HL Deb 28 October 1993 vol 549 cc939-52

3.37 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I now repeat a Statement on the responsibilities and rewards of the police service which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a Statement on behalf of the three Secretaries of State for the Home Departments on our decisions on police pay and conditions of service in the light of the Sheehy Report.

"The police are of unique and vital importance to everyone in this country. They are the front line in the fight against crime and essential to maintaining public order and ensuring safe communities. As we saw only too tragically in Clapham last week, policemen and policewomen face lethal dangers, often quite unexpectedly. They have to cope with the many pressures of providing a service to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.

"The inquiry led by Sir Patrick Sheehy was appointed to consider afresh the rewards and responsibilities of this vital public service. I am very grateful to Sir Patrick and the other members of his team for their valuable work in producing this wide-ranging report so quickly.

"The report was published at the end of June. Since then we have consulted widely and have received many helpful responses, including in particular those of the police staff associations, police authorities and the local authority associations. Today I am setting out the Government's decisions on the best way forward for the police service. In deciding on these changes I have been mindful at all times of the very special nature of the police service and the work it does.

"We all want to create an up-to-date framework of arrangements which will encourage police officers to give of their best. Change is necessary to make sure that the British police remain the best in the world. In the police service, pay has been too dependent on length of service. Bureaucracy and chains of command have increased, leaving too many officers behind desks instead of on the streets. And the present rank structure can act as a barrier to the rapid progress of more able officers. I want a modern and effective police service. That means less bureaucracy, rapid promotion for able officers, rewards for hard work and the highest priority for front-line duties.

"I am placing in the Library of the House this afternoon copies of a letter which I am this afternoon sending to all chief officers in England and Wales which sets out our proposals in detail. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern lreland are also writing to their chief officers. I shall now explain these proposals to the House.

"The committee was expressly asked to consider the future of the ranks. It recommended that the ranks of deputy chief constable, chief superintendent and chief inspector should be abolished. This would eliminate the overlap which exists between ranks at present. It would enable those with the greatest ability to move more quickly through them. Reducing the ranks would also give chief constables the opportunity to put more police constables on the beat. All the responses to our consultation agreed that some change in management structure was necessary.

"We believe that this proposal is the key to the streamlining of middle management in the police service which is essential to free up resources for front-line policing. We have therefore decided to accept it. Many forces have already begun the process of reducing the number of chief superintendent and chief inspector posts to meet the changing needs of policing. This process will now be completed by 1st April 1995.

"My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has decided to make a limited number of adjustments to the overall package to accommodate the special and different circumstances of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In particular, the rank of deputy chief constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be retained to meet the unique operational demands of policing in Northern Ireland.

"The report recommended that fixed-term appointments should be introduced for all ranks. We have decided to accept this recommendation in so far as it applies to future appointments to chief officer ranks, for whom it was almost universally regarded as appropriate. We shall consider extending these appointments to the superintendent rank when we have monitored their effectiveness for chief officers.

"Different considerations apply to other ranks. I have already announced new procedures for dealing with unsatisfactory performance and misconduct in England and Wales. And we shall legislate as soon as possible to allow for the consequences of restructuring. I want people entering the police service to see it as a career. The skills and knowledge of ordinary police officers, their experience and their accumulated wisdom form the backbone of British policing, which is admired throughout the world. We do not consider fixed-term appointments appropriate for ranks below superintendent and so we have decided not to accept that recommendation.

"The report recommended significant changes to police pensions arrangements. These were closely related to the proposals for fixed-term appointments and must therefore be reconsidered. We shall undertake a full review of police pensions. One of its principal objectives will be to produce greater flexibility.

"One aspect of the recommendations in particular excited controversy: that officers of all ranks should be expected to serve for 40 years to receive a full pension at the age of 60. That would not help to encourage mature people with experience in other walks of life to join the police, as we wish. Patrol duties are not appropriate for people in their late fifties and we do not think it is reasonable for constables and sergeants in particular to be expected invariably to continue to serve until then. We have therefore decided not to accept this proposal.

"Next, performance related pay: the report suggested that this objective could best be met by the application of a matrix determining police pay according to the scope of the job, the level of responsibility, experience, skills and performance. The Government fully accept the principles behind this recommendation. But we do not think it practicable or desirable to examine each job individually in the way the report suggests, and we have therefore decided not to use the matrix recommended in the report. Instead, we will introduce, as soon as they can be worked up, arrangements which depend on the overall appraisal of performance. This will take account of an officer's experience, skills and the circumstances in which these are exercised and will determine progress up or down the pay scale.

"The report also recommended replacing the Edmund-Davies pay formula. In considering how police pay levels should be determined and on what basis pay should be up-rated, the inquiry took account of the fact that police officers are often called upon to put their lives in danger, and moreover they do not take industrial action. The inquiry recognised, as do the Government, that this type of dedication deserves a consistent and clearly defined way of setting police pay.

"On pay up-rating, the report recommended linking pay up-rating to the median of non-manual private sector pay settlements. This linkage recognises both the professionalism of the police service and its special nature, which justifies the comparison with settlements in the private sector. We accept this recommendation.

"As to pay levels, the report recommended that pay levels should also be linked to the median of pay levels in the private sector. Although we agree with the inquiry that there should he some private sector benchmark, the case has not been made out for it to be this particular one. We shall be carrying out further work to form the basis for our decision on the most appropriate benchmark for future police pay levels.

"The report also made proposals on the whole range of allowances received by police officers. The most significant of these is housing allowance, which the report recommended should be abolished since police officers are no longer automatically required to live in a particular location. We accept this recommendation so far as new officers recruited after 1st September 1994 are concerned. For those already in service housing allowance will remain. It will be frozen at its present level but it will not be removed or reduced.

"Next, starting pay: the report suggested that at present it is higher than needed for the recruitment of able police officers. The recommendation was based on evidence about the starting pay of 18 to 22 year-olds. We believe that our police service benefits substantially from having older recruits, with wider experience, and that starting salaries should be pitched so as to continue to attract them as well as high calibre younger recruits. We have therefore decided not to accept this recommendation.

"The report recommended that the range of other allowances received by police officers, which represent only a very small proportion of take-home pay, should be a matter for local discretion. This is clearly in line with the proposals in the White Paper for police reform for allowing police authorities and chief officers greater discretion to match resources to needs locally. We accept this recommendation.

"I have set out the decisions of principle which we have reached on the main recommendations of the Sheehy Report. There is a great deal of further work to be done on their detailed implementation.

"I am therefore today inviting the independent chairman of the Police Negotiating Board, Professor Laurie Hunter, to convene the board to consider the details of implementation of the decisions of principle which I have announced. I have asked him to do so on the basis of the proposals which the official side put forward during the consultation period. The board will make recommendations which we can take into consideration before preparing the detailed regulations needed to give effect to changes in pay and conditions of service from September 1994.

"I am glad to be able to end the uncertainty which the police service has inevitably faced while I consulted it and others on the Sheehy proposals. As our decisions show, we have listened carefully to what the police service had to say. Our objective must be to create the framework which will encourage our police service to be as effective as possible in the fight against crime. To be effective it must be properly led, managed and rewarded. It must have the flexibility it needs to deploy its resources as modern policing and local communities require. I believe that the proposals I have announced today will help achieve these objectives. By cutting down on middle management we will allow chief constables to put more resources into fighting crime. That could mean more work on crime prevention; or more computers and modern technology to tight crime; or up to 3,000 more police officers on the front-line, protecting the public. That is what these changes will do. That is my blueprint for our police service for the future. I commend my proposals to the House."

My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.

3.50 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement given in another place. It is most remarkable the extent to which it differs from the report which the Government commissioned from Sir Patrick Sheehy and his colleagues. It is also remarkable in that it recognises the uncertainty—indeed, much worse than uncertainty—which has existed in the police service and elsewhere since the report was published.

The Statement refers to the helpful comments which have been made by the police staff associations and others. I think that "helpful" is a somewhat euphemistic word for the almost universal condemnation which greeted the publication of Sir Patrick Sheehy's report. What is remarkable is the extent to which those condemnations have been taken into account in the Government's response. We must be grateful to the Secretary of State, the Minister and to the Government generally, for the account which has been taken of those criticisms.

Anything that I say in individual criticism or any question that I ask should be taken in the light of our fundamental reaction, which is to support the Statement made today. I deal with the issues in the Statement not necessarily in the order in which they occur. It was very difficult to anticipate riot so much the content, because that was rather obvious some time ago, but the order of presentation.

The Statement recognises that the pension proposals of the Sheehy Report are not acceptable and says that there will be a full review of police pensions in order to achieve maximum flexibility. I do not believe that that is entirely the anxiety which the police and others had about pensions. I suggest to the Minister that the worry has been as much about the funding of police pensions in the light of the fact that policemen, like others, are living longer. Can the Minister give any further indication as to what protection there will be for the funding of police pensions? That is particularly relevant in the light of recent discussions in your Lordships' House on rail pensions.

The dropping of fixed-term agreements for junior officers is clearly sensible. At the same time the introduction of fixed-term agreements for chief officers is a proper exercise of the control of management performance and we welcome it. We look forward to seeing how it works before a final decision is taken for superintendents. As regards junior officers, is there still not a question concerning dismissal for structural reasons? Nobody expects there to be a job for life for police officers under all circumstances. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be protection against redundancies which may be caused by the restructuring of the police service rather than by overall demand for police manpower and in particular by any organisational changes that the Government are threatening to bring forward as a result of the White Paper?

The Government are right to reject the proposal which would have led to a substantial reduction in the starting pay of junior officers. They have rejected that proposal for the right reasons—that is to say, that it is desirable to attract people to enter the police service not just between the ages of 18 and 22 years, but later. Can we be assured that the starting pay and the comparisons which will be made with the private sector will in fact deal with the criticisms that were made of a substantial reduction in real terms?

I find the comments about the matrix for performance-related pay difficult to understand. The Sheehy matrix is based on a number of factors about the performance of individual officers. The Statement says that that will be replaced by an overall appraisal of performance. The Statement continues by talking about an overall appraisal of performance for individual officers. Either an appraisal is overall—in which case it is an overall appraisal of the performance of a team or a group of officers—or it is individual appraisal. In that case all we are talking about is a less structured version of the Sheehy matrix as applied to individuals. It seems possible that what is being proposed is in effect—I hesitate to use the word—a cop-out. The Government are still prepared to have appraisal of individual officers, but they are not prepared to state the basis on which that appraisal will be carried out.

Perhaps I may return to the issue of pay in general and not just appraisal-related pay. We welcome the instructions to the police negotiating board, but there are still issues concerning overtime allowances which are not referred to in the Statement. Can the Minister say what the Government's intentions are in relation to overtime allowances? We welcome the preservation of housing allowances for officers at present in post. Those allowances clearly have been a legitimate expectation on the part of those currently in the police service. It is right that they should continue under those circumstances.

Like almost anyone who has been involved in management in the private sector, we welcome the reduction in the number of senior ranks. It is almost the universal experience now of private sector management that if quality management is to be improved a reduction in the hierarchy of middle management is essential because it increases the levels of responsibility and communication within the ranks of any organisation including the police force.

The Statement could be unkindly called a climb-down: it is in fact a very welcome basis for future discussion of the way forward for the police service. We are grateful to the Minister for having made it available to your Lordships' House.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I welcome it very nearly without reservation. That is largely because every one of the principal recommendations of Sir Patrick Sheehy and his colleagues has been rejected. The noble Earl has made a Statement this afternoon. It is almost impossible to reconcile the measured terms in which he spoke with the fact that a few weeks ago 20,000 policemen were at Wembley demonstrating their passionate opposition to what Sir Patrick Sheehy and his colleagues had recommended. That being so, and taking the view as I do that the police were right over this question, I am delighted that the Home Secretary has taken the decision which he has.

Before coming to some of the issues of substance, perhaps I may ask one or two questions of detail. First, the noble Earl has not referred to the overtime question mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I would be grateful if he would tell us what is going to happen in that regard. Secondly, the Minister indicated that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wants to retain the rank of deputy chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for reasons which I believe we all understand. What is the position of the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police? It would be quite astonishing if that rank was to be abolished in a force of 27,000 men and women officers. I shall be grateful if the noble Earl can give the answer to that.

Thirdly, I agree very much with what the Minister said about the need to avoid bureaucracy. As the noble Earl will be the first to recognise, if Parliament lays more and more duties on the police by means of legislation, the amount of police bureaucracy, if I may so describe it, is going to increase. Therefore, the Government themselves have a responsibility for avoiding needless statutory duties being placed on the police. I give as one minor illustration that well-considered measure, the Dangerous Dogs Act, as indicating the sort of foolish legislation which is passed as a result of pressure from tabloid newspapers which imposes substantial duties on the police and particularly on the supervisory ranks.

As to the principal decisions of the Government, I welcome without reservation the rejection of the proposal for fixed-term appointments below the rank of superintendent. Above that rank we can no doubt discuss the situation during the course of the debates we shall be having on the police Bill in the next Session of Parliament. I am bound to say that I approach the matter with some caution, particularly given the Government's proposals in their White Paper to change the constitution of the police authorities.

The Home Secretary is entirely right to have rejected Sir Patrick Sheehy's recommendations on fixed-term appointments in the police service. That proposal created immense anger in the service, a point we should not forget this afternoon. The Home Secretary likewise rejected the foolish recommendation to make a policeman work 40 years in order to earn his pension. Rarely has a more ill-considered proposal been put forward by any government committee of inquiry. It was almost inevitable that there would be an explosion of anger in the police service when that proposal was published. Again, I welcome the fact that the Government have rejected it.

Similarly, on performance related pay, the Government say that the Sheehy proposal is neither practical nor desirable. I agree with them without reservation. Instead they have suggested that there should be an overall appraisal of performance. I do not think that any of us have any difficulties with that. Then there was the extraordinary idea that there should be a savage reduction in the starting salary of police officers. That was wholly objectionable given the dangerous job that policemen and women do in this country. It was outrageous to propose a starting salary for the police service below that of traffic wardens, but that was the recommendation of Sir Patrick Sheehy and his colleagues, taking into account also their proposal to abolish housing allowances.

For all those reasons, I welcome very much what the Government have said today. As the noble Earl will be aware, given his own personal responsibilities for the police service, there has rarely been a period in our recent political history when such indignation has been expressed by all ranks of the police service—from the newest recruits to some of the most senior officers—about the recommendations of this committee of inquiry.

The committee was constituted as a result of a decision by the previous Home Secretary, Mr. Clarke. One has only to look at the composition of the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and to compare the breadth of experience of its members and their knowledge of the criminal justice system with that of the members of the Sheehy committee. It appeared that the one qualification for membership of that committee was no knowledge whatever of the practical problems involved in policing this country. It was a very narrowly based committee. I make no reflection whatever on Sir Patrick and his colleagues. The responsibility was entirely that of Mr. Clarke who must carry full responsibility for the situation which has now arisen. There has been a great deal of totally pointless anger and bewilderment in the police service about what the Government were really proposing, ending up, fortunately, with a rejection of every one of the major recommendations of the committee of inquiry. For that, at least, we must give our thanks to the current Home Secretary.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful for the observations of the two noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, says that the Statement is remarkable because it differs from Sheehy. I wonder what he would have said if it had not differed from Sheehy. We would have got stick for that. The fact is that we took into account the views and comments which were expressed about Sheehy. The noble Lord threw derision upon that. I said that they were helpful comments because they were. Let us remember that the Sheehy committee was set up deliberately so that an outside body of people could look into the service and make suggestions about how it might be improved.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, says that it was a very narrowly drawn committee. Actually it was not. Its members have enormous responsibilities for running large organisations in this country. Their experience was remarkable and their knowledge was helpful. They produced a report and it was up to the Government to consider it.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says that the Statement is a climbdown. It is nothing of the sort. There is nothing to climb down from. Sheehy produced a report. It was nothing to do with the Government. We did not know what would be said in it. We then took everyone's views and, as a result, have come to these conclusions.

In his parting shot, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the great thing about the Statement was that every major recommendation in Sheehy had been rejected. That is not so. We have accepted abolishing the ranks of deputy chief constable, chief superintendent and chief inspector, which the noble Lord momentarily forgot. We have agreed to introduce performance-related pay, but on a different system. We have agreed to the uprating of pay scales by the Sheehy index as opposed to the system used previously. We have agreed with the advice to abolish central control of allowances. We have agreed on the reform of overtime. We have agreed on fixed-term appointments for chief officers and on the provision about limiting sick pay. All those are points on which we have agreed with Sheehy. The committee's suggestions have been helpful to us.

Both noble Lords referred to overtime. They will recall that Sheehy said that no overtime should be worked by the police service. In fact, constables, sergeants, inspectors and chief inspectors do work overtime at present. It is our view that overtime for those ranks should be considered by the police negotiating board. It will be up to the board to decide exactly how that will be done.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to pensions and to the fact that the police live longer. A review is to be conducted about the conditions relating to pensions, the idea being to see whether we can introduce more flexibility into the system. One idea might be to enable some police constables to exit with dignity before their full 30-year period has been served. That will be considered, and any such proposals which emerge will, of course, be properly funded.

The noble Lord asked about protection against redundancies as a result of amalgamations. In the brackets between inspectors, chief inspectors, superintendents and chief superintendents, about 1,000 people leave the service by natural wastage each year. It is anticipated in the proposals that natural wastage will account for all the restructuring. It may be that forces will be amalgamated at some time in the future, but the Government have no proposals to do so at the moment. However, it is right that some provision should be made to ensure that, in that eventuality, redundancies are provided for. It is not expected, however, that that will apply at the moment.

The noble Lord also referred to performance-related pay. As I said, we are not accepting the complicated matrix of the Sheehy Report, but it is considered that performance-related pay should be achieved by considering an officer's total performance, such as whether he has been a good, outstanding or average officer. In such cases, an officer will be moved up the pay scale according to performance. Again, that matter will have to be considered and decided by the police negotiating board. All decisions over pay are matters for the police negotiating board within the parameters which have been set.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, welcomed almost everything and said that he did so unreservedly. I am grateful to him for that. He asked me particularly about the deputy commissioner of the metropolis. He will stay. That position will not be abolished. I am glad that the noble Lord also welcomed our decision about fixed-term contracts. I am certain that that is right because it will enable officers entering the service to consider the police as a career. Once one reaches a senior management position, in our view and that: of most people, it is right that there should be a fixed-term contract. That will be a convenience for the police authorities, and chief constables who may decide to leave after a period of time. Everyone will know where they are. They may move to a different job in a different force or retire.

I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they said. We have taken the Sheehy proposals as the basis upon which the decisions have been made. We have adjusted them where we have considered it appropriate to do so and in the light of information and proposals put to us by all sorts of people. We are grateful for that.

4.10 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us share the views expressed by noble Lords opposite that the Government are to be congratulated on their rejection of a number of the more controversial recommendations of the Sheehy Report? As my noble friend will hardly need convincing, the report as a whole aroused intense indignation within the police force, and the Government are clearly right to take that indignation into account in assessing the abstract merits of some of the proposals.

I do not know whether my noble friend or his right honourable friend the Home Secretary have had a chance to discuss with the Police Federation the line which the Government are taking. I assume that relations with that body will now be much easier. But I do not know whether my noble friend can tell your Lordships whether the Government have had arty reaction to this subject from the Police Federation. In view of the strong feelings that were generated and the understandably strong comments that were made, it would be helpful to know whether modified views have been expressed now that the Government have made up their mind along these sensible lines.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for saying that he approved of the fact that we have rejected some of Sir Patrick Sheehy's controversial proposals. My noble friend asked about the Police Federation and whether relations would be made easier. I cannot tell him what are the reactions of the Police Federation. It gave us some reactions, but that was over the Sheehy Report. It has not given any reaction to our decisions because they had first to be transmitted to Parliament. I have no doubt that it will let us know its views, which I hope will be similar to my noble friend's approbation.

Lord Howell

My Lords, I join in the general congratulations to the Government on the realistic changes that they have made to the proposals before them. One lesson that emerges from this is the danger of asking businessmen, without a proper knowledge of public service, to conduct such inquiries. The principles of public service cannot be measured solely by the standards of business rewards, which it seems to me was the error fallen into here.

Perhaps I may ask one or two detailed questions which I believe are important. On basic pay rates and individual appraisal, I hope that the Government are aware of the dangers into which they may fall here, because the ambitions of most working men and women in this country are measured by the amount of money they will be receiving at the end of their career. It is a laudable ambition. If the Government were to depart from the principles adopted in the Civil Service and generally throughout industry to have this flexible arrangement, it may be the source of renewed discontent. I ask the Minister kindly to bear that in mind.

Secondly, on the issue of deputies, in Birmingham the police divisions are large. It is crazy to suggest not having a deputy chief constable. I would also say that chief superintendents are needed. In practice, every chief constable has to have a deputy for the periods when he is away from his office or abroad, or doing other things. I therefore ask the Government to reconsider that point. I do not believe that what they suggest will work in practice. It may be that it could be done with the middle ranks. But I believe that there is another danger in the proposals for deputies and chief superintendents.

What does the Minister mean when he talks about flexibility of pension arrangements? That sounds like another dangerous concept. I do not see how there can be flexibility of pension arrangements in any pension fund. Pensions, as with Members of the other place and for most of us in our ordinary businesses, are tied to normal business arrangements. Any interference with the pension arrangements will cause much more trouble.

I am also a little alarmed, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us, about housing allowances. I cannot see how in justice one can possibly say that a housing allowance is justified for an existing officer but not for another officer who is subject to the directions of his chief constable to serve where he is asked to serve, which may be a long way from where he was originally housed. How much money is involved in that proposal, because it amounts to a reduction in the pay of future recruits, and that is of considerable importance? Those are some of the dangers in the Statement but, as I say, I join in welcoming especially the fact that the Home Secretary and the Government have had the good sense and courage to reject some of the recommendations.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his congratulations and for the fact that he realises why my right honourable friend took the decisions that he did.

The noble Lord said that end pay is important for people who start in a profession or organisation. Of course he is right, but so also is the starting pay. The important point is that by law the Home Secretary is obliged to have the police negotiating body consider the pay scales and how they should be adjusted. We have told it the parameters within which to work, and it will be up to that body to say how they are to be achieved.

As a matter of general explanation, if one has only two ranks to go through (inspector and superintendent) those ranks will be larger, and so it will be possible for officers to move higher up the scale in the rank than they might have done had there been four ranks through which they had to go. An officer might have been an inspector and might not have wanted to move up to become a chief inspector, or might not have been suitable for that position, and so he would have remained in that inspector rank. Under the new system it will be possible for him to move up the pay scale, even when he is in the same rank, and it will also enable more capable officers to move up more quickly to managerial positions.

The noble Lord referred to the removal of the rank of deputy chief constable. It is the rank which will be removed and not necessarily the appointment. There will not be a rank of deputy chief constable; there will be a rank of assistant chief constable. A chief constable may appoint one of the assistant chief constables to the position of a deputy, but it will not be to a rank of a deputy. Perhaps I may give a frivolous and inadequate simile. One may be a Minister of State at the Home Office and also happen to be Deputy Leader of the House of Lords. It is not a rank; it is a position.

Lord Howell

My Lords, how much pay is attached to it?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, none whatsoever, and nor will there be to the other. The noble Lord was worried about flexibility of pension arrangements. Anyone who is in the police service and contributing to a pension will receive the pension to which they have contributed. We want to see whether it is possible to make the arrangements more flexible so that, for instance, a person might be able to leave after 20 years with some kind of reward. It is known as exiting with dignity. That is the kind of issue that will be considered.

The noble Lord referred to the housing allowance. In the past chief officers provided housing for constables. If constables provided their own housing they had an allowance. Because that has been part of the system, it is right that those who are in the police service should continue to have such allowance. However, those who enter the service will know from the beginning that they will not receive it. Indeed, many recruits knew nothing about the housing allowance when they first entered the service until they found it tagged on in their pay packet. That is why we believe that that allowance is now an anachronism. It has been therefore decided not to continue it with new recruits.

Earl Nelson

My Lords, the issue has been touched on but we have not had a satisfactory answer. Why did the Sheehy Committee not include anyone with police experience? It strikes me—I am sure that the fact has not been lost on other people—that the Government might not have disregarded all the major proposals of the Sheehy Report had they had someone on the committee who had any idea of how the police service operated—terms and conditions, and so on. Will my noble friend answer the question?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I hope that I answer very simply, in two respects. We wanted an inquiry into the pay and conditions of police by a body of people who had great knowledge and experience in organising and seeing to the remuneration of large organisations, whether of companies or of people in the public sector. That is why we asked those whom we asked. It was specifically decided not to include the police because we wished the inquiry to be totally without involvement and without commitment, with someone from outside saying, "This is what we suggest". Having obtained an outside view, we then take the reactions of those who wish to express their concern.

My noble friend asked why we rejected all the main points of the Sheehy Report. We have not done so. We have accepted the abolishing of the ranks; we have accepted the introduction of performance-related pay; we have accepted the method of uprating the pay scales; we have accepted the replacement of the Edmund-Davies formula by the Sheehy recommendation; the abolition of central control of allowances, and all those other issues. I assure my noble friend that we have not rejected all the major points of the Sheehy Report. We have accepted the major points of Sheehy but have adjusted them.

Lord Elton

My Lords, the Government have rejected the recommendation on the application of a matrix determining police pay and instead are introducing arrangements which will depend on the overall appraisal of performance taking account of an officer's experience, skills and the circumstances in which they are exercised.

Will the opportunity be taken to remedy a matter that I have perceived in the past to be an ill affecting the police force? It may since have been remedied but I do not believe so. I refer to the general perception that the posting from plain clothes to uniformed rank is some form of bad comment on a career. The public as a whole hold both branches of the service in high regard. The death of the gallant Police Constable Dunne has brought forcefully to the public's attention the fact that the uniformed branch faces many unexpected dangers and shares them with those officers in plain clothes. It would be nice if both branches could be held in equal esteem within the service.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to that point. There is absolutely no question that all police officers are held in equal esteem in the service and in the public's eye. The fact that one person may be in uniform and another in plain clothes is irrelevant. Whether account will be taken over the way in which they will be paid will be a matter to be taken into account by the police negotiating board which has the statutory duty to advise my right honourable friend on how the pay alterations should come about. It is up to my right honourable friend to consider its advice.