Police Employer Pension Contributions
Debate between Pat McFadden and Jim Cunningham(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The police budget has been cut, so how can the Government say that they are giving the police the resources to increase numbers and make the job attractive? I visited a police station a couple of weeks ago, and police there were being asked to act as medics and assess prisoners who had mental difficulties. That is the sort of job they are being asked to do now, and it must have a demoralising effect on the police.
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend is right that as time changes, the pressures on the police change, and the things they are asked to do are changing.
The Home Secretary’s admission this week is hugely important. Now that he has admitted that we need more police officers, it is up to the Home Office to secure the cash from the Treasury needed to deliver that pledge.
Mr McFadden
It is not sustainable, which is why leading chief constables have said that forces are already stretched beyond sustainability.
I turn now to how the changes might be paid for. The Budget allocated no extra money for local policing, but it did allocate extra funds for national counter-terrorism work, which I welcome. Of course, it is an essential part of protecting the public—we are all aware of the grave terrorist threat facing the country, so we all support extra funds for this essential counter-terrorism work—but it is not a substitute for the local neighbourhood policing that all our communities need on an all-year-round basis.
In evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on Monday 5 November, shortly after the Budget, the Chancellor implied that the Treasury would meet the extra costs of the pension changes. He said:
“In 2018 the Government decided that it was necessary to reduce the scope discount rate still further but on that decision we decided that the Treasury would absorb the additional cost. We have added a sum to the reserve and Departments will be reimbursed for the additional costs of the 2018 scope change.”
When asked if that would be for every year ongoing, the Treasury official accompanying the Chancellor at that evidence session said:
“It is actually for every year”.
On the face of it, that sounds as though the Government are ready to compensate Departments for the extra costs incurred. I hope the Minister will address this when he sums up, because if that is the case, it will be warmly welcomed by chief constables, the public and Members on both sides of the House.
The picture is not really that clear though, because in response to an urgent question on Tuesday 6 November, the Minister for Policing did not say that the money would come from the reserve and go through Departments. In response to a question from me, he said that
“it is my intention to work through the issue and come to the House in early December with a funding settlement that works.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2018; Vol. 648, c. 1387.]
He also said that the outcome of the question of where these extra costs would fall would be decided in the comprehensive spending review. These two statements appear to be in contradiction: either the Treasury will fund it, or the issue is not settled and will be settled, or not, in the CSR.
To add to the confusion, a written answer from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 9 November read:
“Budget 2018 confirmed additional funding for expected costs in excess of the level envisaged at Budget 2016. Government will review police spending power and further options for reform at the provisional police funding settlement in December.”
I hope the Minister can clear this up. Has the Budget set aside further funds for the police to cover these costs, so that the fears of chief constables about their impact need not come to pass, or as he has implied, is the matter undecided and to be settled in the CSR? It cannot be both: either it has been settled, or it has not. What is the correct understanding that the House should have of the financial position?
I want to deal with one more issue that often comes up in these debates: the issue of reserves. During last week’s urgent question, there were several references to these reserves, the implication being that there was a large unused pot of cash sitting there, ready-made to deal with such situations. My own force in the west midlands has publicly set out the position on reserves. It does have reserves, but they are there to deal with issues such as capital costs, the self-insurance of vehicles, protective equipment, major incidents and so on, and the West Midlands force is already committed to running down these reserves at around £20 million per year. The capital and budget reserves will be gone completely by the end of the next financial year, and on current plans, 70% of the total current reserves will be gone by 2020, so this money is already committed and not available to meet the pension costs. In a couple of years, all that will remain will be reserves for essentials such as civil unrest, terrorist attacks and the self-insurance of vehicles.
Mr Jim Cunningham
My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Whether we are talking about local government or any other form of government, reserves can only be spent once. Anyone in local government will confirm that. If there are any surpluses, they are needed for emergencies. We take up these issues with the Minister, but when I asked him a question the other day, the only answer I got was “Well, you voted against it.” That is no answer. I can tell the Minister that we voted against it because there was not enough in the first place.
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend has made an important point about reserves. One thing is clear in any budgeting exercise: the same money cannot be spent twice.
Industry (Government Support)
Debate between Pat McFadden and Jim Cunningham(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Before the election we were told that £6 billion could be taken out in efficiencies, but the announcement proved that that was not the case, and that the cuts will have a real effect on constituencies such as his, mine and many others around the country.
What could be the reason for the volte-face on the timing of deficit reduction? There may be cynics on the Opposition Benches who might think it had something to do with the election result or with the fact that the Liberal Democrats were in coalition talks with the Conservatives, but the Secretary of State leads us to believe that that was not the case at all. He said it was all about events in euroland, but to paraphrase Frankie Valli, “Greece” was the word, although I have a feeling that in the present coalition the Secretary of State does not go into work in the morning singing, “We can be who we are”.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the uncertainty about the future of Advantage West Midlands, for example, is creating problems for small businesses locally? Does he also agree that if the Government set up a green investment bank—the sooner, the better—that could go a long way to helping industry in the west midlands?
Mr McFadden
That policy was in our manifesto, and we believe it would make an important contribution to economic growth.
Our argument today is that if we want a successful economy in the future and if we want to rebalance our economy and support strong manufacturing and powerful regions, a focus on deficit reduction alone is not enough. It is not enough just to have a plan for the deficit. The Government also need a plan for growth; and for that to work, we have to understand that they have an important role to play in supporting industry and creating the right environment for success.