| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Regulatory Impact Assessment
6. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): What discussions he has had with the Cabinet Office regarding the regulatory impact assessment for the Representation of the People Bill. [103966]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The regulatory impact assessment was available when the Bill was published on 18 November, and it expressed the Government's collective view.
Mr. Swayne: The impact assessment is a very thin document. How did the costs to business--estimated by the Confederation of British Industry at hundreds of millions of pounds--entirely escape those who made the assessment?
Mr. O'Brien: The regulatory impact assessment assesses impact on the economy. The CBI's estimate is more concerned with the impact on particular businesses. When businesses seek alternative sources of information, they may find that the whole economy will benefit. The Bill's provisions were agreed by Conservative
representatives on the electoral procedures working party, and resulted from the data protection directive, to which the Conservative party signed up.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): If the seven batches of amendments that I tabled to the Representation of the People Bill had been accepted, there would have been cost compliance provisions and, presumably, some knock-on effect as regards the assessment. I do not know whether any assessment was made of how much I would have cost the nation--or the economy--if those measures had been developed. Is it not better to spend money--as the Bill does--on electoral registration so as to ensure that it is fully achieved, rather than on measures that would destroy it? That was what the Opposition did when they were in government and introduced the poll tax.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that Conservative Members' constituents will be bewildered by the fact that some of them appear to oppose provisions in the Bill that would make it easier for people to vote. Why are they so frightened that people should be able to vote?
Police Pensions
7. Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): What amount and proportion of police funding was spent on pensions in (a) 1990 and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [103967]
12. Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham): What measures he is taking in respect of the funding of police pensions. [103972]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Net pensions expenditure in 1989-90 amounted to £285 million, or 6.9 per cent. of total spend. For 1998-99, expenditure was £889 million or 12.6 per cent. of total expenditure. We have increased the proportion of overall funding to be distributed for police pensions to 13.2 per cent. in 1998-99, and to 14.5 per cent. in 1999-2000, in recognition of increasing pension costs.
Following a major review of the police pensions system, I am currently considering what longer-term changes, if any, are required.
Mr. Rendel:
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer; it shows that the proportion of money spent on police pensions has almost doubled during that period. Does he recall the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) just before Christmas, which said that, this year, four police forces are seeing a reduction in real-terms spending? However, if we take out pensions spending, 14 police forces will see a reduction in real-terms spending. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about that? How will he get more policemen back on the beat?
Mr. Straw:
The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that, as he knows, we have found additional new money--£35 million--for the next financial year, and more thereafter, to pay for the 5,000
Mrs. Lait:
May I begin by thanking Ministers, on behalf of the people of Penge, for the closed circuit television system? However, although it might reduce the amount of crime on the streets of Penge, I suspect that the residents will feel equally concerned about police numbers, and will be even more concerned when they realise what a large proportion of the Metropolitan police budget goes on pensions. I have listened with great care to the exchange between the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). Will the Home Secretary reassure me further that, when that fact is taken with the expenditure on radios to which reference has already been made, the people of Penge, and of Beckenham and the whole of London, will not see a reduction in front-line policing over time because of the costs of radio and pensions?
Mr. Straw:
It is my fervent hope that the circumstances that the hon. Lady desires come about. I also point out to her that, during the whole period between 1992 and March 1998, when the budgets had been set by the Conservative Administration whom she supported, the Metropolitan police lost 2,060 officers. I worked hard to try to stabilise the number of Metropolitan police officers, and, in the year that ended in March 1999, the reduction was not 2,000, but just 21.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
Is it not an impossible situation when the proportion of police funding for pensions continues to increase? Although I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has admitted that he will undertake a fundamental review of the matter, I urge him to adopt, at the earliest practical date, a fully funded pension scheme for the police service, and to introduce it gradually so that it will not disadvantage serving officers or reduce their pension expectations, but will, in the longer term, provide security for them and their families.
Mr. Straw:
I have already said that, obviously, the changes to the police pension scheme will not disadvantage existing serving officers. We are closely examining the idea of a fully funded scheme, which in principle would be a more satisfactory alternative. The problem that we are up against, to which we have found no solution, although we hope that one may be forthcoming, is that the initial costs--the funding costs--of a fully funded scheme are very substantial and that money would have to be found from somewhere.
8. Mr. John Grogan (Selby):
If he will make a statement about the future of the Tote. [103968]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien):
We announced last May that the Tote was to be sold. Since then we have been considering, with the help of independent advisers, how and on what terms the sale should proceed, and we intend to announce our conclusions shortly.
Mr. Grogan:
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that our 59 race courses are a great national asset and that, as an alternative to selling the Tote to the highest bidder, there are great merits in the proposals being jointly advanced by the Tote and the racing industry to set up a racing trust to buy and run the Tote, so maintaining the vital source of income to racing from the Tote and ensuring that in future it is run on a wholly commercial basis for the benefit of the sport as a whole?
Mr. O'Brien:
I certainly agree that our racing industry is a national asset. We are considering the merits of several proposals. The sale options under consideration include a sale to a racing trust, a sale to racing in another way, a sale on the open market and a flotation on the stock exchange. We intend to sell the Tote as a single business, in line with the May announcement.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
That answer was not satisfactory. The Tote was set up by the racing industry. It does not belong to the state. It has never taken a state subsidy, and it should be returned to the racing industry. Does the Minister agree?
Mr. O'Brien:
The Tote will go to the proper and appropriate purchasers or people who provide the state with some funding in return for it. It is right that the interests of racing, of those who work for the Tote and of the taxpayer should all be considered when taking a final decision. We shall announce that decision very shortly.
9. Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham):
What assessment he has made of the contribution of CCTV to the prevention and detection of crimes; and if he will make a statement. [103969]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke):
Police operational experience and a number of research studies reveal that CCTV has considerable crime reduction and detection success, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy.
Schemes funded under the current CCTV initiative will be evaluated to build up a knowledge base of what works best and in what context.
Mr. Efford:
I thank my hon. Friend for that an answer. May I pass on the thanks of Greenwich council and Eltham police for the scheme that is being funded by the CCTV initiative? May I ask him to join me in congratulating Eltham police, who, by using a temporary scheme over Christmas, managed to arrest 10 individuals with the help of evidence that was gathered by camera, in a period when they would usually expect to arrest four or five individuals? Does he agree that this is vital step forward for the police, in that it will enable them to deploy resources more efficiently?
However, there is some concern about the ownership of the evidence that is gathered. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to secure public confidence in the long term, there needs to be a degree of openness and accountability about the evidence that is gathered by camera?
Mr. Clarke:
I am grateful for that information and I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police in Eltham on the success of their initiative over Christmas. There are many examples of areas where such initiatives have worked very well, but I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the evidential basis of some of the material that is collected needs--and is being given--very careful examination and assessment.
Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds):
Is the Minister aware of a recent local crime prevention survey carried out in mid-Suffolk that shows that 90 per cent. of local residents in Stowmarket believe that the introduction of a CCTV scheme in that town centre would enhance local safety? Is he further aware that Mid Suffolk district council in my constituency is considering making a bid this year for the second round of challenge funding? In light of that, can the Minister assure me today that, on receipt of a bid, he will bear in mind the fact that Stowmarket is the only market town of its size in Suffolk without a CCTV scheme, and seriously consider giving Stowmarket the share of funding that it deserves under the challenge funding scheme?
Mr. Clarke:
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. However, it might have been more in character with his usual graciousness had he acknowledged that the scheme in Bury St. Edmunds that we have announced today has been given to his constituency and is a step forward. It might also have been gracious for a former special adviser to a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer to acknowledge that in this one year the Government have given more to CCTV schemes than was given in the whole of the last five years of the Conservative Government.
I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall consider carefully the bid for Stowmarket, a place which I travel through frequently on the train from Norwich to London. As I flash past, I shall try to glean what I can to assess the town's crime needs.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton):
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's contribution to the introduction of CCTV throughout the community. However, may I press him for more portable CCTVs in communities? My own constituency is asking for such facilities, which would do a tremendous amount to reduce crime in Outwood and Stanley. Will my hon. Friend tell us what provision for portable CCTV is made in the allocation to which he has referred?
Mr. Clarke:
I very much agree with my hon. Friend's points--indeed, a number of the schemes agreed and announced today are portable CCTV schemes. We are currently drawing up the guidelines for the next round in which I hope we shall announce results more regularly--every three months or whatever--than on a year-by-year basis. In the guidelines, we intend to give priority not only to portable CCTV schemes such as those that have been mentioned, but to schemes that focus on rural areas and
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury):
Given the undoubted effectiveness of closed circuit television in preventing and reducing crime in this country, why do police force figures show that, in the first six months of the current financial year, recorded crime rose nationally by no less than 5 per cent? Why is that happening?
Mr. Clarke:
As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the figures tomorrow to see exactly what is happening on recorded crime throughout the country. However, there is no doubt that CCTV can have a major impact in reducing crime in the ways that I described to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra). It might be in keeping to acknowledge that the Government are trying to use this important weapon to reduce crime in a way that most Members on both sides of the House would acknowledge is beneficial.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |