| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the issue but I cannot answer the latter part of his question. We want the Police Negotiating Board to produce an agreed proposal by the end of the month. Obviously it will be to everyone's advantage if it is agreed. I imagine that part of that would include discussions with the Revenue to ensure that it does not have a negative effect. On the one hand, we hope to have successful negotiations; on the other hand, the Inland Revenue has strict rules right across the pension field. Pensions are pensions; they are not saving schemes as such. That is an important aspect. However, pension arrangements in the police service are quite different from other schemes in terms of age structure and the point at which officers leave.
I still owe the noble Lord a letter in reply to some very sensible questions he asked about the information that is available about the police. The age profile of police is not well known across the forces. We know how many years an officer has served when he leaves the service, but we do not necessarily have detailed information about his age at that point in time. The noble Lord has asked sensible questions and I shall give him answers in due course.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the White Paper which is to be produced during this Session address the situation that many police forces find themselves in at the moment, whereby an officer who
has completed 30 years' service, who has good experience and is capable of carrying on in a civilian capacity, finds it difficult to do so because of regulations in respect of the creation of civilian jobs for former policemen?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is true that officers can be re-employed as civilians, in which case they are paid their salary and full pension. However, leaving a job one week and going back to the same employer the next week in a different status and with a tax-free lump sum can present a problem. Obviously that is open to abuse—not in the police force but in other areas—and that is why we need an arrangement that does not have a negative effect on other parts of the public service or on the police officers concerned.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that in the review currently being undertaken an open mind will be kept as to the rank at which those who would otherwise retire after 30 years may stay on? This will avoid the rigidities in the West Midlands force where officers so doing are automatically reduced to the rank of constable.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the implication in the noble Lord's question is right. The compulsory retirement age for constables and sergeants is 55; ACPO ranks have a compulsory retirement age of 65. One imagines that their skills and experience are still valuable but that they are operationally less valuable. I do not wish to cast aspersions because of the nature of the membership of the House. However, it is a fact that rigidity will always cause problems because each individual is different. A set of rules is in place but it is undoubtedly the case that certain police officers who at 55 years of age now work as constables could carry on at a higher level. It seems barmy that senior officers are reduced to the rank of constable in order to continue their service. That is the kind of issue that Capita will need to examine; namely, to consider a scheme in which the skills and experience of officers who have completed 30 years' service can be used to best effect. We need to secure an agreement that will take this matter forward to everyone's advantage.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of retaining skills and experience in many professions and other areas of work is to allow people to approach retirement more flexibly by continuing to work on a part-time basis? Can the Minister tell the House whether the Inland Revenue will soon finish its investigations into flexible retirement arrangements? Could more flexible schemes be put in place more widely than is presently the case?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a detailed response. Obviously, discussions on the report published last year by the Performance and Innovation Unit on winning the generation game are important. I believe that over 3 million people in this country over the age of 50 but below retirement
age are economically inactive. A whole series of barriers force many such people to remain economically inactive. We need to remove as many of those barriers as possible. To that end, I am very much in favour of flexible retirement age schemes. I myself have reached the beginning of the flexible retirement age.Broadband Services
2.51 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What action they are taking to promote broadband access so as to ensure that the United Kingdom meets its targets to be the leader for e-commerce in Europe by 2002 and for all citizens to be online by 2005.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government's policies to open up broadband competition mean that 66 per cent of UK households can access broadband services, whether through telephone wires, cable modems or wireless technologies. The challenge now is for industry to get the pricing, marketing and content right. The Government have set out today how they will help by further intensifying competition, driving up demand, stimulating the production of new broadband content and facilitating broadband rollout in rural areas.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I should declare a non-financial interest as chairman of Citizens Online. I thank the Minister for his extremely encouraging reply and I welcome the Government's initiatives announced today. However, does he agree that broadband access through ADSL technology provides only a short-term solution? If the Government are truly committed to providing universal access to all by 2005, as well as promoting the United Kingdom as the e-commerce centre of Europe, will they consider promoting fibre optic access to all households throughout Britain, both in rural and urban areas, as well as to businesses? Have the Government plans to invest any of the #22 billion they received from the sale of the 3G licences last year in providing incentives to telecommunications companies to create such a network?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we do not have any plans to do that. At present, around 60 to 65 per cent of the population has access to affordable broadband technology. A further announcement we have made today is that we intend to encourage the use of satellite broadband in rural areas as well as other incentives to stimulate take-up. However, as I hope I made clear in my original Answer, the main problem lies in stimulating demand for the services, which are now being provided extensively across the country.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it was not possible to find out what is in the report
of the Broadband Stakeholders' Group, which was published today, or the Minister's comments on the report's recommendations, which I understand will be made available this afternoon? Can he say whether the new report addresses the question of higher investment in public sector broadband content and applications, as was recommended in the September report of the stakeholder group? In particular, does the Minister agree that if the Government demonstrated their enthusiasm for such technologies for their own use, greater take-up by businesses would be stimulated? Finally, does the Minister further agree that it would be a good idea to extend the international benchmarking scheme already being undertaken to take in the benchmarking of regulatory frameworks in order to check whether our industry is in any way being disadvantaged by the harsher regime being operated in this country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a good point as regards supply. Indeed, one of the four government objectives which have been announced today is the need to address the question of using broadband to deliver key public services such as Culture Online. We shall use that extensively and take the lead from the Government's stated position on that point.
On the noble Lord's point about regulation, I agree that it is a good subject for benchmarking. However, what should be benchmarked is the extent to which regulation enables the broadband market to be opened up to as many suppliers as possible. On that basis, on the figures that I have seen we do extremely well when comparing benchmark targets with other countries.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, how does the figure of 66 per cent access given by the noble Lord in his original Answer translate in terms of the actual take-up of broadband? Are the Government optimistic that the United Kingdom will not be close to or at the bottom of the league table of member states when the Commission makes its announcement later this month in respect of possible infringement procedures?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the issue at which the Commission is looking is the unbundling of the local network. On that basis, we have done rather well. We have unbundled it. However, it is clearly a disappointment that, following the unbundling, there has not been a huge take-up by the telecommunications industry. But that is not in any way an infringement of the legislation we have introduced to make that possible.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page