Asked by Lord Bach To ask Her Majesty’s
Government what is their policy with regard to the pension rights
of spouses and civil partners of police officers who have been
killed in the line of duty. The Minister of State, Home Office
(Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con) My Lords, in
January...Request free trial
Asked by
-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy with
regard to the pension rights of spouses and civil partners
of police officers who have been killed in the line of
duty.
-
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of
Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, in January 2016, this Government changed
legislation to the benefit of widows, widowers and civil
partners of police officers in England and Wales who have
died on duty. As a result, from 1 April 2015, those
survivors who qualify for a survivor pension will now
continue to receive their survivor’s benefits for life,
regardless of remarriage.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the serving police and
crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and
Rutland. I thank the Minister for her Answer and for seeing
me earlier today to discuss these matters with her and her
officials. On 15 August 2002, two Leicestershire police
officers—Police Constables Andy Munn and Bryan Moore—were
brutally killed by a criminal driver on the A42. They not
only both died in the same incident but both left young
widows and small children. One widow remarried seven years
later in 2009 and lost her police widow’s pension. The
other widow remarried in 2015 and, because of a change in
the law, has kept her police widow’s pension. How in all
conscience can it be right that two women, both of whose
husbands were killed while bravely fighting crime and in
the line of duty on the same occasion, can be treated so
differently by the country that owes so much to both of
them? Will the Minister please look at this case again?
Does she not agree that such obvious unfairness offends
against every principle this House believes in?
-
I thank the noble Lord for his Question, for the way in
which he has always constructively engaged with me, and for
coming to see me this morning. I pay tribute to him as
Parliament’s only PCC. Without talking about individual
cases, I say that it is absolutely tragic that police
officers are killed in the line of public duty. When it
happens, we should honour the officers’ memory and
sacrifice. That is why this Government have changed the
rules so that all survivors of police officers who die on
duty do not now face the prospect of losing their pension
on remarriage. That is a change that no previous Government
have felt able to make. However, we must continue to have
regard to the wider implications of a change to public
service pensions. It is the duty of government to ensure
that any policy changes are legally and financially sound.
I do not pretend that the judgment is always easy but it is
one that we must make. Successive Governments have
maintained a general presumption against retrospective
changes to public service pensions, and I am afraid that
that remains in place.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an honorary member of
the National Association of Retired Police Officers, which
has been instrumental in championing this campaign. Should
the Government not recognise the principle that the widows
and widowers of police officers who have given their lives
in service to the community should receive pensions for
life no matter when their partners were killed?
-
I agree with the noble Baroness that the Government
recognise the principle and that is why we made these
changes back in 2016, to be applied from 2015. But as I
have said, the retrospective judgment is not one that is
made across the public service.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, may I recommend to the Minister the principle of
“When the facts change, I change my mind” as wise guidance in
issues like this? Does she accept from me that the principle
of no retrospection, although applicable in many
circumstances, simply does not meet the moral obligations
that arise from cases like those which have been raised
properly by my noble friend?
-
I agree with the noble Lord that, when the facts change, the
Government change their mind. That is why in 2016, after
decades of widows who remarry not being able to claim the
survivor’s pension, the Government did indeed change their
mind. The issue of retrospection in something about which no
Government have changed their mind.
-
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a current police
pensioner. I have often heard Ministers both in this House
and in the other place, and indeed at conferences, committing
the Government to giving priority to the victims of crime.
Does the Minister agree that in homicide cases the definition
of victim by necessity applies to the spouses and partners,
in this case of police officers who have died in the line of
duty? Is there not therefore a justified need to reflect that
in the pension arrangements for those officers?
-
I certainly recognise the difficulties faced by the families
of members of the Armed Forces, the police service and the
fire service and how they could be seen as the indirect
victims of crime themselves. The noble Lord talks about
provisions for death in the line of duty. There most
certainly are awards under the police injury benefit
arrangements which ensure that higher benefits are payable
when an officer is killed in certain circumstances. These are
broadly if death resulted while seeking to apprehend a
suspect, protecting life, or if the officer was targeted for
the reason of being a police officer. I take this opportunity
to recognise the incredible public service that police
officers, fire officers and our Armed Forces make to public
life.
|
