Letter from the Prime Minister to the
Chairman of the Committee
I promised to write with more detail on a number
of points following my appearance before the Liaison Committee
on 22 November.
I attach a copy of Lord Birt's letter of appointment—copies
of which are available in the Libraries of the House.
Kevin Barron asked about the pension rights
of National Health Service employees who move into the independent
sector.
In general, NHS employees who are compulsorily
transferred to a private sector employer cease to be entitled
to membership of the NHS pension scheme. However, some private
sector employers do operate the NHS pension scheme for those employees
who are compulsorily transferred in from the NHS. These employers
run the pension scheme under a "direction" given by
the Secretary of State for Health. Such organisations work to
support the provision of health services and they will usually
be a not for profit company or a charitable organisation.
The Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment
(TUPE) Regulations offer important safeguards to employees where
the transfer is compulsory, but the employer does not have "direction"
status. Under the TUPE arrangements, an assessment is required
as to whether the pension arrangements being offered to employees
by their new employer are "broadly comparable" to those
provided by their existing employers. Staff then have a choice:
they can either choose to join the new employer's pension scheme
for future service only and leave accrued rights in the NHS scheme;
or, they can opt to transfer their entire NHS pension rights.
John Whittingdale asked about the advice given
by the Home Office to Essex Police Force and Authority on which
options should be progressed as part of force restructuring.
The Home Secretary set out the design criteria
for force restructuring in his letter of 22 September to Chief
Officers in England and Wales and Chairs of Police Authorities
in England and Wales. These criteria were based upon considerations
for restructuring in the report Closing the Gap by Her
Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies. The criteria included
size, mix of capability in reduction and risk, criminal markets,
geography, co-terminosity, identity, clarity of command and control
accountability, performance and costs and efficiency.
Essex Police Force and Authority submitted the
following options in its joint submission at the end of October:
(i) A Strategic Eastern Regional force. A
merger of all six forces in the eastern region into one strategic
force.
(ii) A two strategic force option for the
region that consists of an East/West split with Essex merging
with Suffolk and Norfolk.
(iii) A two strategic force option for the
region that consists of a North/South split with Essex merging
with Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire.
(iv) A stand alone option—Essex Police
Force as they are now.
The Home Office provided feedback on 9 November.
The aim of the feedback was to provide a steer to forces as to
which options were seen as viable and as such would benefit from
being progressed further.
The Essex Police Force and Authority were advised
that they should seek to further develop options (i), (ii) and
(iii) as they met the design criteria for the development of strategic
forces. The same advice was provided to other forces and authorities
in the eastern region.
I should stress, however, that the Home Office
made clear in the feedback that while it had highlighted the above
options as suitable for further progression, it was ultimately
a matter for police authorities to determine which options they
submitted in their final report by 23 December. No decisions have
been made. As such, the Home Office remain open to all options
for which a compelling case can be made. This means that Essex
Police Force and Authority, if they so wish, can further develop
and submit a standalone proposal in December.
Andrew Dismore asked for details about the memoranda
of understanding with other countries and deportation on national
security grounds.
Twenty-three people have been detained on national
security grounds pending deportation to countries with which we
have agreed Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), or with which we
are seeking MoUs. Four of them have been released on bail, and
so the number currently in detention is 19. We have signed MoUs
with Jordan and Libya and are pursuing such arrangements with
both Algeria and Lebanon and a number of other countries in North
Africa and the Middle East.
I cannot give any more specific information
at present as this could be used to identify the detainees, breaching
Court Anonymity orders.
Malcolm Bruce asked about the process for people
detained by UK forces in Iraq.
UK forces in Multi-National Division (South
East), which is the UK's area of operations, routinely detain
Iraqis. They carry out these detention operations with the Iraqi
Security Forces and, when necessary, on their own.
People detained who are suspected of criminal
offences are transferred into Iraqi custody as soon as possible
for prosecution in the Iraqi judicial system. We intern those
judged to be an imperative threat to security in our Divisional
Temporary Detention Facility (DTDF) in Shaibah, as we are authorised
to do by UN mandate and Iraqi law.
Before the Shaibah detention facility was opened
in December 2003 the UK did not have a detention facility in Iraq.
Prisoners taken into custody by the UK were transferred into US
custody at Camp Bucca in Umm Qasr. Their treatment was monitored
by a UK Prisoner Monitoring Team and Prisoner of War Registration
Unit. After the DTDF was opened all these individuals were either
released or transferred back to UK custody. Camp Bucca is now
closed.
Multi-National Division (South East) currently
have 33 people interned in the DTDF. The number of detainees held
at this facility has routinely been lower; for example, the number
held on 7 September, before the incident in Basra on 19 September,
was 20.
I am copying this letter to Kevin Barron, John
Whittingdale, Andrew Dismore and Malcolm Bruce.
7 December 2005
| 
