Skip to main content

Petitions

Volume 550: debated on Thursday 13 September 2012

Petitions

Thursday 13 September 2012

Observations

Home Department

Policing (Winsor Reforms)

The Petition of residents of Stalybridge and Hyde and the Greater Manchester area,

Declares that the proposals made in the second part of the Winsor Review will have devastating effect on the morale of frontline officers, and risk a detrimental effect on the quality of service the Police provide to the public.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Home Secretary to reject the recommendations contained within the Winsor Review.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Jonathan Reynolds, Official Report, 16 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 812.]

[P001103]

Observations from the Secretary of State for the Home Department:

The petition from the residents of Stalybridge and Hyde raises concerns about the impact that proposals in the second part of the Winsor Review will have on frontline policing in their area. As the recent report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) sets out, the frontline of policing is being protected overall and service to the public has largely been maintained. The proportion of officers on the frontline is increasing, crime is down, victim satisfaction is improving and the response to emergency calls is being maintained.

It is important to note that one of the key objectives of these reforms is to reward those officers who work on the frontline. Indeed, the Winsor Review’s terms of reference asked for an analysis of how remuneration and conditions of service could be used to maximise officer and staff deployment to frontline roles where their powers and skills are required.

Existing police pay and conditions were designed more than 30 years ago which is why Tom Winsor was asked to carry out his independent review. Police officers and staff deserve to have pay and workforce arrangements that recognise the vital role they play in fighting crime and keeping the public safe, and enable them to deliver effectively for the public. These recommendations are about reforming pay and conditions so that they recognise the hardest-working officers and reward professional skills and continued development.

As the majority of the policing budget is spent on pay, we must ensure that pay and conditions are fair and sustainable for both officers and the taxpayer. The whole country has been affected by the downturn, with a public service-wide pay freeze, and jobs lost in both the public and private sectors, including in police forces. However, police officers do difficult and often dangerous work, and cannot strike. The Government are committed to ensuring that this important role is recognised, by treating officers fairly and paying them well.

The total savings from Part One of the Review will be around £150 million per annum once fully implemented, or around 2% of the total police officer pay bill. This money will be ploughed straight back into policing for chief officers to use as they see fit, reducing the need to find savings from elsewhere, and helping to protect frontline service to the public. The proposals in Part Two would not reduce the overall pay bill in the short term.

Police officers will continue to earn more than other emergency services, to retire earlier than most in the public sector, and to benefit from pensions that are among the best available.

With the exception of the recommendation regarding the normal pension age for police officers, no decisions have yet been taken on Tom Winsor’s Final Report, but the Government have said that it provides a good basis for discussion and consultation, including through the formal police negotiating machinery. We remain committed to constructive engagement with the service throughout this process.

Transport

Bus Services in Teesside and East Cleveland

The Petition of residents of East Cleveland and Middlesbrough,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that bus services in Teesside provided by Arriva have been second rate for too long; that buses do not run on time, services have been cut back and rising fares are threatening to price out vulnerable, elderly and young people from using public transport for educational purposes, as a means of transport for work and for accessing health services; and further declares that the Petitioners believe that Government cuts to subsidies for local bus services are making this already poor situation worse,

The 490 Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse cuts to local bus subsidies and take all possible steps to ensure that improvements are made to bus services in East Cleveland and Middlesbrough.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Tom Blenkinsop, Official Report, 4 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 1029.]

[P001104]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

Bus services are vital to the health of the economy, to connecting people to services and jobs, and to cutting carbon. Despite the pressure on the public finances, the Government continue to provide significant funds for local bus services in East Cleveland, Middlesbrough and elsewhere through bus subsidy for operators, albeit reduced by 20% since 1 April 2012, and via the national concessionary travel entitlement, which was protected in the budget.

The Coalition Government does not control local bus services, which are generally provided by commercial bus operators in a market environment, community transport operators or procured by Local Transport Authorities as “tendered services”.

However, we recognise that not every area has the local bus services that residents need and expect. To improve matters, we are implementing the Competition Commission’s recommendations for local bus markets, to increase the threat of competition to incumbent, dominant operators, reforming the way we subsidise local bus services, and incentivising partnership working between commercial operators and local councils.

In addition, the Government have recently made available £115 million of funding to local bus companies and local transport authorities to provide better, cleaner and greener bus services. This considerable sum underlines the Government’s firm commitment to investment in transport infrastructure and so tackling congestion and decarbonising transport.

Rural Transport (Sadberge, Darlington)

The Petition of residents of Sadberge,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that in order to maintain a reliable rural transport network in Darlington Borough additional funding needs to be provided for rural bus services.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that there is funding in place to maintain the provision of reliable rural bus services in the Darlington Borough.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Phil Wilson, Official Report, 4 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 1029.]

[P001105]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

The coalition Government continue to provide significant funds for local bus services in Darlington and elsewhere through bus subsidy for operators and via the national concessionary travel entitlement, which was protected in the budget.

In addition, the Government have recently made significant amounts available to support bus services, providing £115 million of funding to local bus companies and local transport authorities to provide better, cleaner and greener bus services. This considerable sum underlines the Government’s firm commitment to investment in transport infrastructure and so tackling congestion and decarbonising transport.

In many rural areas, community transport can play a valuable role in preventing isolation. I therefore strongly encourage local councils to work in partnership with operators and local communities to examine how more flexible services might be provided.

To facilitate this, my Department has, in the past year alone, allocated £20 million of funding for community transport in rural areas, of which Darlington Borough Council received a £37,100 share.

I recognise that local councils are making difficult decisions in the light of reductions in revenue support from Government, but they do have almost total discretion about which services to value when budgeting for the future. These are decisions which must be made locally, in consultation with the public.