re-enact this same point under regulations, which only goes to indicate that the Act itself could not have been particularly restrictive over the 25 years since it was enacted.

I quite sympathise with those who have said that they would like to see filled in the empty spaces of this Bill. The point I want to make, which I made somewhat prematurely before, is that in the meantime the provisions that are being referred to are the law as it now exists. In fact, the whole of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, is the law at the present moment, and will remain the law notwithstanding this particular Bill.

It seems to me that the burden of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that we should deny to Parliament as a whole the liberty which every Member of Parliament possesses—of repeating himself.

That was not the point at all. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is in a difficulty here. He does not take into account what is going to be the position on this point of redundancy. My submission was and still is that the form of this Amendment is not in order, with all respect, because it is seeking to enact what is already the law, and it seeks to do nothing else.

There are times when I understand the attitude of non-legal Members towards Members of the legal profession. This is one of those moments. We should get back to the merits of the question, which is really very simple: Should there be provision in the Bill to say when a police officer retires and when he is entitled to pension? If there is any merit in the argument presented by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) it can be dealt with by a small consequential Amendment to the Schedule. We need not worry about it.

I add my support to the plea that we should have as much as we can in the Bill itself rather than in regulations. Within my constituency I have a police estate—

Do I understand the hon. Member to say that he has a police State in his constituency?

No, Sir, I said a police estate. So long as we have a Government like the one we now have, we shall never have a police State in this country. I have been surprised at the number of personal letters that individual Members of the Police Forces have addressed to me. They are not the usual agitation type of letter. I could quote from a number of them. I will quote one sentence from one letter. The point it contains is raised in a number of the letters. This particular member of the Police Force wrote:

"The members of the service have felt a comparative security so far as pensions are concerned, in as much as they were not subject to the whims of successive Secretaries of State."

The discussion has rather centred upon the age of retirement. I would like to point out that when I started the discussion I referred to two new Clauses. There is another printed on page 11, relating to entitlement. It is equally important that entitlement to pension should be enshrined in the statute.

As far as the last point raised by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) is concerned, I would say that the proposal standing on the Order Paper in my name is intended to deal with that point and to secure entitlement. I should prefer to argue that point when we come to it.

I should not like to have it discounted by what has just been said by the Home Secretary. I really should have a bonus share issue, in order to compensate me for any loss.

I am sure we are anxious to remove any misgiving there may he on this matter in the Police Force. The White Paper makes it clear that the Bill is designed to cover three cases: Compulsory retirement on ground of age; compulsory retirement for any member of a Police Force who is qualified for a two-thirds pension and is required by the police authority to retire on the ground that his retention in the Force would not be in the best interests of efficiency, on the lines of Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1921, and compulsory retirement of a man who is medically unfit for performing the work of a constable. This third case is not covered, unfortunately, by the existing law. It is a gap in the law which we think ought to be filled. The police authority probably has the power, in cases of unfitness, to dismiss the man, but it is doubtful if the man is then entitled to a pension at all. Everyone will agree that it is a very serious blemish in the law. It is an example of the way in which things crop up in the administration of a law, which makes it desirable that there should be a fairly easy remedy for dealing with a weakness when it is revealed.

Surely, if a gap exists, it should be closed? But is it not the case that every other superannuation scheme in the public service provides for pensions on retirement on the ground of ill health and provides for it in the Act?

I do not propose to make any general statement with regard to that, because someone may discover some other Act in which there is a similar blemish, or a blemish which would be taken as a parallel. I say that it is a blemish on the existing police pensions scheme and that it is one which I have undertaken, in the White Paper, to remedy by the regulations that I propose to make.

The right hon. Gentleman has asked for greater flexibility to cover any difficult cases, but I feel that greater flexibility will lead to greater fear on the part of the police themselves, because this is essentially a psychological problem. I would like to put this aspect of the problem to the Home Secretary. He has said, and we welcome it, that he is going to set up this committee, but I would like to see the committee set up very early indeed, because I think this is a most urgent matter. When the committee reports, the right hon. Gentleman wants to be free to translate their recommendations quickly into practice, but it is at that point also that he is going to come up against the psychological problem, because it will still be there and the police will want an assurance that those recommendations will be contained in an Act of Parliament.

There seems to me to be a time factor which the Home Secretary has overlooked regarding the regulations which are to be made. They are to be subject to an affirmative Resolution, and, when we introduce rather quick changes, they may upset the planning of their future careers by members of the Police Forces. When there is an Act of Parliament, on the other hand, there is generally a year or so—sometimes only six months—before it comes into force, whereas the affirmative Resolution comes into force at once. The fact that people are given greater warning by Act of Parliament is a further indication of the need for making these proposals subject to an Act of Parliament rather than an affirmative Resolution.

I have never found that it requires much planning to deal with an increase of salary, and to be told that it is a good thing to have six months' warning, instead of having it done within 40 days, is new. I am hound to say that the difficulty of recruiting is very largely due to the fact that the economic circumstances of other people have so greatly improved. The attractions of security and good pensions and so on that used to belong to the police have now been largely discounted by the way in which these things have been secured by other people. I do not think there is any chance of anything happening to worsen their conditions.

I appreciate very much the way in which the Home Secretary has approached this matter, but I am still not happy about it. On the one side, we have the actual desire, expressed on every side of the Committee, to give the police the security of having their conditions enshrined in the statute. On the other side, we have the very reasonable argument of the right hon. Gentleman that that ties his hands, or the hands of any Home Secretary, in making improvements which may be desirable from time to time. This committee is to be set up, and it seems to me that, in the ordinary course of events, by far the best thing to do is to wait until the committee has reported, and then put its recommendations into the statute, but we are here up against the difficulty, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, of the impact of the new Health Service.

I appreciate very much the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put the point forward, and I will certainly consider the suggestion he has made. One of the proposals we are making is that new entrants to Police Forces shall suffer a reduction of pension at 65, but that they will also make a reduced contribution. This is done because of the coming into operation of the National Health Scheme on 5th July next. The present serving officer has the right of option whether he will take the full benefits under the National Health Act or the reduced benefit. If he opts for the reduced benefit, he pays the reduced rate of contribution as from the time he opts. I certainly could not contemplate putting in an Amendment that would vitiate the condition with regard to the new entrant, as far as the National Insurance Act is concerned, but I will consider whether, apart from that, it may not be possible so to frame this Bill as to make it clear that anything else that worsened the position of a police officer should be done by Act of Parliament, and not by regulation. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have made the reservation in regard to the new entrant and the National Insurance Scheme.

I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would tell me whether the terms of reference of the committee which he proposes to set up will include consideration of the position of present widows. At the moment the police are not so much concerned about themselves as about the question of the widows.

I have put down an Amendment to the Bill in connection with present widows which I hope will enable the matter to be disposed of before the committee meets. However, if the committee desire to suggest something further with regard to widows, that, of course, will be within their terms of reference.

Thank you.

I am sorry to find myself less accommodating than my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston). I must say that I am not happy about this. If one takes the logic of what the Home Secretary has said, in defending the method of regulation as against the Bill, we are travelling a very great distance indeed. He put forward two arguments. The first was that we have to do something about the coming into effect of the new Health Service Act. That is a very fair argument to make. The other argument was that, at some time in the future, he may want to alter conditions in the police service, following upon the report of the committee of inquiry. Let us see where those two arguments take us. The new Health Service Act is not going to affect the police only.

I inadvertently used the term "Health Service Scheme"; it should be "National Insurance Act."

I also used the wrong term, but we both mean the same thing. Let us see where that carries us. It will not only alter the position of policemen; it will affect the position of teachers, local government officers, prison officers, and local government servants. Are we to have the same arguments in respect of all the other services, because they will be affected by the new Act? Are the statutory provisions of pension to be removed from them, and passed over to somebody else to make by regulation?

I think the last thing Cromwell wanted to do was to die at the last ditch. I understand that his motto was, "Trust in God and keep your powder dry. Live to fight another day." That, I think, is the line which the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has adopted. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has not done more than reiterate the arguments he made in his original speech. He should really keep himself up to date, because what we propose to do with regard to the police officers under National Insurance has already been done for the local government service. It has been done by regulation, which was not prayed against in the House.

I beg to move, in page it, line 17, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."

I do not want to seem ungrateful and look a gift Amendment in the mouth, but really, the concession which the Home Secretary has made is very small. All that he is putting into the Bill is an obligation on himself or his successors to make regulations dealing with the five subjects on the top of page 2. There is no provision whatsoever as to the amount of pensions which he shall be compelled to insert in those regulations, and, as I understand it, he would comply with the Bill, as amended, if he made regulations providing for a pension of 1d. per year under those five heads. Therefore, though in principle it is a goad thing for the right hon. Gentleman to bind himself to introduce regulations, it would be a pity if the Committee were left under the misunderstanding that he has bound himself to do very much. All that he has done is to bind himself to make regulations covering these five subjects. He has not put into the Bill any undertaking to provide adequate pensions under any of those five headings. Before the Committee congratulate themselves too noisily on the concession that they have obtained from the Home Secretary, they should appreciate that it is very small, although very welcome.

What the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said is not at all well founded. The Amendment really comes well within the assurance that the Home Secretary has just given. In any case, it is perfectly true that to substitute the word "shall" for "may" is better because the First Schedule indicates quite clearly that the 1921 Act is not to be repealed until regulations are made. Therefore, in any case, even apart from that word, it is obligatory upon the Home Secretary to make regulations before he can interfere with the present provisions. Under the 1921 Act there is a scale: the amounts are there. The Home Secretary has said that if the situation worsens appropriate words will be found to deal with the changed situation. Therefore, what the hon. Member said was absolutely unjustified.

I cannot let those remarks pass. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has suggested that this Amendment would be very much better if the Home Secretary introduced a totally different Amendment on the Report stage. That is hypothetical, and it may well be true, but it is no answer to the point that I have made. I do not wish to detain the Committee, because this is a small point, but this Amendment is in itself an extremely small concession. That is the point, and no amount of reference to other Amendments which are not even yet on the Paper, never mind in the Bill, can get away from that point. It is a very small mouse which this particular mountain has produced.

I am engaged on a Bill upstairs in a Committee on which there are 20 lawyers. It does not lead to speed. There are only two taking part in the discussions so far, but it is clear that we are running true to form. This was not claimed to be a big Amendment, and, while it is true that the hon. Gentleman said that he did not intend to look it in the mouth, he did start pulling the lips back. This Amendment is introduced to deal with a difficulty which was pointed out recently. I do not claim more for it than that, but it is to be read in the light of the pledge that I gave on the previous Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, after "die," to insert "or have died."

"A class of widow which will never be forgotten is the pre-1918 widow. It was on behalf of those actual widows, as well as certain other unsatisfactory conditions, that police took unprecedented action with a view to effecting improvements. The tragedy was that whereas it was decided to grant pensions to widows, the decision became effective only henceforth and not in retrospect, and thus it is that the very widows whose plight caused men to revolt are still without a police pension. Throughout the years, efforts have been made to get the position rectified, but without good result. As the years pass by so a number of unfortunate widows pass on without having received that little assistance which could have been so easily given by any Government, with so little effort and at such a small cost."

I rise to support the Amendment, and I would say at once that I do not share the twice repeated doubts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Major Bruce) as to the effectiveness of my draftsmanship. We are giving the right hon. Gentleman precisely the power he wanted, and I observe with great pleasure that the Home Secretary himself has put down a later Amendment on the Order Paper, at the top of page row, which certainly seeks to extend his own powers in this connection. I think we shall find there is not a very great deal between us. It would be out of Order for me to comment on this later Amendment, or to refer to the other Amendment standing in the names of my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, which is going to help the right hon. Gentleman further upon his way, but I hope it may be permissible for me to say that the utility of our Amendment, of course in connection with the Amendment he himself carried a minute or two ago, is that it is directive, whereas his Amendment as to the later Clause is still only permissive. There is an important distinction in that fact which he may bear in mind.

While I am entirely neutral with regard to the draftsmanship of this Amendment, I rise to say briefly that I support the principle underlying it and I shall look forward to hearing what the Home Secretary has to say.

I want to add the voice of Scotland on this matter. I have authority—not officially—because I have been asked by the Retired Police Forces' Association of Scotland to put this point, among others. This is an Association which has grown very rapidly in the last year or two and it has grown because the men concerned are beginning to feel that something must be done and they are getting a very considerable measure of public support throughout Scotland. I am told the membership of the Association is now over 2,200 and, when the right hon. Gentleman bears in mind the relatively small number of policemen in Scotland, that is a testimony that this is a matter of great importance to these men.

I wish to urge upon the Home Secretary the claim of these widows. Looking at the White Paper one notes the provision which it is intended to make for widows of existing policemen. I think, therefore, one is more apprehensive, as there is no reference in the White Paper to these pensions for the 1918 and pre-1918 widows and for widows of officers who have been killed or who have died in the service, when one sees that it is necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to put down certain Amendments of his own. I am very doubtful whether these Amendments are sufficient to meet the point.

I want to focus my right hon. Friend's attention on two particular features. There are the pre-1918 cases for whom no provision was made. If my right hon. Friend by this Measure makes provision for them out of public funds he will also be saving on public funds. These pre-1918 widows have to live. It is a matter of concern to many of them that they have had to go to public assistance. What provision my right hon. Friend makes for them by this Measure out of public funds will be saved on other public funds.

The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) asked me some questions about the history of this matter. When I bring a Bill before the House of Commons I endeavour to listen to the arguments that are adduced with regard to it. On the Measures I have introduced I have always shown myself willing to consider the arguments; and when the arguments have appeared strong I have always endeavoured to make what has seemed to me to be proper concession to the views of hon. Members, either in Committee or on Report stage. I listened to the arguments that were adduced a fortnight ago, and it was quite obvious that, in spite of what had happened subsequently to the Report of the Snell Committee, there was a feeling in the House of Commons that this matter ought to be dealt with. Therefore, I have endeavoured by an Amendment I have down, and to which reference has been made, to deal with it.

There are certain Amendments down in that "cyclic order" for which I certainly do not take drafting responsibility.

My hon. Friend took responsibility for the drafting of this one. Unfortunately, I cannot, like the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) be impartial as to draftsmanship; and I am advised that this Amendment would not do what its movers seek to do. The wording does limit provision to the widows of persons who have died whilst serving as members of the Police Forces, and does not extend it to cases where the women's husbands have already retired; and consequently it is inconsistent with Clause 2 (1), which deals with application of the regulations. After all, the main plea—the emotional plea—has been for the pre-1918 widows, the widows of people who have died prior to the coming into force of the regulations which have not yet been drafted. I am anxious to take powers that will be as wide as possible, and I have put down an Amendment to Clause 2, an Amendment which, I am advised, would cover every policeman's widow existing at the time of the passing of the Measure. I hope it will enable me to deal with widows between 1948 and 1951.

I think the right hon. Gentleman's statement has to be amplified to this extent, that it does not deal with the widows of policemen who married after retirement or who remarried after retirement.

I am not at this stage going to argue my Amendment to Clause 2. That would be going too far. What I am trying to point out is that the Amendment now before the Committee would not, in fact, achieve the objects my hon. Friends have in view. I suggest that we shall find when we come to my Amendment that, at any rate, it covers all the points so far as my having powers is concerned. I would suggest, therefore, that this Amendment should be withdrawn. When we come to my Amendment I shall have an opportunity of indicating its range and scope.

I would point out to my right hon. Friend that I claim only credit for the inspiration of the Amendment, not the drafting. In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I call the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) to move the next Amendment, in page 2, line 21. I would suggest that this later Amendment, and the proposed new Schedule (Scales of Pensions), could very conveniently be discussed at the same time.

In view of the undertaking that the right hon. Gentleman gave a short while ago, that he was going to look into the possibility of putting a statutory bottom into the provisions, I would not propose at this stage to move the Amendment.

If the hon. Gentleman would formally move his Amendment it would give me an opportunity to make a statement.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:

"Provided that the scale of pensions made in any such regulations shall not fall below the rates provided in the Schedule (Scales of Pensions) to this Act"

I am obliged to the hon. Member for meeting my convenience in this matter. At the moment a committee of the Police Council is considering the issue raised in the proposed Schedule. As will be seen from the Schedule, a complicated piece of Parliamentary work is involved in dealing with the problem. I am informed that the report of that committee is likely to be received fairly soon, and that it will recommend certain improvements in the scale. One of the difficulties of putting the scale into the Bill would be that, when the Bill is passed we should need another Bill to carry out the improvements which I anticipate will be recommended. While the hon. Member will understand that what I said on his previous Amendment governs my relationship to this Amendment, there is an even stronger reason for not getting this matter stereotyped in the Bill at the present moment.

As the Committee has undoubtedly noticed, there is a remarkable, no doubt coincidental, similarity between the proposed Schedule on the Order Paper and the Schedule in the appendix to the White Paper. Could the Home Secretary tell us whether it is still his intention, notwithstanding what he has said, to introduce by regulation the Schedule in the White Paper, or whether he will leave the whole matter over, and subsequently introduce a regulation covering whatever proposals the committee may report, and which he may accept?

It will all depend on the date of the report. Obviously, it will be necessary to have regulations re-enacting the existing Schedule if no report has been made at that time. If the report is received between now and the publication of the regulations I might be able to include the recommended Schedule in lieu of the one now found in the Police Pensions Act, 1921. It is all a question of timing. There will be a Schedule, so nobody will lose his rights merely because, for a few weeks or months, no scale of entitlement has been published.

I am obliged to the Home Secretary. I think this falls within the undertaking he gave, and which I need not repeat.

Yes.

When I put down this Amendment I realised that these negotiations were taking place, and I anticipated there would be a difficulty here for that reason. Provided that between now and Report the Home Secretary will, as he says, examine the question of giving some sense of security that future conditions shall not be worse than they are, I am perfectly content to let the matter rest. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out from "provision" to "as" in line 26.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert:

"(4) Where—

(a) a pension or allowance after being granted has subsequently in pursuance of this Act been declared to have been forfeited; or

(b) any person claims as of right a pension, allowance or gratuity under this Act, and the police authority do not admit the claim; or

(c) any person claims as of right a pension, allowance or gratuity under this Act larger than that granted to that person;

the person aggrieved may apply to the police authority for a re-consideration of the case, and, if aggrieved by the decision upon such re-consideration, may apply to the next praticable court of quarter sessions for the county within which the member of a police force concerned last served, or if he last served in the police force, of a borough having a separate police force and a separate court of quarter sessions, then to the next practicable court of quarter sessions for that borough, and that court, after inquiry into the case, may make such order in the matter as appears to the court just; but nothing in this section shall confer a right to appeal against the exercise of any discretion, or against any decision which is declared by this Act to be final.

(5) An appeal shall lie on a point of law from any decision of quarter sessions under this section to the High Court in accordance with rules of court, and the decision of the High Court shall be final, but in all other respects the decision of quarter sessions shall be final."

In this matter our respective objects are the same, but there are certain points in which the hon. Member's Amendment is defective when compared with the proposals contained in the new Clause which stands in my name—(Appeals). This Bill repeats Section 17 of the Police Pensions Act, 1921. For instance, the Amendment makes no provision for specifying which is the appropriate quarter sessions in the case of the Metropolitan Police Force and the City of London Police Force. Obviously, these are drafting points which only a Government draftsman can really pick up. The Amendment does not deal with the complication of the force established under the Police (Overseas Service) Act. It provides that there should he no right of appeal against decisions made under the Act, which are declared to be final. It omits any application to Scotland, and makes no provision for dealing with medical appeals. I suggest that in those particulars the new Clause which I have drafted and put on the Order Paper makes the necessary amendment to this Bill in adequate terms. I am accepting the principle of the points raised in the discussion we had a fortnight ago, and I suggest that it would be better if this Amendment were withdrawn, and we had our discussion on the issue when we reached the new Clause.

Why should a policeman who is drawing his pension be punished because he commits some offence contrary to the regulations? That principle applies nowhere else. The man is drawing a pension for which he has paid, and to which lie is entitled. Why should he forfeit that pension because he does not comply with the regulations? That principle applies in no other direction, and I do not see why it should apply here.

My hon. Friend must remember that the policeman is not the only person who suffers forfeiture if he contravenes the conditions under which the pension has been granted. A policeman is in a very advantageous position in regard to pension as compared with most other members of the community. He is also in possession, as a result of his professional life, of a great deal of information about his fellow citizens, and it is very necessary to ensure that this information shall not be disclosed when he leaves the Force to the detriment of all concerned. I would also point out that the number who suffer forfeiture of pension under the existing law is very small indeed compared with the total number of pensioners. It is essential to have powers to deal very severely with any departure from the standards we have a right to expect from ex-Members of these Forces.

I take exception to one remark which was made, and that is that a man has paid for his pension. That is not the case. He pays for only part of his pension, and the other part comes from public funds. That point should be borne in mind when statements of that sort are made.

In view of the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert:

"(7) The application of this Act to the City of London police force shall not prejudice any right possessed at the date of the passing of this Act by any member of that force."

I think the case which has been quoted is covered by the undertaking given that we shall preserve all the rights which were in existence on 28th July, 1921. We know of the case, and provision is to be made in the regulations to cover it. The words of this Amendment have been lifted out of the old Act. They were inserted in that Act to cover a very different matter. They were inserted to safeguard the position of the then City Commissioner who was drawing a pension from Liverpool, and they had the accidental effect of preserving the rights of other members of the City of London Police Force. The City Commissioner had a pension from Liverpool, and he did not want anything to be altered in that respect by the provisions of the 1921 Act. I do not think it is necessary to put in these words, but I will have the position examined again. So far as the payments are concerned, they will be governed by the pledge I gave earlier in the Debate, because if it is a case where man's position will be worsened, then it comes within that category.

I raised this case, which is an exceptional one, because I did not wish a case of hardship, however small, to slip through. In view of the general and specific assurances of the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, to leave out Subsection (7), and to add:

"(7) No regulations shall be made under this Act unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

I have given an undertaking in regard to this matter. This Amendment does not take into account the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act, and it will therefore be necessary to put in some words to cover that point. I undertake to put down an Amendment on Report stage to carry out my pledge, which will also take that Act into account.

The Home Secretary has come a good way in accepting the affirmative Resolution procedure, and I am certain that Members on both sides of the Committee are very pleased that he has done so. But there is still a difficulty which will arise, at any rate when the major regulations are tabled. Under this procedure there is no means of Members who feel strongly about a particular regulation having any chance of amending it. May I put this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman: that when it is intended to table the first major set of regulations some procedure should be devised—possibly by means of a Debate on the Adjournment—to enable opinion in the House to crystallise on particular points before it is too late for Amendments to be considered. When the regulations are actually tabled there is no possibility of amending them.

In vain is the snare set in sight of any bird. I sympathise with the difficulties of the hon. Member. I often felt as he does when I sat on the other side of the Table, and I met with surprisingly little sympathy from those who then sat on this side when I urged the point which he had just made. I desire, in this matter, to ascertain the general view of the House; it may not be possible to do it in the form in which he suggests it should be done, and I can give no promise that that can be done, but I will seriously consider any representations made to me before the regulations are drafted, and while they are being drafted. How far it will he possible to provide for a discussion other than the normal one is not for me to say, but I invite any Member who is interested in this matter to make representations in the light of the White Paper, which is virtually the first draft, in non-technical language, of the regulations. It indicates points that will be raised, and the spirit in which they will receive attention. If anyone likes to communicate with me about any point raised in the White Paper I undertake to give it impartial consideration.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and it might be helpful if he could say how much time there will be available for representations to be made to him. If he could give a hint of the date by which he proposes to table the regulations I believe it would be helpful.

I want them to become effective not later than 5th July. That is the latest date. I undertake to give consideration to any point submitted to me between, let us say, now and Easter. I hope that that will enable me to receive representations while the regulations are still in a fluid state.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has put his finger on one of the difficulties in our procedure in connection with regulations. There is no doubt that having the affirmative procedure is a great advantage. It means that the Government, through the Business which they announce each week, will have to make the matter more widely known; people will know that there is to be a discussion about it, instead of having to rely on someone hunting through the Order Paper to see whether a Member intends to pray against a certain statutory rule and order. This is more likely to give the impression that Parliament has a tighter hold on the matter than the other procedure. Whether or not that is so—and I believe it is—the impression will be conveyed. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the form which this Amendment takes in connection with the Statutory Instruments Act, and his undertaking to introduce proper words on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add:

"(8) Any regulations made under this section shall provide that any pension or additional allowance granted by virtue thereof shall not be subject to any diminution by reason of the recipient or intended recipient thereof having any other source of income."

I did not admit that. I said that in former days the police service had certain great advantages in receiving pensions at an early age which other people did not have. That comparative advantage has now very largely disappeared.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for reinforcing my argument for the abolition of former conditions which, in some circumstances, impose a means test. He said earlier today that the conditions in the Police Force, by reason of which wages remained static, whereas wages in industry had gone up, placed the police in an unfavourable position in certain instances.

I did not get on to the question of wages. I was dealing with the conditions that at one time sharply differentiated policemen from most other people earning about the same incomes, and I pointed out that owing to the improved social services this no longer existed.

That does not detract from my point.

My hon. and gallant Friend is claiming that I made the point. He is making the point. He is not entitled to claim that I made it earlier today when I did not.

I apologise if I have misrepresented my right hon. Friend. I think that the policeman has a moral right to regard his pension as something which should become his own, and which he has part-earned during his service. It should not be mitigated by reason of the ultimate beneficiary being able to earn an income from outside. There are wives of existing pensioners. Their position calls for consideration under this Amendment. The Pensions (Increase) Act if applied to the wife will also mean that, if her husband is not an insured person under the National Insurance Act, 1946, or has not the opportunity to become eligible, her increase is subject to a means test. These are anomalies which should be removed.

I support the Amendment. I express regret for any diversionary attacks which I may have made on the right hon. Gentleman on previous occasions in connection with the police force. I am reminded of the learned judge who was asked if he ever doubted. He said, "No, I never doubt. I am frequently wrong, but I never doubt." I am occasionally wrong, but I never doubt. I submit that on this occasion I am not wrong. As a party we have been opposed to any question of a means test. We have confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's enlightenment on these matters, so there is little we require to say on an issue like this. He protected himself in advance from the attack that some of these payments are made by virtue of the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act and not paid under these regulations. This Amendment may not meet the situation we desire it to meet, but when one drafts an Amendment on the Order Paper in Committee in vacuo without regard to the type of regulation that may emerge, all one can hope to do is to put the issue before the right hon. Gentleman and rely on his kindness. We know that if he is prepared to accept it in principle, he will provide the necessary lettering to embrace all the issues concerned. This is an issue which will not cost much money. It raises a matter of real importance, of genuine sentiment and is a very definite Socialist issue.

This Amendment would have one effect with which neither its proposer nor its supporter has dealt. It prevents the carrying through of the main purpose of the Bill, namely, to make a difference in the scale of police pensions when the National Insurance Scheme comes into effect. One effect of the Amendment may be that a person may claim to pay a decreased contribution and when the time comes to draw benefit quote this Amendment to prove that he is entitled to the full benefit. That, I am sure, is not the intention of my hon. Friends. That is fatal to the Amendment. I do not think it would be fair to deal in this Bill with the general question under the Pensions (Increase) Act. If the police were dealt with in this way, there is no reason why other people, such as postmen and teachers, whose pensions are subject to the workings of the Pensions (Increase) Act should not also he dealt with in the same way.

I am prepared to give an undertaking that my hon. Friends and I will watch all Bills dealing with these matters and move similar Amendments.

That is precisely what I feared. This is a point that should not be argued with me but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Why not make a start now.

I am not able to accept the Amendment on the lines advocated. I regret that it is not possible for me to say more in reply to the Amendment.

I would ask the Home Secretary to look at the situation into which we are getting over the question of the means test. That is not only a Socialist issue but also a Liberal issue. I suggest that we shall be met with this argument every time that we put forward this suggestion. I can see the Minister of Education saying, "We cannot accept this because if we do we should have to do the same for the police." Have the Government given serious consideration to the general issue raised, which is in line with this particular issue? It does not just affect the police. It affects teachers, civil servants and many others. Has this matter been considered by the Cabinet? If not, is it not time that it was? Are we to be met with this refusal departmentally every time we suggest that a start should be made with this issue? It is time that we had a clear-cut decision of principle on the point raised by hon. Members opposite. I would press strongly for its reconsideration. I have always been against this particular type of means test.

I am sorry to detain the Committee further, but I am anxious not to challenge a Division on this particular issue, because my right hon. Friend was so accommodating in giving us other concessions for which we asked. At the same time, it is idle to deny that on this issue some of us feel very keenly and sincerely. I would be grateful to my right hon. Friend if between now and the Report stage he would apply his mind to the one problem which is raised here. I appreciate the difficulties, but the problem is the payment of supplementary allowances. We have got to the time when we begin to use euphemisms to cover the real facts. A distressed area becomes a special area, unemployment pay becomes benefit, and a cost of living allowance becomes a special allowance. The point of this Amendment was to bring a meagre pension of no up to more generous proportions which would meet the increased cost of living. If that is now to be reduced because of another source of income it is fundamentally antagonistic to our principles on this side of the House. I am sure my right hon. Friend appreciates these points and will give them consideration.

I am hoping that as a result of powers which I will be taking later on the £30 pension will be a considerably larger pension. I cannot undertake that on this Measure I shall interfere with a Measure which was passed only last year dealing with increases in these statutory pensions. I am hoping by this way to get round the point my hon. Friend put to me with regard to these specific pensions, and I hope it will result in making them more generous pensions.

As I came in I heard the Home Secretary referring to the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Would not he consider having a talk with the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to see if something could be done on this question, because there is a very strong feeling whenever the matter of the employment of a means test arises. It would be very good of the Home Secretary if he would say he was prepared to have a talk with those colleagues of his to see if something could not be done in this particular Bill to eliminate the possibility of a means test.

I cannot be used as a stalking horse for the Treasury. I have endeavoured to get round the particular issue in the way I have indicated. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has expressed, in flattering terms, his views of my generosity, and I might find myself in a difficulty if someone said to me, "You have given one concession, and I ought to have the other as well."

I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add:

"(8) Any pension payable to a dependent widow of any person who shall die or shall have died while serving as a member of a police force shall be at a rate of not less than such widow would receive under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1946, if her husband had been a fully insured person under the provisions of that Act."

I am bound to say that this Amendment does not cover all the cases I want to cover. It is limited to the case where the husband dies while serving as a member of the Police Force, and the widow of a man who died after retirement will not benefit. All widows in the future will be entitled to appropriate benefit under the National Insurance Act or the Industrial Injuries Act and to a police pension as well, but the Amendment does not say anything about a widow's benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act. In regard to that case it can only mean that in addition to getting the appropriate benefit under the National Insurance Act she will receive the same benefit from the Police Fund. That is to say, she will receive a duplicate benefit from two sources.

My right hon. Friend must remember that we have never had the full details of how the National Insurance Scheme will work on a part-time basis, and whether a higher sum will be payable from that fund or the Police Pension Fund. I rather suspect my right hon. Friend of having used the argument against me in two different ways in connection with these two Clauses.

That is part of my difficulty. My Amendment is down to a later Clause, and if I start explaining that on Clause I might find that it will be ruled that the discussion has already taken place. I am trying to preserve for my hon. Friend as well as myself opportunity for a full discussion when we get to the Amendment that I have put down to Clause 2. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that what I have put down is so wide in its scope that it will enable most of the things that are in the spirit of this Amendment to be done, whereas, in fact, this Amendment—I am not complaining about it or attempting to make fun of my hon. Friend —by its very wording and the position it occupies in the Bill would impose some limitations on the action I propose to take under Clause 2, and would work to the detriment of the pensioners. That is the objection I have to this Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friend will be able to withdraw it so that we can deal with the whole issue on the appropriate Amendment to Clause 2.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. My right hon. Friend's Amendment was added to the Order Paper after ours and we did not see it.

I do not want to detain the Committee very long, but the Home Secretary was suggesting just now that representation with regard to the regulations should be made between now and Easter. This is not an occasion for making representation on small points, but there is one which I want to mention. The regulations envisage that serving officers will be able to choose whether they shall go on paying their full contributions and receiving their present rates of pension, or whether they shall have them partly reduced on the coming into force of the National Insurance Act. In the former case they shall get both benefits in full. The Home Secretary is proposing that the new entrants shall not have that choice, but shall only come in on the basis of paying a reduced contribution, which will be the National Insurance contribution, and the whole pension that they can get is to be the sum of the two but not much greater, if anything, than the police used to get under the Police Pension Fund.

I certainly undertake to give consideration to the matter, but no one can really speak for the new entrant because we do not know who he will be. It is true that for a time, people will be on different rates of pensions but they will steadily work out of the Force. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there might permanently be in the Force people drawing different rates of weekly pay actually put into their hands, and ultimately entitled to different rates of pension. I will consider the matter.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, at the end, to insert:

"and also so as to authorise or require the payment of pensions or increased pensions to widows and children of persons dying before the said date (whether before or after the passing of this Act) where the deceased had been a member of a police force and, in the case of a widow, where the marriage was in existence when he ceased (whether on death or otherwise) to be a member thereof."

My right hon. Friend has given us the method of calculation of the pension. Could he give us the figures, the actual amount?

It is very difficult to do that. The man was on an incremental scale, and was above the minimum. If I started o give figures I should have to say "about so much." [An HON. MEMBER: "Go on."] am not going to make guesses in a case of this kind. The question of what ought to be done for widows of men who lose their lives on duty really calls for consideration. I want to make it clear that when I talk about the National Insurance standard being set, that does not apply now, and certainly so far as I am concerned, never would apply, to the case of a widow who lost her husband in the circumstances of this case.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the widow in this case would get one-third of the pay as pension. In the White Paper there is a scale of 45/60ths for anybody suffering a similar fate, and that seems much more generous than the one-third which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Is it possible that when the Bill becomes law the pension which is now one-third can be increased to something similar to that which is shown in the White Paper?

That is what a man gets if he is disabled. It is not what the widow gets. Sometimes I wonder whether hints that I drop are really understood by hon. Members. I had hoped that, in the references just made, I indicated that this particular type of case was one which I thought deserved consideration.

I am glad that the Home Secretary has been able to put down this Amendment, and from what he says I think the powers which he has taken should be wide enough to cover the various cases. I am a little unhappy about one case which is in no way referred to in the Bill, the case of a man who has been in the Force for some time. I take it that under the proposals, if anything happens to him, either accidentally or in circumstances such as the tragic case the other day, whether he was on or off duty, his widow would, in future, get only the sixth of the annuity because the rest is to be made up from National Insurance. That man has been contributing for a number of years for his widow to get the whole amount and in a case of that kind it would seem to operate unfairly.

I welcome this Amendment, so far as it goes, but I am surprised and sorry that the Home Secretary has limited himself to this extent. One result of this limitation of powers which he proposes for himself is that it will not he possible for him to provide a pension for a widow, should the marriage take place after the retirement of the police officer, or, in the case of a police officer who marries more than once, where the re-marriage takes place after the retirement of the officer. I am surprised, because in paragraph 52 of the Snell Committee's Report it is recommended that the disqualification to which I have referred should be removed.

I am glad that the Home Secretary has taken these powers under this Amendment. I only hope that they are wide enough. I believe that this question of widows' pensions is the whole difficulty, and the real point of the present grievances in the Police Forces. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to give the widows a fair deal and remove a great many genuine grievances. It will also help to secure the further recruits, so necessary at the present time.

I am very pleased the Home Secretary has taken this power in this Amendment, because, recently, I was speaking to leading officials of the Police Force in my part of the country, and one of the great difficulties confronting them at the present time is how to get the required manpower. They drew attention to the fact that, in most industries, the pay was better and pension schemes were being introduced, apart from the National Insurance Act, and that these things provided attractions which made it very difficult for the police authorities to keep their forces properly staffed. The power that is being taken here by the Home Secretary to provide pensions for widows and children of the police should be of very great advantage in this direction.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we cannot go so much into the details of particular cases. I have been waiting for the hon. Gentleman to complete his sentence, which was a rather extended one. Mr. Symonds.

In view of the wide terms of the Amendment moved by the Home Secretary, one has every hope that, at long last, widows may be adequately provided for. There is only one point which I should like to make. My right hon. Friend said, in the case of widows whose husbands have died in connection with their duties, there might he a particular provision, and he gave a hint that the terms may be very generous. I would like to suggest that the widow of any policeman, whether he dies in the ordinary course of events or as the result of something which happened during the course of his duties, is, in a sense, a special person. The Home Secretary said that the provisions, generally, would be roughly in line with those of the National Insurance Act. I certainly hope that they will not be any less generous and I have every hope that they may, perhaps, be a little more generous.

I want to support the Amendment, which, like the curate's egg, is good in parts. I must confess that I do not know what is meant by the words:

"where the marriage was in existence when he ceased (whether on death or otherwise) to be a member thereof."

I wish to thank the Committee for the way in which this Amendment has generally been received. I acknowledge, of course, that people will wait until they see the regulations made under it before they express a final opinion. I would like to say to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) that in future a widow, in the position of the lady to whom we have been referring in this discussion, would, in fact, be rather better off than under the existing law.

I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 12 to 20.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, at the end, to insert:

"'police authority,' in relation to any regulations made under the Police (Overseas Service) Act, 1945, means the Secretary of State, and in any other case has the same meaning as in Section thirty of the Police Pensions Act, 1921."

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I beg to move, in Subsection I (d), to leave out:

"or, without the consent of the police authorities, accepts directly or indirectly."

I will take the point that my hon. and gallant Friend has made. I was a little surprised at his suggestion that the word "solicit" if it stood alone without the words which he proposes to leave out, would have the meaning which he placed upon it. The points I would like to make in asking the Committee not to accept this Amendment are, first, that I do not think it is at all likely that the existing words could possibly cause any hardship. I think my hon. and gallant Friend can accept an assurance on this matter. A police constable would certainly not be liable to forfeit his pension merely because he had accepted a gift due to ordinary human generosity and in no way connected with his retirement from or his service in the police force. I think that is a fear which has no foundation on the construction of the words as they stand.

Let us get this clear. Suppose a police officer, who has served 30 years in a rural village, retires and the population voluntarily subscribe, as they frequently do, a gold watch or a testimonial or a purse of money on his retirement in view of the happy relations which have existed and the way in which he has protected their property. Does my hon. Friend say that if that happened without the prior approval of the chief constable, who may be the very cause of the man's retirement and leaving in advance of his time, the meaning of the Clause would be that the constable could lose his pension, or does my hon. Friend say that he could not?

It is clear that consent is required. Of course, in examining matters of this kind one is entitled to quote extreme instances; but, surely, it is opening the door to corruption to a very considerable extent to say that members of the police force are entitled to accept gifts by subscription or otherwise by a large or small body of people without the approval of the police authority.

On retirement?

Yes, on retirement.

It is right that we should get this matter clear. Obviously, the making of a gift to a police constable exercising his duty is open to corruption or bribery or influence. But when he ceases to wear his uniform and when he leaves the village, what objection can there be to generous-minded people saying, "You have been a decent chap, Bill. We would like to give you something, and we will not ask the chief constable first."?

Supposing someone wants to make a gift to a constable while he is in office but, because it would be unlawful to do so, waits for a suitable moment on his retirement and then proffered the gift. What about a case like that, unless the position were covered by suitable words such as this Clause contains?

The ingenious mind of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) could, no doubt, multiply examples of all sorts of manifestations of pernicious peculiarities in the mental make-up of people who may come in contact with police constables. I am trying to deal with the ordinary course of events in an ordinary village.

I think the danger is that, although all the events we are discussing happen after retirement, it might well be that certain services were asked for by an individual on the promise of a gift after the retirement of the police officer. I would further say, in connection with the hypothetical case posed by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), who said that an oppressive chief constable might himself have been the cause of the retirement, that on my information, the police authority for this purpose is not the chief constable but the watch committee, and there is the right of appeal to quarter sessions in the event of dissatisfaction in this respect.

Might I put a question on the wording of this Clause? Does not this wording mean that consent must be obtained before the gift is accepted and that consent obtained afterwards will not suffice, but that the pension will still be imperilled? Is it really intended that a police officer on retirement must obtain the consent of the police authorities before he accepts a packet of cigarettes?

Of course, that is not meant at all. Even in the course of his duty if he happened to receive a packet of cigarettes a very serious charge of receiving a bribe would not be sustained, but, of course, it is wrong, it is a breach of the regulations. If my Latin were any good I would continue the quotation which begins: "de minimis …." What one seeks to avoid, in resisting this Amendment, is putting the police in the way of temptation, which might occur, of conniving at something on the understanding that a gift will be made in a few months or a few years time when the man retires. The police are subject to very severe temptation in that matter. One may not like the gambling laws, but the law with regard to street bookmaking leaves the man on the beat open to receive very considerable temptation in that sort of way—if somebody wants to act as bookmaker's runner and he drops a hint, "If you will let me have a run for a certain amount of time, you are going to be out of the Force in two years' time and there will be something for you." It is alleged that quite substantial sums have been paid on occasion to let a man run a show like that.

Surely, as it is a breach of the criminal law it is dealt with already on the question of a conviction for the breach of the criminal law. What we are trying to deal with now is the ordinary, commonplace case where the inhabitants of a village want to give a testimonial, say a watch, to a policeman on retirement—the common case, the very simple case. The wealthy bookmaker who bribes a policeman sets him up as a "tic-tac man" at £10 a week. He does not give money; he can get round this in other ways. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the really rare case of wholesale bribery, this Clause will have no effect, because the policeman would not worry about his pension.

The village subscription might be kept secret from the constable, but I doubt it myself, because he generally knows pretty well what is going on in a village, and he will know that a list is going round and that subscriptions are being invited. If the people who are organising the subscription do not acquaint the police authorities of what they are doing, I am quite sure that the police constable could see that their ignorance of the state of the law is removed quite easily and a proper application made to the police authority for the policeman to receive that particular testimonial.

I would like to refer to the question I put to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). I noticed he was at pains to avoid an answer to the question, although he referred in a somewhat loud-voiced way to my ingenuity and received the loud laughter in support of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). As a matter of fact, what the hon. Member for Oldham will not see is the one point that matters in this Clause, and that relates to the question I put to him. Supposing some criminal, or some person knows that by giving a gift to the constable he is doing something unlawful, waits until the constable retires in order to make that gift, I asked the hon. Member for Oldham whether that would not be entirely wrong and whether that is not just the sort of case this Clause is intended to deal with.

rose—

I asked the question before and you would not answer it, and now I am not going to give you a chance to do so.

The hon. Member should address the Chair.

The point about this Clause is a very important one indeed. It has nothing to do with the simple village function of making a collection, or giving some watch as a parting gift or a parting shot to some constable who has retired. That is not the point, because any gift of that kind in appreciation which any villagers desire to make is permitted under this Clause. It is expressly covered in the Clause. The consent of the police authority may, and in a proper case would, be granted. No one is going to suggest that the police authority is going to be so churlish as to refuse that consent in a proper case. The Clause as it stands is obviously put there to prevent a constable doing something which would have been wrong had he done it while he was a constable, and making it impossible for him to wait to do it until he has retired from the force. On those grounds, I think this Clause should be supported.

I do not want to intervene in the conflict between the two branches of the legal profession on the benches opposite, but rather to put another point to the Home Secretary which arises on this Amendment. There is obviously a good deal of force in what the Home Secretary says as to the necessity of providing adequate sanctions against even the hint of corruption in the police force. I think we must all agree with that. However, the forfeiture of pension is a terribly heavy penalty, and it can be approved by this Committee only on really adequate grounds. What worries me is the word "indirectly" in paragraph (d). It says that forfeiture shall be incurred if the gift is accepted "directly or indirectly." I am not very clear what the indirect acceptance of a gift is intended to cover. Is it intended to cover a gift, say, to a policeman's wife or to a member of his family?

I hope the Home Secretary will resist this Amendment and leave the point quite clear so that policemen shall know exactly what the position is; not only to try to stop any possible form of corruption, but also in the police officers' own interest. I know a case in which a police inspector diligently did his duty, as a consequence of which a man was duly sent to prison; and when he came out a year later he went to the police inspector and gave him a small present—a very small present: a pair of nylon stockings, or something like that—and, having done so, he "shopped" the inspector, who lost his job. That was done in a small town with a small police force, and it did not do any good. It is very much better that the members of the Police Force should know exactly what the law is. Reasonable consent will not be withheld, and it is in the interests of the policemen themselves that they should know exactly where they stand.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman did not think that I was in any way dissenting from the object of the provisions of this new Clause. Indeed, I think that on both sides of the Committee the target outlined by the Home Secretary is accepted—the target of this new Clause. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) says it is desirable that this point should be made quite clear to the members of the Police Force. I agree. The hesitation and doubt I feel is whether this wording is really apt to define the target. I think it is not very satisfactory wording.

I would point out in the first place that these words are lifted directly out of the Police Pensions Act, 1921. They may be even older than that. They come from Section 15 (1, f) of the Act of 1921. There has been 27 years' experience of their working. As far as I know there has never been any indication that it has not been possible to interpret them reasonably and apply them equitably in the circumstances of the various police forces. I should have thought myself that to delete the word "indirectly" would lay the whole thing far too wide open.

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his assurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in line 21, Subsection (1), after "paragraph (b)," to insert "(c) and (e)."

I hope to be able to convince my hon. Friend that it is not appropriate to apply to paragraphs (c) and (e) the proviso which has been set out and applies to paragraph (b). My hon. Friend said he thought there was perhaps a stronger case—I gather he meant for his Amendment—in the case of paragraph (e) than (c). True, from the point of view of protecting the public, paragraph (c) is more important, and the offence under paragraph (e) is perhaps less serious. At the same time, I would draw his attention to words which he did not read out, in paragraph (e):

"enters into or continues in any business, occupation or employment as a private detective, after being prohibited from doing so by the police authority…"

The whole point is that a general prohibition could be a ukase laid down that no member of the Police Force shall start up as a private detective.

I certainly do not read it in that way myself. I should have thought this was a question of a particular police pensioner being prohibited by the police from undertaking a particular employment. That was certainly the way I had read it. If I am right in that construction, my hon. Friend might agree that there could be no need for any further notice.

It could be made perfectly clear by saying "after he has been" instead of "after being."

We can look at that to make sure that there is no ambiguity. It is certainly my right hon. Friend's intention, that it should be a question of a prohibition addressed to the particular pensioner concerned.

Will the Under-Secretary give an undertaking also to look at the words "after being prohibited"? At the moment, on the strict wording of the Clause, unless the person ceases business straight away upon prohibition—which, obviously, is not what the Minister intends—he will become liable automatically. That is the reason why my hon. Friend and I have sought to insert the warning in writing. At present, technically the man is prohibited from carrying on the whole thing, which I do not think is what the Home Secretary intends.

When the Under-Secretary looks at paragraph (e) again—because I think he is right about paragraph (c)—I hope he will look at it, not only from the point of view of making quite clear that the prohibition concerned must be particular and not general, but also from the point of view that the prohibition must itself be in writing. A verbal warning that a retiring police officer should not take up a particular business would be thoroughly unsatisfactory. Provided it can be laid down that the prohibition shall be in writing, I think the difficulty is met. However, an express warning or prohibition—to me, it does not seem to matter which—in writing, directed to the individual in a particular case, is satisfactory and is required.

I think I need say no more than that I will certainly take that into account when we are looking at the wording of the paragraph. I do not think the legal construction of the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) could arise. It could hardly be a question of the man being liable to forfeiture if he did not walk out within any given period—an hour or a day. There must be a reasonable time, which would be imported into its construction by any court of law. I doubt if it is necessary to examine that aspect. Certainly, we shall take into account all the points that have been raised.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I think it will be more convenient if I do not move the Amendment standing in my name, to leave out lines 11 to 12, but deal in two short sentences with the points the Amendment sought to raise. We welcome this new Clause as a substantial concession, but there are a number of matters of real importance arising, in respect of which no appeal is given. One example is where an injury arises out of or in the course of duty. That is a matter in respect of which no right of appeal is given. My second point is this: The right is given for appeals to be made to a court of quarter sessions. I can understand the reason for that, but a court of quarter sessions is a somewhat unwieldy tribunal, and is not, in my respectful submission, the proper tribunal. The personnel of a court of quarter sessions is very often identical with that of the watch committee, and it should be borne in mind that the appeals will often be made in respect of a decision by the watch committee. I suggest, therefore, that my right hon. Friend should consider whether the county court is not a more suitable tribunal for appeals of this sort.

I am glad that the Home Secretary has responded to the appeals, made to him a fortnight ago on Second Reading, to put this right of appeal into the Bill. As has been said, it is mainly a psychological question, but none the less it is not unimportant. It is extremely satisfactory that the right hon. Gentleman has acceded to the arguments which were put forward on the previous occasion, and has put the right of appeal on a statutory basis.

With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), I would point out that it is the standing joint committee and not the watch committee which deals with these matters in a county. As a member of both a standing joint committee and of a bench of quarter sessions, I can say that our deliberations are sometimes seriously delayed at quarter sessions by persons who are not members of the standing joint committee. Therefore, it makes us less of a family party than the hon. Member appears to suggest. I will consider whether the county court should not be the appeal tribunal rather than quarter sessions, although I know of no complaints which have been made in this respect. Whether an accident has or has not been incurred in the course of duties, can be the subject of appeal. A man is not debarred from appealing if he feels aggrieved by the decision of the standing joint committee in such a case.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from "for," to second "the," and insert:

"transferring to the applicants, whether by agreement or compulsorily."

I think it is right to say that this is the first time that the element of compulsion has been introduced into this Bill in the course of its passage through Parliament, and I think we ought to have from the hon. Gentleman a much fuller statement on why he now wants to take power by order compulsorily to transfer one undertaking to another, whether statutory or not. It is some time since I had an opportunity of considering in detail the Water Act, 1945, and I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that the undertakers threatened with the compulsory acquisition of their undertaking by some other undertakers, in consequence of the order, will have ample opportunity before an independent tribunal of putting forward their grounds against the proposal, and also of hearing the grounds put forward in the proposal for making the compulsory acquisition.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in supposing that this could arise in the case of the new towns. It could also arise in the case of the setting up of a joint board, by agreement, under Section 1 of the principal Act. I think he need have no fear on the other points. Nothing that is being done under this Amendment would enable anything to be done that could not otherwise have been done, in two stages, and which would be quite permissible at the present time. First, the new undertakers could be set up—that requires one order—and then, when they were established, they could start the machinery for an order under Section 9 (2) of the principal Act for the compulsory transfer of the existing undertaking.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, after "shall," to insert:

"except as provided by the Section (Compulsory acquisition of land for construction of waterworks) of this Act."

I have no objection if that is the wish of the Committee.

I am not quite sure where we are getting to on this. It seems a lot to bite off at once on a Friday afternoon to deal with an Amendment to this Clause, the deletion of Clause 3, an Amendment to Clause 10, and a lengthy new Schedule 1, of course, have no objection to the Parliamentary Secretary making a wide statement in moving this harmless looking Amendment, but, at the same time, I hope, Major Milner, you will not say that we must just have one Debate on all these matters, and then only a Division on the later Amendments. It might be for the convenience of the Committee to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say with regard to the matter generally, but not, I think, to debate in generally, and, perhaps, to confine one's debate to this particular Amendment.

I am in the hands of the Committee. We can either have a discussion on the new Clause or on the new Schedule, or we can have a general discussion now.

I should be perfectly happy, if it met the convenience of the Committee, to deal formally with this Amendment, and the Amendment to leave out Clause 3, and to have the main discussion on the new Clause, but I did not want anyone to feel that I had prejudiced the issue by slipping through these paving Amendments without a word.

I think it might be a convenient course to take this Amendment formally—we can see it is a preliminary—and then to take formally the Amendment to delete Clause 3, because we can always seek to put it back at a later stage, but there may be a point on Clause 10 which we may wish to discuss, and I would not like it to be assumed that that must go formally.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from "land," to the end of line 44.

"that no such order shall empower the undertakers to acquire compulsorily any land …"

There is more water in Scotland.

It is true that there is more water in Scotland than there is in this part of the country, but the subject of compensation water applies more to the North-West of England.

indicated dissent.

The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) shakes his head, but I have in mind a place known as Haweswater concerning which discussions have taken place on the subject of compensation water. This would very largely be governed by subsequent action on the new Clause standing in my name. I hope it will not be held to prejudice discussion on that Clause if I observe that the first piece of legislation undertaken by the present Government was the Water (Scotland) Act which reached the statute book in 1946. I hope the fact that it was undertaken by the present Government will not be held against it, because it was a necessary corollary to the Act of 1945 The new Clause which I hope to move later on will put the law relating to compensation water on the same footing in both countries. I have no wish to prejudice discussion on the new Clause, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary seriously to consider this Amendment, and I hope he will see his way to agree to it.

I hope the Government will show no hesitation in resisting this Amendment. The real argument which has been put forward in support of it is that it brings the law into conformity with the law of Scotland. As a lawyer, it has always appealed to me much more to have the law of Scotland brought into conformity with the law of England. The problem in Scotland with regard to compensation water, surely, has not anything like the aspect that it does in this country. I should have thought the whole question of compensation water was much more acute South of the Border than North of it.

Has it struck the hon. and learned Gentleman that he might approach many of those on whose behalf at times he speaks to suggest that they might considerably improve the character of their effluents?

I am not at all sure, since that suggestion is put to me, what is really meant by it. I represent my constituents. I have no interest personally in any one who seeks to pollute rivers. I have spent a good deal of time in trying to stop pollution. I remember once spending 31 days in a case to try to stop pollution. I do not understand the hon. Member's point. I am sure he will agree with me that sometimes local authorities are not entirely innocent in that respect. However, the real point is, surely, that one ought not to draw anything from compensation water unless one is forced to, and that we ought to look everywhere else for water first. I hope that, bearing that in mind, the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the Government will not accept this Amendment.

I am surprised at the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). He has made arguments from the point of view of amenity, from the point of view of fisheries, from the point of view of pollution; and he implied throughout that the Minister of Health is the enemy of all these interests. He suggested that if the Minister has to consider those matters he is bound to take a decision against those interests; whereas, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows—or ought to know—my right hon. Friend is, in fact, the Minister responsible to Parliament for some of these functions, as, for example, those concerned with water pollution. The suggestion that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes that compensation water should never be touched is a startling one. At the present time, if there is agreement the Minister can make an order.

In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I must add a little more upon this subject, which I regard as one of great importance. He approached my argument solely on the basis that I was not in favour of the Minister of Health having any powers which he does not possess at present. While that is a very good argument, it was not the one I put forward. My chief argument was that, when the compensation water was settled before constructing the water works, all the people living down the valley concerned would know that they could rely, day in and day out, on a constant water supply. Industries would be built up, which have to rely on water being available—electricity and all categories of undertaking. It is very important for riparian owners that there should be a constant supply of water available. I also mentioned other interests affected. Is it really desirable that there should be, by order, power to place in jeopardy the amount of compensation water going down the river?

On a point of Order. In order to help the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), on the undertaking given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Surely, Major Milner, that cannot be a point of Order? I was addressing the Committee in opposition to this Amendment, and answering the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. If the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) intends to withdraw the Amendment, well and good. At the same time, as I imagine this sort of point will recur later on in the Bill, I wanted to put my views to the Parliamentary Secretary so that he shall have an opportunity of fully considering them before we debate the Bill again.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.