§ 6. Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South)What plans he has for reform of police pensions. [69109]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey)Following our consultation document of last year on police pensions, work is in hand on detailed proposals for the pension arrangements for new entrants to the service and for changes to the medical retirement procedures. We plan to publish our proposals in the spring. They will be published in advance of implementation to allow for full consultation with the interested parties.
§ Mr. OttawayDoes the Minister accept that the total size of the pension package expands year after year, and that it expands incrementally into a fixed budget? Is not the logical conclusion that there will be fewer policemen on the beat, in Sussex, Croydon or anywhere else?
§ Kate HoeyNo, I do not accept that. As we have said all along, it is up to local police forces to use their resources as they think best to ensure that front-line policing is not affected. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the predicted need to spend on pensions has gone up from 13.2 to 14.5 per cent. It is up to the police forces 591 and the chief constables to ensure that police on the beat and on the front line are not affected by the overall settlement.
§ Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester)Does the Minister agree that the current operation of police pensions has a direct bearing on front-line police services? Is she aware that, this afternoon, the Essex police authority is considering spending cuts of £7 million, partly brought about by the police pensions fund formula, which means that Essex will have 135 fewer police officers next year, the entire motor cycle fleet will be sold off, there will be less overtime for police officers to tackle crime and the mounted police section will be disbanded? Surely we need to tackle police pensions so that there is more money for front-line police services.
§ Kate HoeyWe are all aware of the difficult position on the future of pensions. That is precisely why we are conducting a consultation exercise, why a document was published and why we shall consider the issue and make sensible, well-thought-out proposals that will take all those points into consideration. Although the hon. Gentleman believes that his force is particularly harshly affected, I do not accept that. There is a general problem that we need to tackle on a cross-party basis; police pensions are not a party political issue, but a problem that we all have to work towards solving.
§ Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)Is the hon. Lady aware that there are reports that the Home Office is considering punishing police officers who are convicted of serious disciplinary offences by cutting their pension by up to 75 per cent? I do not defend police officers who are found guilty of such offences, but can it be right to use their pension scheme as the penalty for a disciplinary offence?
§ Kate HoeyThe right hon. Gentleman has been slightly badly briefed on this matter because that is the law at the moment, so exactly that action can be taken.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are concerned that sexist, racist behaviour does not, in many cases, lead to a loss of pension? If we are to strike out the cancer of racism in the police force, far more action is necessary, including cutting pensions.
§ Kate HoeyClearly, every police officer has to be treated fairly. We are strengthening the position on discipline and the new arrangements from 1 April will take account of all that. The matter is on-going and some changes have already been made. I hope that my hon. Friend will wait to find out how those changes work in practice from 1 April.
§ Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)Does the hon. Lady agree that a pension is, in effect, pay deferred and that the question of punishing a police officer by removing his pension entitlement raises profound questions about the rights of property? Although that can be done now, will she inform the House that it will not be done?
§ Kate HoeyI am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be equally badly briefed as his Front-Bench colleague, 592 the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). At present, up to 75 per cent. of a police officer's pension can be taken away, so this is not a new proposal that has suddenly been pulled out of a hat; it can happen already.