| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as the noble Lord spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I was reminded that the wording of this amendment is identical to that tabled in Committee. Of course, as we are swapping stories from the other place, that would not be allowed in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, turned up late one night and agreed to reflect on what I said. Obviously it cannot have been very important because the wording of the amendment is exactly the same.
I cannot use a point that I intended to raise because the noble Lord did not give me a door to open. However, I have a wonderful historical note. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, benefited us that night with an historical run-round of Wales. He got one of his dates wrong and I was going to tease him about it. He confused the date 1453 with 1543. We had a very interesting seminar that evening on the history of England and Wales. I shall not go down that road this evening, and I do not want to introduce too much of a partisan point. However, I remind the noble Lord of it because it is important. People in Wales listen to our debates when we deal with points of concern to Wales.
A devolution settlement has been established in Wales. It was part of the mandate that we sought and won in 1997. It was endorsed in a referendum and enshrined in statute. As I reminded the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, it has operated only since 1999. Therefore, we have a mandate for our achievements on devolution. I do not believe that so far the noble Lord's party has sought a mandate—certainly it does not have one—for what would be a very radical revision of the recently established system of government in Wales if the amendments were to be accepted.
I accept that the noble Lord did not rely too much on that point, although the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, did. However, the point cannot be made strongly enough that the example of policing in Scotland is one that supports the retention of the status quo in respect of policing in Wales. Scotland has arrangements for policing which are separate from those in England and Wales. Indeed, Scotland has always had a criminal justice system which is separate from that of England and Wales. The noble Lord's amendments would mean that, whereas the Scots have a single criminal justice system of which policing is a part, Wales would not. Thus there would be a complete dislocation.
I repeat what I said in Committee: the amendment begins to make sense only if the noble Lord who is moving it also moves amendments which address the court services, the Prison Service and the probation service because the executive function in respect of policing is predicated upon a single criminal justice system. I do not say that to be dismissive. It is not a red herring. It is absolutely crucial. I also rely on the position in Scotland.
There may be different priorities in Wales. I wish devolution and the work of the Welsh Assembly every success. As the Assembly does not have responsibility for primary legislation, it is able to deal with secondary legislation in a more professional way than the House of Commons. I freely accept that there is a real problem in dealing with secondary legislation through the Westminster Parliament. In the Welsh Assembly it is dealt with in a superior way. It has the time and the facility to do so. It is a young assembly and it is bound to push the boundaries. The noble Lord talked about devolution and I say that we have a devolution settlement, although I accept that those at the other end will always want to push into the grey areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, wanted to drive his original plan through without taking account of the issues relating to the court service and the probation service. On those grounds alone it would not make sense. I do not suggest that the matter should be pursued, but if it is pursued—it is open to parliamentarians to do so—I would beg noble Lords to do it in a coherent package. Each time I have to demolish the case, because there is no case for divorcing the policing of Wales from the criminal justice system which is what would happen if the amendment were adopted. For that reason alone, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am disappointed in the Minister's reply, although I am not surprised by it. I am pleased to have been able to place this matter on the agenda again. I am sure that in years to come we shall return to it until Wales has a court system of its own, as it had up to the 19th century. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 276:
- After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak briefly on this amendment. In Committee I raised the issue of police pensions and I make no apology for returning to the matter because it is probably one of the most
I also make no apology for repeating the fact that 13 per cent of our local budget now goes on pensions, and by 2005, £1.6 million will be spent on pensions, an increase of 13 per cent on current figures. That money is not spent on front-line policing.
I know that this is a difficult issue and I know that it requires careful consideration, but I also understand that there are no cheap solutions. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, recognised our concerns about the increasing pensions burden and said that the Government were due to consider options for modernising the police pensions system.
Your Lordships may wonder why I was not reassured by that and why I am persisting with the amendments. I was not reassured because four years ago the Government undertook an extensive consultation exercise on the issue and much effort was put into it by APA, ACPO and others to find a sensible way forward. Since then the Government have constantly and repeatedly told us that they will come forward with proposals for reform "shortly"—a word that I hear so often in this House. Ministers and civil servants repeatedly use the word. We have heard that refrain for four years, repeated in Committee, but still we have nothing. To what timescale are the Government working, and how long will it be before we know their proposals?
I cannot stress strongly enough that resolution of the issue is a matter of desperate urgency. Amendment No. 276 seeks to prevent further procrastination and delay and to force the Government to act by a certain date. I do not say when that date will be, but if we are to deliver better policing in our communities—we are at one with the Government on that aim—we have to be able to spend our resources on policing and not on pensions.
Amendment No. 282 seeks to do something slightly different. It would require the Government to set out in the police grant report, which must be approved each year by Parliament, how much pensions are costing and what impact that has on operational policing. The amendment does not ask for hypothecation of grant spent on pensions, as the Minister suggested in Committee. That is not what the amendment seeks to do. We want the Government to be required to state publicly in the annual police grant report the extent to which the pensions timebomb is restricting the ability of police authorities to do their job.
In 2002/03, for example, the Government's headline figure for the increase in police funding was 6.1 per cent, but once funding for all the national initiatives had been top-sliced the average increase in funding for police authorities was just 2.8 per cent, with my own authority receiving 2.3 per cent. Yet from that police authorities will have to fund the growth in police pensions as well as inflation, which the Government agreed at 3.5 per cent. The sums do not add up and Parliament ought to be aware of that.
This is an issue where the Government could make some statement to enhance our understanding in Parliament of the £9.5 billion which is spent on policing. So I am hoping today, not with much expectation, to at least be given some sign of some date in the future when we can look forward to a resolution of this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have some sympathy with these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 282. The impact of the police pension scheme on the police grant and police expenditure generally is quite dramatic. It will be in everybody's interest for this matter to be highlighted when the police grant is determined.
In relation to Amendment No. 276, however virtuous the idea proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the wording of the amendment cannot be appropriate. It refers to new pension arrangements for police officers,
"PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
( ) The Police Pensions Act 1976 (c. 35) shall be repealed with effect from 31st March 2005.
( ) By 31st March 2003, the Secretary of State shall bring forward proposals for debate in both Houses of Parliament for the introduction, by 31st March 2005, of new pension arrangements for police officers, including arrangements to ensure the full and on-going costs of the new arrangements are met from a pension fund established from the Consolidated Fund."
"including arrangements to ensure the full and on-going costs of the new arrangements are met from a pension fund established from the Consolidated Fund".
The full and on-going costs seem to me to be the total costs and that would not be appropriate. Indeed, I know it is not what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, intends because he does not wish police officers to continue as they already do. The amendment is therefore technically wrong even if the principle is correct. This issue will continue to be a problem until it is ultimately resolved. I have sympathy with what is being suggested, particularly in the second amendment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page