Police Funding Formula
Kevan Jones Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
I welcome this report, and let me start by saying that the Minister was brave to tackle the issue of police funding, for two reasons. The first is that it is always going to be difficult to resolve a funding formula without acrimony unless one has at one’s disposal sufficient resources to fund every force to the level of the best funded; clearly, those resources were not going to be available to him. The second reason is that funding a police force across the whole UK—or certainly in England and Wales—is always going to be intensely difficult, given the great diversity in policing needs across the counties of those countries. But it is right that taxpayer funds for an essential service such as the police are allocated fairly and transparently.
I agree with the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), that the police need to provide evidence of the work that they actually do. Often that work will go well beyond what we understand to be traditional policing work in the office of constable. The police pick up a large amount of slack that is not picked up by other public services or private sector organisations, and they do a huge amount more than many people appreciate.
The National Audit Office published a report showing that a significant number of police forces were not aware of the demand on their own services. It is incumbent on police forces to ensure that they are aware of that demand, whether for classic policing or wider functions. They must make their demands clear to the Home Office, and, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East said, the Home Office must then make it clear to those forces what services they are actually funded to perform.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he recognise that cuts being made in other public services—in the area of mental health, for example, where there are problems in accessing beds—is putting pressure on police forces up and down the country, as in extreme circumstances they have to use cells to house people with mental health problems?
James Berry
In fact, there is more mental health funding for front-line policing than there has ever been. It is very important that the police work in tandem with clinical commissioning groups to ensure, for example, that there are nurses who can go out on patrol with them to tackle mental health issues, rather than bringing in those people to police cells—often the very worst place for someone suffering from a mental ill health episode. In my neighbouring borough of Richmond, I know that the police are already doing that in conjunction with the CCG.
There was a pause in the review of the funding formula, the financial implications of which were worked out by one police and crime commissioner. I did pause before signing up to the suggestion in our report that the likely figures should be revealed before the end of the consultation. The aim is to arrive at a sound set of principles, but it is difficult to obtain a balanced response from people who stand to lose out from an allocation based on a principle, however sound it might be, because their elected responsibility as police and crime commissioners is to maximise the amount of funding available to them to perform their statutory functions.
The funding formula needs to recognise the diversity of policing in the UK, which is very difficult when we are trying to reach a formula at a national level. Our report references the need for additional funding in areas where policing of minority communities is a prevalent issue. In my constituency of Kingston, we have the largest Korean population in Europe. We have an excellent Korean liaison officer provided by the police, which would not be needed elsewhere in the country, and they provide a vital function in ensuring a link between the police and the Korean community.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) made it clear that there are many other issues in London that provide a positive case for ensuring that the capital grant in London is protected and that the special position of the Metropolitan police is respected. The issue of diverse communities was raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East, and the issue of policing pubs and bars was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). That is plainly volume policing.
We need more police officers on the streets at kicking-out times for the pubs and clubs, which are more numerous in London than anywhere else in the country. The same applies to the threat of terrorism, which is most significant in London. I am pleased that the Metropolitan police have responded to that matter in the light of the Paris atrocities by significantly increasing the number of armed response vehicles and armed officers keeping us safe.
The same applies to the various types of crime tackled centrally on behalf of other police forces, such as online fraud. We have seen a massive explosion in such fraud over the past four or five years and although much more needs to be done and much more funding needs to be made available to deal with it anything like comprehensively enough, a large part of it is tackled by the Metropolitan police’s very impressive Operation FALCON and the City of London police’s Action Fraud. Such crime is perpetrated across the country, but is largely dealt with by the police in our two capital police forces. There is a need to protect the special status of London in any new funding formula.
Where I depart from the comments made by the hon. Member for Harrow West is where he painted a rather less than rosy picture of the state of policing in London. Although there has been a reduction in officer numbers, a less rigid approach to neighbourhood policing has allowed a more nimble model that certainly works well in my borough of Kingston and elsewhere across London. Of course, crime has dropped dramatically over the past five years and we have the police to thank for that. Even if they have lower overall numbers, they have a significantly larger proportion on the frontline and do a fantastic job that has resulted in a massive reduction in crime.
Steve McCabe
It is certainly true that the Minister gave me a glimpse of some of the figures and I am extremely grateful to him for that, but let me reiterate my point: the Conservative PCC said that he had been tipped off that there would be a transfer of funds from urban to rural forces. My constituents want to know why more money is needed to police Surrey and Northamptonshire than to police the west midlands. Why do we get less while they get more?
Mr Kevan Jones
We could ask the same question about the local government formula, which gives more money to Surrey than to deprived areas such as Durham and my hon. Friend’s area. The suspicion is that this funding formula will also be used to divert money away from Labour areas to Conservative areas.
Steve McCabe
If we look at past form, we will see that that is certainly the implication. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) implore the Minister to think again about fair funding, on the basis that a fairer funding arrangement would give the force in Dorset an extra £1.9 million a year. I remind the Minister that, under the same fairer funding formula, the west midlands would get an extra £40 million year. When it comes to the transfer of resources, I hope he will bear that in mind.
The reality is that, far from getting extra funding, over the past five years our force has had to contend with £180 million of cuts—the highest in the country. The workforce has been reduced by 3,000 and the incoming chief constable has been clear that the force will need to reorganise to “cope with the gaps”—those are his words—that it now has to carry. The mistakes in the formula mean that forces are now planning against a one-year rather than four-year profile, which will be a much more difficult challenge. I would like to hear the Minister explain how he thinks the chief constable of West Midlands police is meant to plug those gaps.
I want to be clear that I do not deride the Home Secretary for saying that volunteers with specialist skills in IT or accountancy might be useful in helping to tackle cybercrime. I am curious to know why it is necessary to create a new position of police support volunteer, rather than simply recruiting more special constables with particular skills and expertise. Is that part of a wider volunteer plan?
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
We know that the UK Government have consulted on the funding formula for police forces in England and Wales, as they seek to simplify funding arrangements for the service. We also know that any changes in the funding arrangements have been delayed until 2016-17. Indeed, that was set out very eloquently by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). Because of Barnett consequentials, which are so important for funding services across the UK, I want to say a few words about policing in Scotland.
As many in the House will be aware, the SNP Scottish Government have carried out a reorganisation of policing in Scotland, with eight area forces merged into a unitary force in 2013. The Scottish Government now fund policing directly through the Scottish Police Authority. It is worth pointing out that that had cross-party support, although—perhaps this is in their nature—the Lib Dems subsequently withdrew their support. I would point out, if I may, that in Scotland, despite the major reform implemented by the Scottish Government, which has delivered significant savings, the Scottish Government have continued to protect their commitment to 1,000 additional police officers, all in the teeth of harsh Westminster cuts.
There is no doubt that we are having to make some very hard decisions in Scotland about the police budget, but, under the recent budget, the police revenue budget will be protected in real terms in every year of the next Parliament, with a boost of £100 million between 2016 and 2021. However, it must be said that some of the hard decisions the Scottish Government have to make are a direct consequence of the UK Government’s refusal to give Police Scotland the same VAT status as every other police authority in the United Kingdom. The same applies to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
Patricia Gibson
I can hear somebody chuntering from a sedentary position. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I would be delighted to hear what he has to say.
Patricia Gibson
For the avoidance of any doubt, I want to point out that although the Scottish Government were aware of that, it does not make it right.
Patricia Gibson
No. Perhaps the Minister will let me finish my point before he starts chuntering. The Scottish Government agreed to that because they had no choice. They are working within the constraints imposed on them by Westminster. I should say—I am moving forward now—that like so many other deals in Scotland, it was imposed by a UK Government who are detached from Scotland and neither understand nor care about Scotland’s public services. I shall leave the matter there.
Patricia Gibson
If you do not like giving fair funding formulae to Scotland, you had your chance last September, when you kicked and screamed to hold on to us. In the light of that decision last September, all we ask for is fairness. We are of course a valued and equal partner—well, let us be so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If the hon. Lady wishes to give way, she will give way. If she does not want to give way, we all have to respect that.
Patricia Gibson
I would simply add that holding an axe over someone’s head because they do not—
Mr Deputy Speaker
As you well know from the numerous—[Interruption.] I will deal with it, Mr Arkless. It will be easier if I do. As you well know, Mr Jones, that is not a point of order. If we were to rely on something that we believed not to be correct, we would never—[Interruption.] We would never, ever get through a debate. You and other Members in this House will continue to have different views. We will not always agree. On this occasion, it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Patricia Gibson
No, thank you. I want to progress beyond this point.
Uniquely and therefore unfairly, the Scottish Police Authority is the only police authority in the United Kingdom that cannot recover VAT. It is therefore liable for an annual cost of £25 million, which is equivalent to almost the entire forecast savings gap. Importantly, it seems that the Treasury based its decision on the fact that single services will be funded by central Government. However, the Treasury introduced a new section in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to ensure that central Government-funded academy schools in England could recover VAT. Why is there not the same provision for the Scottish police and Scottish fire and rescue services?
Patricia Gibson
Well, I’m asking for it now. Why do I mention all this, apart from the fact that it is about fairness?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Jones, it will be easier if I can hear what is being said. I was hoping that you would speak next. We do not want to spoil that, because I want to hear from you.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) prayed for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker—but indulgence was not what I was praying for. What we have just seen is what we usually get from the SNP when they turn on something that they agreed to with the victim mentality that, as I have said on numerous occasions, it has raised to a new art form in this House. We end up with the idea that somehow this measure is everybody else’s fault, but the hon. Lady’s Government agreed to it so I do not think that she can try to delude electors in Scotland that it is somehow the fault of English Members and the Government at Westminster. Apart from the sense of grievance, which we have heard on many occasions from the Scottish National party in the House in recent weeks and months, the hon. Lady did not cover anything that was relevant to the debate.
I congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its report on reform of the funding formula, and I pay tribute to its Chair for his opening speech. It has been said numerous times that this issue needs to be considered for years and in a logical way. I do not disagree with that, because we must consider in detail how we fund our police, as that is an important issue for our constituents. I do not believe that how the Government went about that had anything to do with having a serious hard look at putting forward a fair funding formula.
One of the Committee’s criticisms—it was made not only by chief constables but by many PCCs—was that the consultation was rushed. It started on 21 July 2015 and closed on 15 September, a period of eight weeks. The Minister then wrote to PCCs and chief constables on 8 October, three weeks after the consultation closed, providing detailed refinements, setting out for the first time indicative force levels and inviting further comment.
James Berry
I asked the permanent secretary why the consultation was over such a short period when he gave evidence. He said that the Government could have gone for a much longer period or tried to have the funding formula arranged before the spending review. The Department made that decision. Whether or not it was the right decision is a matter for debate, but the decision was to have the formula in place before the spending review.
Mr Jones
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly what was going on. We were to have the formula wrapped up going into the spending review, but what we are in store for is exactly what has happened in local government funding. We did not get a fair local government funding formula: we have a skewed formula that moves resources from the most deprived communities in this country to—lo and behold!—the more wealthy parts, which are represented by Conservatives.
In local government funding, just by chance—hon. Members should not ask me how this has happened— 85% of the gainers happened to be in Conservative seats. I suspect that that is what was going on with the police funding formula. The Government had not reckoned with the PCC for Devon and Cornwall, who questioned the process.
We must also put the formula against the other things that the Government and their previous incarnation, the coalition, have done to policing in this country.
Steve McCabe
Like me, I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that the Minister is a pretty straightforward guy. Given that we have ended up in this situation and that we have been unable to resolve it—it will be four years before police forces can plan a long-term budget—would not the fair thing be to remove any doubt or suspicion and subject the formula to independent scrutiny? In that way, we could all be absolutely certain that it was fair.
Mr Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend—I will come back to that in a minute—but the real issue is that what was envisaged is exactly what we have seen in local government. Under the new formula, the resources would not have been devolved to the areas that needed them, but the blame for the cuts would have been. The Government have used that formula for many years now.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) is not in the Chamber, which is regrettable. He complained about the formula and the distribution. In my local authority over the past five years, we have had five times the amount of cuts that South Dorset has had. I am fearful that the police funding formula will do the same to policing as the Government did to local government.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That was exactly what was designed in the formula. The Government were found out by the PCC for Devon and Cornwall. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said about the Minister, but he is just a small cog in the huge machine. The machine is about devolving blame but not resources to local authorities. They devolve the blame to local decision makers and point the finger at them when cuts have to be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the real villain of the piece, can stand back and say, “Not me, guv!”
Since 2010, £2.2 billion—22% of the funding—has been taken out of police budgets in this country. I do not accept that an average constituent of mine understands how police funding is arrived at. It is unique in the sense that two-thirds of it—the bulk of it—comes from central Government. Many people feel that what they pay, for example in local rates, pays for local services. We know that that is not the case.
The system is very uneven. Some authorities are able to raise more in local precept than others. Areas such as mine are unable to raise a large amount. In Durham, 55% of properties are band A, so a 2% increase in the budget would raise nothing like the amount that could be raised in Surrey or in other parts of the country. That leads me to one of the issues highlighted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement: the ability to argue that some of the lower precept local authorities can now not be bound by the 2% limit but by a £5 increase.
Again, all that does is help the wealthier areas. If we were allowed to do that in Durham, it would raise hardly anything compared with some of the more well-off forces such as Essex, Herefordshire and others. Again, that needs to be looked at.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another issue that relates to vulnerable and deprived areas, which is the top-slicing of grants? Next year, there will be a 69% rise in the top-slicing of police grants. In my area of Greater Manchester, that means a reduction of £16.2 million. Does he agree that we need an assurance that top-slicing for national projects, such as the transformation fund, does not come from local police grants?
Mr Jones
I agree. That is another sleight of hand by the Chancellor. We have only to look at local government and the new homes bonus, which is trumpeted as a great opportunity for local authorities to raise money. What do the Government do, but top-slice it in exactly the way my hon. Friend describes?
In Durham, the ability to raise extra funds from precept is limited and any future formula needs to take that into account. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor said that policing would be protected and that money would fall from heaven. I am sorry, but that is not going to happen. As my hon. Friend says, there will be top-slicing. It is clear, from what police and crime commissioners have said, that there will still be pressure this year on the police budget. Any type of formula needs to consider the local tax yield and the ability of places such as Durham to raise additional expenditure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) raised the issue of disproportionate cuts. In Durham, since 2010 we have lost 350 officers and another 25 police community support officers. Before anyone says that Durham is a profligate, fat and inefficient police force, let me say that it is the only one in the country to receive three “outstanding” ratings for efficiency from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) highlighted in his speech, great steps have been taken by police forces, working with local authorities, health services and other police forces, to drive up efficiency. I am not opposed to that—indeed, it is to be welcomed. However, police forces will come to the point where they cannot be any more efficient. At the end of the day, local people want police on the streets. They want police who are responsive and they want localised policing. That cannot be done. There comes a point in the process where the service that local people desire cannot be delivered.
We have seen the same happen in local government, where many local authorities are being pared back to delivering statutory services alone. Are we going to see a similar situation in policing? If a drive to a small state Conservative Britain is the Government’s ultimate aim, they need to be honest about that, rather than hide behind this type of funding formula.
The police community, local politicians and police and crime commissioners have lost all faith that the Home Office can conduct this review properly and fairly. I support what the Select Committee has suggested—taking it out of the hands of the Home Office. Otherwise, it will lead to a suspicion that the Chancellor is in the background and wants to use this as a way of driving out not efficiency but cash from the police service.
It is possibly a terrible thing to say, but I think it is true that if it had not been for the tragic events in Paris, we would have faced even deeper cuts to police forces. With the greatest respect, it was not down to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) or the Labour party that this U-turn took place; it was because of the Government’s fear that after the tragic events in Paris, there would be an outcry if they persisted with the cuts they intended to put through.
There is a drive for simplicity in the formula. I have always been in favour of making things as simple as possible in public policy. If making things simpler makes them less accurate and less transparent, however, I would be against it. Clearly, the interaction with other budgets is important—I mentioned mental health earlier—and it needs to be looked at. A policing element is needed. We cannot say to mental health trusts, “You will have to pay for part of your local area’s policing”. It is important that the interconnections are taken into account.
Deprivation is another crucial issue. Durham is a rural county, but under these proposals it is obviously not rural enough—or perhaps I should say that it is not blue enough—to get much money out of making representations about the formula. Rural areas such as Durham are unique. I describe parts of County Durham and parts of my own constituency as being very rural yet having urban problems. The problems would be recognised in any urban area—drug and alcohol-related crime and even organised crime, along with deprivation and the high level of crime associated with it. That is why we need to take into account not only rurality, but the realities of what is happening on the ground.
The argument about using licensed premises as an indicator of alcohol problems is, I think, complete nonsense. The public image that comes through from many of our national newspapers is that the real crime problems arise as people spill out of wine bars after a happy hour. No, they do not. People should speak to the police locally. One of the biggest issues is alcohol in the home, but how to reflect that in a formula is going to be difficult. Reflecting alcohol disturbance in an area according to the number of bars in it will not provide an answer to the problem.
Let me finish by paying tribute to the men and women of Durham constabulary, who have had a tough last six years. There are 350 former colleagues who no longer pound the beat in Durham, yet it has met the challenges when it comes to driving efficiency and interacting with the community, which has been reflected in the HMRC report that rates the force as outstanding. I pay tribute to Chief Constable Mike Barton and to the Labour police and crime commissioner, Ron Hogg. They have worked closely together not only to drive innovation and efficiency in the delivery of service, but to look at innovative ways of providing alternative justice, for example. They are making a real impact locally: when initiatives are launched, they are not always popular, but they are having a real impact on the ground.
Finally, let me touch on the relationship with other forces. I am in favour of reducing costs, and if Durham police can work with those on Teesside to form a joint firearms or dog handling unit that is great, but I have a problem with some of the proposals to merge other blue-light services that the Government are driving through. Obviously some efficiency savings can be made through the merging of back-office functions in, for instance, the fire and rescue services, but we must be careful not to repeat the imposition of cuts on those services on the grounds that their job can somehow be merged with, or massaged into, a policing role. If sensible things can be done in back offices, I am all for that, but blurring the edges when it comes to the front-line delivery of fire services, and other services, is a different matter altogether.
I hope that we have a proper look at the funding formula, and the sooner we do it, the better. Any review must be independent, because the Home Office thinks that credibility has been shredded. The one thing that I do not trust at all is an arrangement whereby the Conservative Government and the Chancellor are behind this, driving forward not a fairer funding formula but a formula that will divert resources from areas like mine and into leafy Tory suburbs.
Gerald Jones
That was not the situation that the shadow Home Secretary described, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows that. He is trying to misrepresent what was said. The Conservatives were talking about cuts of 20%-plus at that point, so let us get this into perspective.
Mr Kevan Jones
Non-ring-fenced Departments were asked by the Chancellor to find cuts of up to 40%. If such cuts had gone through in the Home Office, policing budgets would certainly have been cut by more than 10%.
Gerald Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think we are seeing a lot of smoke and mirrors from the Conservative party. In closing, I urge the Government to address the concerns that I have outlined, and to provide the fair funding formula that the police need to do the job that we ask them to do.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I took part in the debate last week, and I will repeat something that I said at the time. I want to put on record again a big thank you to the staff and officers of Merseyside police. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has today given the House a measured and generous analysis and exposition of the funding formula debacle. I am not of a mind to be as generous as him, however, because the tensions that that created right across the police service are still being felt. There is a fear that we shall find ourselves in a similar situation again and that it will be just as unfair and just as much of a debacle.
I should like to apologise in advance to either the Home Secretary or the Home Affairs Committee. I say that because one or other of them is trying to sell the House a very large pup. Last week, the Home Secretary led the House to believe that the police service was awash with money, regardless of the review. She said that in any event it is the quality of police officers, not the quantity, that counts—I particularly remember that one. She said, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham):
“When the right hon. Gentleman calls on the Government to provide real-terms protection for the policing budget, I can happily tell Members that we have done just that.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 389.]
Of course, I heaved a sigh of relief at that reassurance—after all, she has the responsibility for keeping the Queen’s peace, and I am sure she would not want to let Her Majesty down in that regard. However, the Home Affairs Committee report appears to take a different view from that of the Home Secretary, saying:
“The real terms reductions in central grant to police forces as a whole has only varied between 24% and 26% since 2010/11…However, the range for real terms reductions for individual forces was from 12% for Surrey to 23% for Northumbria and West Midlands, the two forces most reliant on government grant.”
The Home Secretary is therefore being proactively selective, with the air of an amnesiac about her, and it is a disingenuous approach if ever there was one.
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice told us that the West Midlands police and crime commissioner—this, to some extent, reinforces the point my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) made—had
“not spent part of the £153 million reserve in the West Midlands”—[Official Report, 24 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 412.]
Again, my relief was palpable, as the Minister had pulled the Home Secretary’s chestnut out of the fire. Clearly, the implication was that police services right across the country had secret stashes of cash, gleaned from the ill-gotten gains of chief constables.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does what my hon. Friend is suggesting not reiterate that we are seeing something that is happening across government? The same arguments are being used by those in the Department for Communities and Local Government when they attack councils for having large reserves, even though a reserve can be spent only once and in cases such as Durham’s a lot of those reserves are already earmarked?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, but I am too much of a gentleman to call what the Government are doing claptrap. Clearly, the implication being given was that all this money has been stashed away: serving officers have, with malice aforethought, picked the pockets of the poor, unsuspecting council taxpayers, with the nefarious intention of protecting them from—wait for it—crime! Of course, what the Minister, mimicking the amnesia of the Home Secretary, forgot to mention was that a comprehensive public report brought before the West Midlands police and crime panel on 15 October last year by the PCC’s chief finance officer clearly set out that:
“This report details by 2020 it is forecast over 80% of the WMPCC’s reserves will be used to support the MTFP—
medium-term financial plan—
“transformation programmes or other initiatives.”
Therefore, out of a turnover of two thirds of a billion pounds, the West Midlands PCC will, by 2020, have reserves of about £27 million, or just 4.5%.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend comes from a local government background, so does he also find it remarkable that, in respect of not just the Home Office, but local government, the Government seem to mix revenue and capital willy-nilly? Like me, he knows from his time in local government that one of the cardinal sins was using capital for revenue purposes, unless it was for investment to save—
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend just set out clearly the jiggery-pokery finances of this Government. That is what it is—it is hocus-pocus. By 2020, this Minister, or his successor, will no doubt be accusing the West Midland police of flying by the seat of its pants for having such small reserves. In any event, the West Midlands PCC was already doing what the Minister was, post-hoc, suggesting that he should do. Evidently, there is a contagion of disingenuity in the Home Office.
More shocking were the contents of the Home Affairs Committee report of December 2015. In last week’s Opposition day debate on police funding, we had this Minister refusing to take interventions, with the exception of those from one or two of his own Members, in full obsequious mode. I am afraid that his insouciant and dismissive attitude towards Members of this House has antecedents—in other words, he has form.
Richard Arkless
I know that in Scotland the distinction between blue and red is becoming increasingly blurred, but that was ridiculous.
Last week we had a debate in the Chamber on the police, and there was a difference of opinion between the two sides. The debate was predicated on the words of the Chancellor in the autumn spending review on 25 November:
“there will be no cuts in the police budget at all. There will be real-terms protection for police funding.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]
The Opposition say that that was not true and that there was a real-terms reduction. The Government say that there is a real-terms reduction of 1.4%, but that will be offset by the ability of local authorities to raise the council tax precept portion that can go towards police funding. It seems to me that it is not this place that is protecting the real-terms allocation for police funding, but the poor council tax payers across England and Wales who are doing so.
From a Scottish point of view, unless I have got this dramatically wrong, we in Scotland will not get Barnett consequentials from an increase in council tax spending. Perhaps the situation was not made as clear by the Chancellor on 25 November as it ought to have been. In terms of democracy, millions of people watch the autumn statement. The public and Members of this House should be able to rely on every word that comes out of the Chancellor’s mouth at the Dispatch Box. Clearly, whether by omission or by misunderstanding, it has turned out that his words were not 100% accurate. That is plain wrong.
I have nothing further to add—I know that the Policing Minister will be absolutely devastated at that assertion—other than to request that whatever the House agrees in relation to police funding, it should please be protected it in real terms. Cybercrime, terrorism and a new range of challenges make that essential. Scotland will then have more money to spend on police. It will keep our streets and our children safe, and that is one of the core responsibilities of all Members.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. My hon. Friends have detailed the impact of cuts to police funding on their constituents and their police forces. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) for reminding us that the police are trying to do an incredibly difficult job despite the cuts and pressures that they face. The whole House thanks them for that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) was extremely helpful in setting the broader context for the debate, which could not take place at a more important time. Any debate about police funding must be put in the context of the crucial role that the police play, protecting children and vulnerable groups, getting justice for victims and keeping communities safe. As the Home Affairs Committee report says,
“The demands on the police are many and various”.
To give just one example, through my own campaigning work I have found out more and more about the scale of child abuse in the UK. It is truly shocking. The most recent data from the NSPCC estimate that half a million children are being abused. Reports of domestic and sexual violence are increasing across the country.
Mr Kevan Jones
I commend my hon. Friend for her work in that area. Does she agree that that puts pressure on regional forces such as Durham’s, which is involved in Operation Seabrook, investigating abuse at the Medomsley detention centre—an operation that has cost more than £2 million?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue, which I have tried to raise in this Chamber. Such cases are incredibly expensive and incredibly important, and that work needs to be done, but there is no additional money, so the money is coming from the existing pot. The Government really need to look seriously at funding those cases.
The numbers of serious and violent crimes are soaring. In the last year alone there has been a major increase in knife crime, which is up 9%, and a 27% rise in violent crime, including a 14% rise in murder. Devastatingly, 50% of those cases close without a single suspect ever being identified.
Central Government funding for police forces was cut by a quarter in the last Parliament, resulting in the loss of 18,000 police officers—12,000 of them operational front-line officers. Thousands of PCSOs and civilian staff have also been cut. We have ever fewer police officers trying to do ever more.
The value of local neighbourhood policing, with officers working in partnership with local authorities and other agencies to tackle the challenges we face, cannot be overestimated. However, neighbourhood policing teams—a proud legacy of the Labour Government—are being eroded. Serious crimes are up, but victims are being let down.
Despite all that, and after cutting the police by 25% in the last Parliament, the Government were threatening to cut at least a further 22% right up until the night before the comprehensive spending review. We were on the brink of catastrophe, but the Chancellor U-turned under pressure from Labour, the public and the police [Interruption.] And London MPs.
The Chancellor then made a promise:
“I am today announcing that there will be no cuts in the police budget at all. There will be real-terms protection for police funding. The police protect us, and we are going to protect the police.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]
That promise to the public and the police has been broken. The Chancellor said he would protect the police, but police budgets are still being cut. Police force funding for 2016-17 has not been protected in real terms. Budgets are being cut again—for the sixth year in a row—at a time when the country faces increased risks.
Figures from the House of Commons Library show that the overall Home Office grant to the police next year will not be protected in real terms or even in cash terms. The Library’s analysis shows that forces in England and Wales will receive £30 million less in cash—a cut worth £160 million in real terms. Even the extra council tax that Tories expect local people to pay to make up for the cuts will not compensate for that.
Mike Penning
I will come on to the report’s recommendations. Whether we use the organisations referred to by the Home Affairs Committee or others, it is crucial that we have the confidence to say, “This is where we are, this is what we think is right and the chief constables are with us.” I reiterate, however, that whenever the contents of a pot of gold are dispersed, there are winners and losers. At the end of the day, though, we must make sure that it is fairer.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister is right to raise the important issue of the pressures put on police forces by historic abuse cases. Durham faces a £2 million-plus bill for Operation Seabrook. Is it right that such a complex investigation, which is clearly needed, should fall on Durham? Should there not be a central pot to refund it for such operations?
Mike Penning
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Some forces have much larger percentage costs for historical cases and they have an opportunity to apply to the Home Office for assistance. It is right and proper that the investigations are done by the forces. Some investigations were not done correctly early on, which is even more reason why we should address them. I know about the inquiry referred to by the hon. Gentleman and I am more than happy to look into it. A piece of paper will probably be passed around my back while I am speaking, but I do not think I have had a request from Durham.
On the subject of Durham, it has done fantastically well, hasn’t it? If someone from the moon had landed here this afternoon and listened to this debate—some people probably wish they had travelled in the other direction—they would have thought that Durham had really struggled, so let us say from the outset that it has done fantastically well. It has even done really well in the latest independent reports on police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy. It has been rated outstanding on nine of the 12 points, good on another two, and the other one, which relates to a serious error on stop and search and the use of a Taser, requires improvement.
The force has done all that with a reduced workforce and a higher percentage of officers on the front line. It has experienced a substantial reduction in numbers, from 1,705 to 1,057, but it has massively reduced crime, including during this year. When the hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, I am sure that he will praise the police in Durham, as I have done.
Mr Jones
The Minister cannot have been listening to my speech, in which I praised the great leadership of the chief constable, Mike Barton, and the Labour PCC, Ron Hogg—and, more importantly, the men and women of Durham police. That is no reason why the force should not be fairly funded, however. It has done things well, but that has not been achieved easily. Clearly, it would not have got a fairer funding formula under the Government’s proposals.
Mike Penning
Durham has done more with less, and it has done so excellently. I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely, as I have said at the Dispatch Box on more than one occasion, that we need a way of funding our police that is fairer than the existing formula. He has said on more than one occasion today how difficult things have been for Durham. He is quite right to say so, and things have been difficult for other forces as well. I believe in giving praise where praise is due, and Durham has done fantastically well. It has reduced crime with fewer police but a higher percentage of officers on the front line than in 2010, and that is great.
Mike Penning
I hope I did not say that because that is not what I intended to say. I intended to say that forces that have already collaborated should not be worse off by anything that we bring forward. The chiefs are doing their own capability review across policing—the collaboration with other services is a slightly different thing. Once I know where that delivery point will be and, in other words, where they think the services will be—they could be in ROCUs or local collaboration, as in my hon. Friend’s part of the country, or within the NCA, or within a force—we will have a basis for coming forward with a fairer formula.
Mr Kevan Jones
I want to ask a question about what the Minister is trying to achieve. If he is doing that now, why was it possible in the previous review to think that he could come up with a fair funding formula in eight weeks? What is the role of the Treasury? Is it still sitting on his shoulder trying to get savings, or are we starting with an entirely new process? One key thing that has been raised in the debate—I think the Minister realises it—is that he has to get the confidence back of chief constables, PCCs and the police family.
Mike Penning
I have broad shoulders, but they are not broad enough to take on the whole Treasury. However, the Treasury’s influence is only that it is a flat cash terms agreement for four years, not one year. That is the agreement we have. All the chiefs and PCCs know it. They did not know—they do now.
It would be wrong if I did not mention Scotland, not least because we heard a very interesting contribution from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and another one. I did not allow myself to get involved in the spat between the Labour party and the Scottish National party. All I can say is that I thought the SNP position was—I am almost lost for words—ridiculous. That is being polite. Suppose someone goes to their bank manager and asks for a loan of £10,000, £100,000 or even £1 million and he agrees it after looking at the business plan. If, as they walk out after presenting their business plan, they say to the bank manager who is giving them the money, “By the way, I want another 20%,” he will laugh. I laughed when I first read that that is exactly what the Scottish National party has done.
Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women
Kevan Jones Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Smith
I cannot believe for a minute that the hon. Lady is old enough to be one of the women concerned. It tests the credibility of the House that that could be so. I am nevertheless grateful for her intervention.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that there are a lot of women like Jayne Manners in my constituency, who assumed she was going to retire at 60, is now disabled, and has no ability whatsoever to make up the difference for the six years she has lost because of these changes?
Owen Smith
That is the case for thousands of women across this country. That is why this is more than a small campaign: there is a fundamental injustice that must be changed.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) just said to the Minister that we need at least 10 years for these notifications to be brought in. Is he confirming that this group of women, some of the poorest people in the country, are paying for the planned deficit reduction? What does he say to my constituent, Jayne Manners, who is disabled and cannot make up the six years that she has lost from this scheme? What transitional help can he give her?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman in part repeated a question that was asked earlier, and I refer him to my previous answer. I will turn to other issues later, given the opportunity to make progress with my speech.
We need a pensions system that recognises the changes that have been made, in the same way that we have responded to the need to support older workers in the labour market. We have abolished the default retirement age and extended the right to request flexible working to all employees, and we are working with businesses to encourage the employment and retention of older workers.
Police Grant Report (England and Wales)
Kevan Jones Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. May I join in the welcome to the Serjeant at Arms? We served at the Ministry of Justice together many years ago. I very much welcome his presence today.
This debate is about the police grant—an issue that the Policing Minister skirted around. He talked about a range of issues, including rationalisation and making the police service more efficient, but he avoided the central question of the level of police funding that the Government are committed to for the next few years.
However, I do not want to start on a negative note. On a positive note, I share with the Minister and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) an admiration for the work of the police and the professionalism of the police service. They do a marvellous job. We must never forget that the police put their lives on the line every day. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), as a Merseyside MP, will note that, because we recently lost an officer in Merseyside. Anyone who has been to the National Police Memorial Day, as the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and I have, will know that the police do a great job and put their lives on the line every day.
This debate is about the level of financial support for the police service across England and Wales. It is clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said that the level of support is not sufficient to meet the needs of the police service over the next few years. Nobody will deny that crime has fallen in certain key areas, and that the police are trying their best to reduce crime in key areas. However, a key point has been missed in this debate: policing is not just about crime and whether crime is falling or otherwise.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) put his finger on it when he spoke about the difficult circumstances that Cumbria has faced with the recent flooding. In such circumstances, the police are the first port of call. When there are public order events, such as football matches and parades—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington spoke about the recent events in Birmingham—the police are the first port of call. When there are road accidents or deaths in our communities, whether in houses or on the streets, the police are the first port of call. Because social services and health services are not always operational at weekends, on mental health issues the police are the first port of call 24 hours a day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington spoke about the golden thread of neighbourhood policing that runs through the service. The police are about reassurance, visibility and evidence collecting, not just about solving crime. My worry is that today’s settlement will put the level of service at risk. No one can deny that the service is under pressure.
I happen to live in a relatively low-crime area in north Wales. The police force there does a great job under Mark Polin. I met Inspector Dave Jolley in my local area last week. The police are doing a great job and the level of crime is relatively low. However, the budget is putting great pressure on the level of service. It is important to examine that, rather than to duck around the issues, as the Minister did today.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
This Government clearly have a small-state Conservative view of the world, as we have seen in local government, which will be changed radically by this week’s settlement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the average member of the public wants is the reassurance of having police in their communities, and that what is being proposed in the small-state Conservative world that is being put forward is not what our voters want?
Mr Hanson
The constituents of north Wales and, I am sure, of Durham want a visible police force that engages with them locally, works with them locally and provides reassurance, as well as solving and preventing crime. The Minister has missed something extremely important. He has focused on crime falling in certain areas, which I accept it has—I will come on to the areas where crime has not fallen—but policing is about much more than solving crime.
Christopher Pincher
You may be surprised to learn that, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, when police and crime commissioners were first mooted, I have to admit that I was sceptical. I am a Conservative and, like all Conservatives, wary of change, so I was not sure whether we should employ this radical procedure of appointing police and crime commissioners. I always remind myself of the words of the former Prime Minister, the great Marquess of Salisbury, who, when officials and Ministers visited him at Hatfield House to encourage him to do this, say that or think about the other, would press his fingers to his chin and say after a moment’s thought, “’Twere better not.” Governments of all stripes would do well when considering officials’ ideas to say, “’Twere better not.” We might all be better off.
However, the Home Secretary was right, on police and crime commissioners, to say “’Twere better to do this” because they have transformed our police forces around the country and the way in which they spend their money, not least in my county of Staffordshire, where Matthew Ellis has done a tremendous job in introducing new technology. Hand-held tablets have reduced the amount of time that police officers have to work in their stations and has put them out on the beat. At a fraction of the cost, that has effectively created 100 new police officers in Staffordshire. As a result of Matthew Ellis’s reforms, there has not been an increase in the precept in the past four years, and he can balance the budget for the next four years without an increase in the precept.
Other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), have mentioned body cameras. We call them “bobby cameras” in Staffordshire, which led the way with that innovation. They not only make it easier for the police to prosecute crime, but make it far more challenging for people to bring malicious and false accusations against the police. If the police are wearing cameras and can film their own behaviour, angry, often young people are far less likely to make untrue claims about the police.
In Staffordshire, we have also led the way in introducing a cadet force. There are now 240 cadet officers between the ages of 14 and 17 working in and with the police to build their skills and work out whether they want a career in the police service. If money is spent effectively and considerately, we can have better policing, a community that feels safer, and a police force that has the tools it needs to do the job.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but will he address the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson)? The central grant to counties such as Durham is far more important than the precept, given that even a large increase in our precept will not generate much cash because of the number of band A properties in County Durham. Does that not mean that there is no level playing field across the UK, given that the precept is not a way of generating any extra cash in places that contain large numbers of band A properties?
Christopher Pincher
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I feel that he may be thinking that Staffordshire is some sort of green and leafy county. Staffordshire has Stoke in it, and areas of deprivation in Tamworth, Stafford and Burton. That county, which is led by Matthew Ellis, has managed to make a saving of £126 million, which is invested in technology and makes policing better in Staffordshire and—dare I say this?—better than in County Durham?
Christopher Pincher
I will not give way because the House does not have much longer to debate this matter.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
I rise to make four brief points. First, on the level of funding, before the autumn statement, the Home Office, like many other Departments, was asked to model reductions in spending, and the police were preparing for cuts of 20% to 25%. Labour said that the police could withstand cuts of 10%, but the Chancellor protected police funding, and I welcome that protection, as do many police leaders. The most impressive responses from the policing community came from people such as Chief Constable Sara Thornton, who recognised the need not only for sufficient funding, but for the police to reform and to adapt to the changing demands on their services.
My second point is about flexibility. It is important that the police are flexible to meet the demands on their services. A National Audit Office study reveals that the police do not have a sufficient understanding of those demands, so it is important that they both understand and adapt to meet them.
James Berry
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was wronged earlier, because Durham is, in fact, the most efficient police force in the country. I think he wanted to make that point earlier.
Mr Jones
I wanted to put the record straight for the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher). As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) rightly says, Durham is the only constabulary in the country that has received an “outstanding” rating for efficiency five times from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs inspectors. In spite of that, however, it is going to have to save about £3 million over the next year. The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) has said that the cash settlement has not been reduced, but other demands mean that the number of officers in County Durham will have to be reduced, even though it has already been cut by some 400 over the past 10 years.
James Berry
I am sure the Minister will deal with that in his response. I do not recognise those statistics, but I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s chief constable for running such a fantastically efficient force.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very kind.
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the police protect us, and the Government have indeed protected the police. I believe that the settlement strikes the right balance between ensuring that police forces are properly funded and can plan for the future, and maintaining the impetus and the tempo of reforms.
When I was listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), it struck me that it would be helpful to put the settlement in context. Back in 2010, this country was truly staring into the abyss. Youth unemployment had doubled, and Britain was the basket case of Europe. [Interruption.] I hear the scoffing of Opposition Members, but the important point is this: the impact on public services would have been felt if the Government had not introduced some degree of order. Let us remember what the position was like back then. People were talking not just about trimming the police force, but about the wholesale meltdown of some of our key public services, and that is precisely what has not happened.
On 25 November the Chancellor announced that police spending would be protected in real terms over the spending review period, when the precept was taken into account. No police and crime commissioner will face a reduction in cash funding next year, and funding will have increased by up to £900 million in cash terms by 2019-20. As has already been pointed out, counter-terrorism funding will increase in real terms to £670 million in 2016-17. We have moved from a time when the country and policing faced disaster to a time when we have a strong funding settlement that will give proper funding to our most important services.
Mr Jones
I know that the present Government find it difficult to distinguish between revenue and capital, among other concepts, but the hon. Gentleman has said that no one will lose cash. Durham, for instance, has an “outstanding” force—the only one in the country—but that force must take £3 million out of its budget this year because of wage increases and other pressures. “Flat cash” does not constitute an increase.
Alex Chalk
As I have said, it is important to put the settlement in context. Back in 2010—[Interruption.] May I deal with the point? In 2010, the country was bringing in about £600 million in tax revenue and spending £750 million. If that had not been addressed, the country and policing would be facing meltdown, but policing is now on a sound footing to protect the people of our country.
Speeches are sometimes as interesting for what is not said as for what is said. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington did not mention, even as one of his own apocalyptic scenarios, the kind of cut that he would himself have countenanced. At the Labour party conference in Brighton, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) declared that savings of up to 10% could be found. He said that that would be doable. That is not what is happening under this Government. Funding is now on a sustainable footing and capability is being enhanced.
Police Funding Formula
Kevan Jones Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Penning
One reason that the funding formula was not changed by the previous Administration or any other Administration is that it is so damned difficult. I know that that is not parliamentary language, Mr Speaker, but it is true. I have experienced this in the past couple of months. The fact that it was hard was not an excuse not to do it, however, and we do need to get it right.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement today, but he must realise that the buck stops with him and not with his officials. I find it remarkable that it took 24 hours for him to find out about the problem, and that his officials did not tell him sooner. Does he not realise that the Home Office has now lost all credibility among the police and the police and crime commissioners—the police family—over this process? Is it not about time he took up the suggestion of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and established independent oversight of the process?
Mike Penning
I do not accept that the whole police family has no faith in the Home Office or in me. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, however, to suggest that, so far as ministerial oversight is concerned, I am ultimately responsible. That is why I have not blamed an individual civil servant or any Department. At the end of the day, this is my responsibility, which is why I am standing here now.
Immigration Statistics
Kevan Jones Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Penning
We will talk about the selective memory loss of the Labour party in a moment.
Such mass immigration makes it very difficult to maintain social cohesion. The Government have set about reforming the immigration system and made it clear that it will be fairer for British citizens and legitimate migrants. These rules are tough. We would like to see net migration reduced to what it was in the 1990s, as the Prime Minister has set out. As successive net migration statistics have shown, where we can control net migration, our reforms are working. Net migration from outside the EU has dropped by 25%, but net migration from inside the EU has grown. It is a really difficult situation and we are trying desperately to control it.
Although net migration from outside the EU is down, net migration from within Europe is up by 75%. It is not just about the figures that were released yesterday—that is the indication in all the recent figures. That is why the Prime Minister is outlining today the action he will take when he becomes the next Prime Minister in his negotiations with the EU on the benefit system for migrants coming to this country.
We have already taken unprecedented action to control benefits for those from the EU and outside the EU. We are continuing to consider how this can be done and how we can control it even better. We have reformed benefits, health care and housing rules to make them among the tightest in Europe and we intend to go further. The reforms we have made, including cutting EU jobseeker entitlements, will save British taxpayers £500 million over the next five years. We are proud of that record, but we need to do more. The shambolic situation we were left by the previous Administration must be addressed, but we inherited it and we are trying to make sure that we get things right.
Mike Penning
By making comments from a sedentary position, Labour Members are showing their selective memory loss about the mess they left this country in. Perhaps they would like to ask me in a moment about the mess they left us in and how we will try to resolve that.
Net migration from outside the EU is down and this morning the Prime Minister has outlined his plans to deal with the high levels of migration from within the EU. We intend to do that and to ensure that this country is a safe place to come for migrants when they need to come here but that it is not a soft touch.
Mike Penning
I have known my hon. Friend for many years and his views are well known. I agree with many of his views, but not with some of the views he has made public today. I do not think we can just stand back and say that we will not renegotiate at all and that we will just walk away from the EU. However, the Prime Minister has said today that the changes he has made are quite specific.
The Prime Minister made the statements he made in good faith, as I am sure we would all accept, but he could not have predicted the catastrophic eurozone economic catastrophe—
Mike Penning
Yet again, from a sedentary position a Labour Member talks about the banking crisis that started under his party.
Mike Penning
They are going to be achieved by having a Conservative Government. The Prime Minister made his speech this morning at the JCB factory rather than here because it was obviously a party political speech. All the reforms that he outlined will create a fair system in which we are in control of immigration and our benefits. That is what we should all be looking forward to.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Have we not just heard more false promises from the Prime Minister this morning? One of his proposals is that he will restrict the access to universal credit. Given that there are only 17,850 people on universal credit now, and that it will not be fully implemented until 2028, how will his proposal actually affect EU immigration?
Mike Penning
I was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions until a very short time ago, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that universal credit will be rolled out correctly and it will not be a mess, unlike the IT projects under the previous Administration. What the Prime Minister talked about this morning was post-election; that is exactly what we expect to do when we win the election.
Probation Service
Kevan Jones Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadiq Khan
I know that a lot of work has gone into the hand-outs, but let me make some progress.
Another concern is that the big multinationals will dominate, just as they did in the Work programme, because they are the only ones that have financial clout. Smaller companies and charities will be used as bid candy to sweeten the less palatable bids of the big corporations. People should not take my word for it; the deputy chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, Ben Kernighan, has said that
“under its most significant public service reform so far, the Work Programme, many charities have found themselves squeezed out by large commercial providers. In the interests of helping ex-offenders who could benefit from charities’ expertise, the government must ensure the mistakes of the Work Programme are not repeated.”
Nothing has persuaded me that those mistakes will not be repeated.
Our concerns do not end there. Another £600,000 a year of the Ministry’s budget will go to companies that have let us down before over electronic tagging, Olympic security, prisoner transport and the Work programme. Those companies will be beyond the scope of freedom of information requests, which will do nothing to lessen the chances of fraud or irregularities.
We are also concerned about the length of the proposed contracts. The Official Journal of the European Union states that the contract lengths will be between seven and 10 years, with an option to extend them to 13 years. The estimated value of each contract is between £5 billion and £20 billion. Imagine what great work the public sector could do if it was awarded similarly long contracts and such stability, rather than having a year-to-year, hand-to-mouth existence.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that local charities in my constituency are doing good work with offenders. However, those charities will not be able to bid for the contracts because of their size and complexity. In the past few weeks, the large companies have tried to sign up the charities as providers. Effectively, the large companies are becoming middlemen in the delivery of the service.
Sadiq Khan
What my hon. Friend describes is a repetition of what happened with the Work programme. Small companies, charities and voluntary groups are used by the big boys as bid candy to get the contracts and are then elbowed out. We saw that with the Work programme and we will see it again in probation.
Do Members know who will be able to bid? G4S and Serco. The allegations against both companies are so serious that the Serious Fraud Office is investigating them, and yet the Justice Secretary is refusing to rule them out of the bidding process. By the way, there is no obligation for the staff of those companies to be trained or experienced in this area. Those companies have no track record of providing such services.
We are not confident in the ability of the MOJ to procure the contracts, given its poor track record. Last year, we had the scandal of court translators under this Government’s watch. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is busy reading her texts, but I will read what the Public Accounts Committee, of which she is a member, said of that debacle. She can correct me at any stage. It stated:
“The Ministry was not an intelligent customer…The Ministry failed to undertake proper due diligence…The result was total chaos…the Ministry has only penalized the supplier a risible £2,200.”
There is no guarantee that the big private companies will not run rings around the MOJ yet again.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats want a rehabilitation revolution. We want to toughen up community sentences and make them a genuine alternative to custody, to embed restorative justice throughout the justice system and to open up rehabilitation services to a wider range of providers to ensure that the most effective and innovative measures are available.
It is clear from the comments of hon. Members from both sides of the House that the justice system, as it stands at the moment, is not working. Nearly half of offenders reoffend, but the figure for short-term prisoners is even worse, at 60% and they are the ones who currently get no help with rehabilitation at all. The result is a huge cost to society and to the economy. We need help for all ex-offenders to enable them to build their lives on release and not fall into the same traps that got them into trouble in the first place. That is why I welcome our current proposals to change the law to ensure that all offenders released from custody, regardless of their sentence length, will receive at least 12 months of supervision on licence. It is to be done by making probation cost-effective, by extending the service to lower-risk offenders on a payments-by-results basis. That additional help that offenders receive should, literally, pay for itself.
I am a member of a Select Committee considering prisoner voting, and I can tell hon. Members that when it comes to the issues that will determine the amount of reoffending, the right to vote, although that is an important human right, is way down the list. The important factors are having somewhere to stay, meaningful work, training and education, supportive personal relationships, a mentor, continuing health care and so on. Ex-offenders will now have the opportunity to access such things through a structured programme of help. The private and voluntary sectors as well as those who now work in probation trusts can bid for the care of those low-risk offenders.
Mr Kevan Jones
I do not disagree with the hon. Lady about the excellent work done by many voluntary organisations, as I certainly have one such organisation in my constituency. I am being told, however, that such organisations cannot bid for the contracts, as they will not take that financial risk, but, ironically, some of the big private sector companies are asking them to be on the sub-tender list. The idea being suggested is that such organisations will come forward, but that will not be the case.
Lorely Burt
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening very carefully when the Secretary of State made his remarks on that point. I can only concur with the Secretary of State’s comments—they worked for me.
The importance and value of probation officers in protecting the public and helping offenders reintegrate into society should not be underestimated. We are clear that we need to obtain the skills and expertise of probation professionals as we move into the new system, which is why we are establishing a national probation service.
I want to address a phrase in Labour’s motion that is, I feel, misleading. It states that it is a
“fact that under the Government’s plans supervision of dangerous, sexual and violent offenders may be undertaken by inexperienced and unqualified staff and by companies without any track record in this area”.
I believe that the important factor is whether they are “high risk”. The Justice Secretary has explained very clearly how the system would work. The established probation service will handle all high-risk ex-offenders and to imply that they would be entrusted to inexperienced and unqualified people is, in my view, scaremongering. Let us have none of that.
Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Kevan Jones Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on, and welcome him to, his new Front-Bench position. He has said that he has nothing in principle against programme motions, but had he been in the House before the last election he would have had to sit through the long debates in which Members who now sit on the Government Front Bench used to argue that programme motions were an evil of our age. They have not taken long to embrace programme motions or to use them as a way of curtailing debate.
It is universally acknowledged that the Queen’s Speech was not jam-packed with proposed legislation, to the extent that we now routinely have Back-Bench business debates and Opposition days. This Government are reluctant to ensure that this House properly scrutinises Bills. If that is to happen, time has to be provided for it.
A number of Bills have been rushed through this place with undue haste this Session, only to then be filleted in the other place, where more time is given for scrutiny. Sometimes that has been down to bad draftsmanship, and this Bill is a good example of that. My hon. Friend has already referred to the 89 pages of amendments and new clauses that have been tabled, which smacks to me of there being something wrong with the drafting of the Bill.
My hon. Friend said that this is a Christmas tree Bill, but I would say that it is a dog’s breakfast—a dangerous dog’s breakfast—of a Bill. If we look back at previous attempts to legislate on the serious issue of dangerous dogs, we will see that getting it wrong can cost lives, so it is very important that we get it right this time. That can only be done through proper scrutiny by the House.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)
In the absence of any amendment to the programme motion, what could the House possibly gain from voting against it? If we did so we would, in effect, lose a whole day.
Mr Jones
I welcome the hon. Gentleman, whose presence in the House has been limited because of illness, to his place. The fact is that there is a general trend under this Government to limit the time to consider all Bills, not just this one.
The Bill raises serious issues and has a wide scope, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has said. It covers everything from the important issue of dangerous dogs to forced marriage and major issues of police reform, including a provision allowing foreigners to become police chiefs. Also—I know this is an issue of huge concern to some Government Members—it relates to the Terrorism Act 2000 and extradition. If we are to have a serious debate about such issues and ensure public confidence in us, we need more time than that allotted by the programme motion.
The Minister has said that the programme motion is generous because it gives us an extra day, but that is not the case, unless the Minister’s day usually finishes at 5.30 pm on a Tuesday. Why can we not extend the time available for consideration until the usual time of 7 pm, which would at least give us nearly two extra hours? I understand that Government Members are keen to attend to certain social engagements. I was surprised to read in the press at the weekend that the Opposition had agreed to the programme motion when they clearly had not. It has been a trend of this Government to believe that if they say something, it must be true, and if they keep saying something, it most definitely is true.
This House must do a proper job of scrutinising this large piece of legislation, which contains some crucial issues that will affect our constituents directly. The allocated time is not sufficient to ensure that we do that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kevan Jones Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Blunt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the advice on Nottinghamshire. I confess that I was not aware of that work, although I am aware of very good practice in the north-east, for example, and elsewhere in the country. But, of course, we do not propose those changes to the sentencing regime for that offence except to send a very clear message that it is an offence that can do very serious damage indeed.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
22. What discussions he has had with the Lord Chief Justice on the potential effect of his planned changes to legal aid on the number of litigants in person.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
I thought that I had already answered this question, which was grouped with Question 10. I said that a substantial number of cases already—
Mr Clarke
The courts already deal with litigants in person, and they are very used to dealing with that situation. We accept that the legal aid changes currently before the House of Lords will increase the number of litigants in person, but the evidence on the issue is very mixed, indicating that some cases are dealt with more quickly and others take longer. In fact, many such cases do not require legal representation at all.
Mr Jones
The Justice Secretary is clear that the number of litigants representing themselves will increase. In drawing up his cuts in legal aid, did his Department make any assessment of increased costs, given that the Lord Chief Justice is concerned that courts could be swamped and that the cost to the taxpayer could be higher as a result of those cuts?
Mr Clarke
We see no evidence at all that this would give rise to increased costs. It is extremely difficult to anticipate precisely the effect of there being more litigants in person because the evidence is so mixed. We are concentrating, particularly in the family division, on dealing with more cases by way of mediation. Adversarial litigation is not always the best way of resolving problems; there are many better alternative ways of resolving disputes in suitable cases. We are putting more money into mediation and less into taxpayers paying for lawyers.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Kevan Jones Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I note what my hon. Friend is saying about the claims regulatory authority, but my experience at the tail end of the miners compensation scheme was that it was effective in driving out of the industry some of the more unscrupulous claims management companies, which were often just front companies that wound up as soon as they had passed the claims on. I caution my hon. Friend not to be too harsh on it.
Mr Slaughter
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I am sure that some companies have been driven out of business, but the everyday experience of hon. Members, and certainly of our constituents, is that the industry is not properly regulated, which is why corrective action must be taken. However, the proposals in the Government’s new clauses are, I fear, insufficient. They are riddled with inconsistencies and loopholes, which is another symptom of the haste with which they were prepared.
I will deal with the point that the Minister dealt with. New clause 19(8) states that a payment is
“to be treated as a referral fee unless”
it can be shown
“that the payment was made…as consideration for the provision of services, or…for another reason”.
The Minister’s impact assessment explains what that means. Claims management companies may adapt their business models so that they are not reliant on referral fees paid by lawyers, or they may move into alternative types of business such as marketing or advertising. That is staggering to those of us who recognise that it is precisely that marketing and advertising, whether on daytime TV adverts or via spam messages, that lead to perceptions of a compensation culture.
What is the point of the new clauses? The truth is that they are an afterthought to a package of changes in the Bill, some of which we will debate tomorrow, that have far more bite but a different purpose. The changes to conditional fee agreements mean that losing defendants—wrongdoers—and their insurers will benefit at the expense of winning claimants—victims—and that is the real objective of the Government’s legislation. Tomorrow, we will seek to overturn those provisions.
As Bob and Sally Dowler have told us; as the lawyers that brought Trafigura to justice have told us; as victims of asbestosis, who have been fighting insurers that simply do not want to pay out to hard-working and long-suffering people; as those who have been unfairly dismissed or subject to harassment in the workplace have told us; and as Christopher Jeffries, who was persecuted by the media last Christmas, as he wrote in The Guardian this very day, has told us, the changes are unacceptable. The Government’s proposed changes, which they had thought about and on which they had taken instructions from the insurance industry, are in the Bill, but very little thought has gone into the new clauses before us today, and none would have gone into them had it not been for my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
In summary, we believe that there is merit in a ban on referral fees as part of a package to stop the abuses that I have talked about. That is why I tabled amendments not just to clamp down on those fees, but to make the payment and solicitation of referral fees in road traffic accident personal injury cases a criminal offence. My right hon. Friend has tabled amendments to new clause 18, and I hope that he will press them to a vote. If he does so, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join him in the Lobby if the Government still refuse to accept the criminalisation of referral fees.
We sought to make unsolicited text messages and phone calls regarding personal injuries a criminal offence. We would have strengthened the rules against the sale of personal data. We would have restricted whiplash claims by placing a lower limit on the speed at which a vehicle must be travelling before damages may be paid. We would have outlawed third-party capture, another dirty secret of the insurance industry. I freely acknowledge that we plagiarised some of that from my right hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill.
If the Government had had the courage of the conviction in the Minister’s speeches earlier in the year, we would have got to the heart of the perception of a compensation culture. In doing so, we would have done what the Government are now failing to do. The new clause alone will have little effect. We believe that it deserves further scrutiny, and we hope that amendments in another place will toughen it up, if that does not happen tonight. We also hope that amendments to make these practices criminal offences will be accepted. We therefore have no intention of voting against the new clauses; we simply regard them as not going far enough.
The Minister’s incompetence in getting to grips with claims farmers who engage in unscrupulous practices and his Department’s failure even to recognise the scale of their failure to regulate effectively have got us here. These are symptoms not of a litigation culture, as he would have us believe, and of the rhetoric that goes along with the cuts in legal aid to the poorest, as well the neutering of no win, no fee agreements which will affect almost everyone except the super-rich and will prevent access to justice, but of regulatory incompetence by the Minister’s Department. Indeed, he has now surrendered responsibility for that regulation.
I commend my right hon. Friend’s amendments to the House. We accept the new clauses as far as they go, but it is about time the Government stopped using their rhetoric as a mask for preventing victims from obtaining justice and used it to ensure that the abuses that we all put up with day to day from fraudulent and criminal practices are stamped out.
Mr Straw
I said earlier today outside the House that I believe the reason why the OFT has decided rather late in the day to hold an investigation into market conditions in the motor insurance industry is that it is deeply embarrassed by the position that it took in 2004. In no sense could it be said that referral fees encourage fair trading. They are essentially a fraud on the consumer. Lord Justice Jackson, in his magisterial report, completely demolished the OFT’s case in favour of referral fees.
The other body that should examine its processes is the Legal Services Board. I accept readily the reason why the Secretary of State felt obliged to wait for its consideration of referral fees, but its consumer panel released the most extraordinary report stating that referral fees worked in the public interest. If we examine the basis of its research, we find that a third of the people whom it surveyed had received compensation for things like whiplash.
On any objective consumer evidence, and there is plenty of it, it is perfectly plain that the public collectively do not like what they are learning about how the wider insurance industry operates. They reckon they are being defrauded, and that is absolutely true. In motor insurance, for example, a conservative estimate is that at least £2 billion of the total premium income of £9 billion is additional costs caused by the merry-go-round of referral fees.
Mr Kevan Jones
My right hon. Friend is correct that in 2004, referral fees were put on a legal footing. However, many years before that it was quite clear that referral fees were being paid in various guises. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I raised the scandal that was going on in the miners’ compensation scheme. When we were arguing for that practice to be banned, the Government of the time did not do a great deal about it.
Mr Straw
The Government should have done, and as I have sometimes said in respect of that period, my alibi is that I was abroad. I am the last to suggest that the problem has been created by the current Government. I accept that although the Labour Government did many wonderful things, the consequence of a number of things, some of which we introduced and some of which, such as the OFT report, were forced on us, has been the creation of a dysfunctional system.
Mr Jones
The fact that this has become an issue for middle England is quite ironic, but I am angry that when my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and I raised it in respect of poor mining communities, people did not think it was a great priority. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that if we had tackled the problem at that time, the scandals in the motor industry that he has outlined would have been put to bed years ago?
Mr Straw
That might be so—it is good to know that my constituency is representative of middle England.
Similarly unacceptable practices take place in motor repairs. In bottom-line referrals, accident management companies require repairers to give them a discount of up to 25%. The repairers then increase their prices to take account of that bottom-line referral fee. Royal and Sun Alliance outrageously practised a type of subrogation whereby it set up an internal subsidiary, which contracted repairers for, say, £1,000 for a repair, and then added 25%, which was charged to the main company—RSA Ltd—which then charged the at-fault insurer. Product mandating is another unacceptable practice. Deals are struck with, for example, paint manufacturers, and repair companies are required to use specific brands of paint. That has led to a 67% increase in the cost of paint since 2003.
We must act on all those matters, and I hope the Minister will say briefly what will happen on the RTA portal if he gets the chance. I know that he has indicated that he hopes to take action, but is he sympathetic to what I suggest in respect of whiplash and many other matters?
I come now to the issue between the Minister and me. I welcome new clause 18, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the Minister for introducing it. However, for my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and I, there are two issues. First, in my judgment, the breadth of the ban must go wider than personal injury claims. It could be excluded in one or two discrete areas, but in the generality of cases, as the right hon. Gentleman said—he has a great deal of experience—abuse also happens elsewhere.
Secondly, on the question of whether there should be a criminal offence, I noted what the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said about what happened before 2004, and in a sense, they have made my point. My understanding is that the prohibition on solicitors charging referral fees was in the solicitors conduct rules and that it was not a criminal offence. Those rules changed; it was not that a criminal offence was abolished. I am glad that the Secretary of State proposes to make greater use of the regulatory authorities, and I would not for a moment suggest that that is unnecessary, because it is very necessary. However—this is where, with respect, I found his argument least convincing—there are many other areas of regulation, including, for example, of financial institutions, when conduct that is in clear breach of regulations leads to both a fine or penalty by civil regulatory authorities and a criminal offence. That is particularly true given the vicarious liability requirements imposed by section 7 and others of the Bribery Act 2011.
I applaud what the Secretary of State is doing as far as it goes, but for the life of me, I simply do not understand why, given that he recognises the inadequacy of the 2004 regulatory system and many other things, he does not back that with the criminal law.
Kate Green
I, too, am keen to ask the Minister some questions, similar to those put by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
I completely share other hon. Members’ concerns about securing much better protection for the consumer, but given that the amendments have been introduced rather hastily I hope that the Minister will assure us that there will be a level playing field for different business types and, in particular, that access to independent legal advice from independent solicitors will be protected for claimants.
I therefore seek a fuller explanation from the Minister of how it is intended that referral fees will be defined. Specifically, to what extent does he see marketing activity by solicitors and others as covered—or not covered—by the provisions? For example, as has already been suggested, if a high street solicitor takes on some work, but realises that he or she does not have the expertise to pursue the case and therefore refers it to another solicitor and arranges some form of fee sharing, how is it intended that this should be treated under the provisions? Some solicitors have grouped together to pool their marketing budgets. Is the intention of the Minister’s amendments to outlaw pooled marketing completely or to cover it in regulation? It would be useful to have some clarification on that.
I welcome what the Minister said in answer to my earlier intervention about alternative business structures, but I am curious to know what his assessment is of the possibility that more and more large claims management companies will seek to handle all such business in-house and will stop using the services of other legal firms or legal experts. Has he made any assessment of the possibility of the provision of such services being concentrated in a way that reduces consumer choice and independent advice, and will he say what steps he might take to address that?
Mr Kevan Jones
I welcome the banning of referral fees, and I congratulate the Minister and the Government on doing it. The scandal is that, frankly, it should have been done years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I campaigned hard to expose the scandal surrounding the miners compensation scheme, which created a feeding frenzy not just for solicitors but for claims management companies. As I have said before—and to answer the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—I frankly do not care if they all go bust, because they are not needed in this process. If people need legal advice, they go to a solicitor. Claims management companies have acted like parasites on the access to justice model that we have had in this country for many years.
I find it ironic that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said that I was referring to Blackburn as a middle-England constituency, because I was not. The fact of the matter is that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and I, along with one or two other Members, argued hard about the scandal surrounding the miners compensation scheme. One of the key points was referral fees and the amount of money received not only by solicitors but by unscrupulous trade unions and unscrupulous claims handling companies. The issue was regulated in 2004, with referral fees being made legal. However, in the case of the miners compensation scheme it was quite obvious that referral fees were being paid and that the Law Society was turning a blind eye—I always refer to the Law Society as the best trade union in the world, because it does such a good job of protecting its self-interest.
Police Detention
Kevan Jones Excerpts(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Herbert
I will not comment on the specific points in that question, for reasons I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, but, of course, in general it is important both that we have a criminal justice system that properly reflects the interests of victims and that justice is done. The police bail system had been operating for 25 years in a manner with which, as far as I am aware, everybody was content, and this judgment alone has, effectively, sought to undo that. That is why we think it right to bring forward this legislation.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Although the emergency legislation is welcome, police throughout the country are faced with the problem of administering the current law. What advice have the Minister or the Home Office given to police authorities about reviewing the availability of police cells and what estimate has been made of any additional costs? If there are additional costs, will the Home Office give additional grants to the police so that they can cope?
Nick Herbert
We are seeking to bring forward legislation to deal with the problem sufficiently swiftly to avoid any such impact that may be caused in the interim. We will also seek to mitigate the situation to the greatest possible extent, and I will discuss that with ACPO. Clearly there are implications in respect of resources and also for defendants, because as I said in my statement, it is possible that people will be detained in custody for longer, so the judgment’s practical effects will have implications for both civil liberties and the sensible operation of police bail.