Patricia Gibson
Main Page: Patricia Gibson (Scottish National Party - North Ayrshire and Arran)Department Debates - View all Patricia Gibson's debates with the Ministry of Justice
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Mr Deputy Speaker
No, no, just sit down. Let us see if we can help. I want to progress the debate. I do not want it to deteriorate.
Patricia Gibson
I was simply going to add that anyone in this Chamber would think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a unique VAT charge for Scotland’s police force and fire service—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Do not bring the Chair into the argument because the Chair will not rule on the debate. I am here to chair the debate, not to make a decision on who is right and who is wrong. I will let you continue with your speech.
Patricia Gibson
The Scottish Police Authority, uniquely and therefore unfairly, is the only police authority in the entire UK—
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.
Patricia Gibson
Apart from the fairness issue, I mention this matter today because this is a debate about managing budgets, and Scotland is being short-changed by the unique VAT charge that is levied on its police and fire services, taking significant funds out of those important and hard-pressed budgets. It is simply not fair. The people of Scotland take a very dim view of it indeed, as well they should.
Despite the budgetary pressures that Westminster is imposing on Scotland, with a real-terms reduction in Scotland’s budget of £1.5 billion or a 5.7% cut in the funding for day-to-day public services over the next four years as a result of the comprehensive spending review, crime in Scotland is at its lowest level in over 41 years. Violent crime is down by 55% since 2006-07.
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said that the only certainties in life were death and taxation. He was certainly right about the first, but what has happened with multinational companies in the UK under successive Westminster Governments may have proven him to be a bit off the mark on the second. There is another certainty in life that Mr Franklin overlooked, which is that the one thing that is sure not to be debated during a Westminster debate on estimates is the estimates. The issue of debating the estimates may not exercise the minds of the general public, but I believe that is because it is not well known outside this place how little scrutiny there is of the spending plans of the respective Departments. The scrutiny is negligible and that has suited successive Governments. If the public knew just how inscrutable the process was, I am sure they would have something to say about it.
The supply estimates process is very technical and that is how spending is approved by Parliament, but we must remember in this debate that during the debates on English votes for English laws, the Leader of the House noted the possibility of a review of this process, while at the same time being adamant that the estimates process already allowed us to affect the Barnett consequentials. I simply say that the Procedure Committee, on which I sit, is reviewing the estimates process. We have heard from many distinguished and learned experts—far more learned and distinguished than I, if you can believe that, Mr Deputy Speaker. People from all sides of the political spectrum have argued when discussing EVEL that the estimates process is simply not fit for purpose.
Perhaps I may crave your indulgence a little longer, Mr Deputy Speaker, and point out that the way this House deals with the supply and estimates procedure is simply not sustainable. We need proper debate about the supply procedure to achieve clarity on Barnett consequentials. The scrutiny of the estimates process is simply not robust enough, and this Parliament—the so-called mother of Parliaments—has the least scrutinised spending arrangements in the western world. The process is such that the procedures simply do not give MPs a full opportunity to scrutinise Barnett consequentials of England-only, or England and Wales-only, legislation. Such scrutiny is required in a mature and healthy democracy, and a consequence of EVEL should be reform of the supply process, and that the interests of this matter be a “process of development”. That expression is a direct quote from the Leader of the House, who promised and envisaged that on 22 October 2015. Mr Speaker said that he could not conceive of any Bill that did not have direct Barnett consequentials, and that if there is such a Bill, we Scottish Members could take part in the estimates—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Lady craved my indulgence, which I have been very good and given. She answered her own question, which is that the Procedure Committee, rather than today’s debate, is the right vehicle in which to take up this issue. I have allowed some indulgence, which I think was only fair, but we must move back to the core of the debate.
Patricia Gibson
I take on board what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker, and having craved your indulgence and maximised the level of the patience that you kindly showed me, I was about to return to the police funding formula.
Any discussion of policing budgets in England must in all fairness and justice consider any effects and consequences for Scotland, not least VAT, which is a running sore of injustice in Scotland. Our police in Scotland do an excellent job, but they must have a level playing field. When considering police budgets, I ask all Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies to remember the inconvenient truth that the police in Scotland have a VAT ball and chain round their ankle, which picks money out of the pocket of the police budget to the tune of £25 million every year. No other police authority in the United Kingdom has to contend with that. Saying that Scotland accepted it is simply not good enough. Any reasonable minded person would demand that it stop, and it should stop now. After all, Scotland is supposed to be a valued and equal partner in this Union, and there is nothing equal about the VAT burden.
Peter Dowd
Yes, and made Inspector Clouseau look like a completely competent professional. The Committee, not content with giving the Minister one caution, went on to give him a warning.
“The Home Office stated on multiple occasions throughout this process that it wished to engage with police forces but then created a process which made it impossible for them to do so.”
Question 20 in the police formula review consultation document asked:
“How long should the transitional period last? Please explain your answer.”
What is telling was the response from Merseyside’s PCC, Jane Kennedy—among other roles, she was a former Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office with responsibility for security and the justice system, and is someone who knows a thing or two about these matters—who said:
“Given the lack of detail with regard to the magnitude of the proposed changes I am unable to give an informed response.”
It was a former Minister with responsibility for security who said that to Her Majesty’s Government. There was no political point scoring and no histrionics, simply a factual and unambiguous response to a flawed consultation process from a PCC concerned about the service for which she is responsible and for which she is held accountable.
There are many other even more interesting nuggets in the Committee’s report, but I will not take up the time of the House regurgitating them, because, as with any regurgitation, it is not a very pleasant experience for those watching, including for the right hon. Gentleman.
The reality in this sorry affair is that I am not too concerned about the embarrassment of Members on the Government Benches who felt the need to produce such a damning report—consensus was the word used—or the embarrassment of the Home Secretary or the Policing Minister for that matter. What I am concerned about is how the Government’s botched, incompetent and chaotic formula review created uncertainty in communities across the country and the effect that that had on the morale of police officers of all ranks, not to mention the exasperation caused to any number of police and crime commissioners of all political hues. Rural areas and communities have expressed concerned about the numbers of police officers because of the sparsity factor. That puts paid to the claim by the Home Secretary that size does not matter. How many of her colleagues on the Government Benches would voluntarily agree to a reduction in police numbers in their own areas?
Presumably, the logic of the Home Secretary is that they would be falling over themselves volunteering to take police officers off the street. There would be few takers for that—so much for the argument about quality over quantity. I also wonder how many Members on the Government Benches are prepared to call public meetings in their constituencies trumpeting the need for fewer bobbies on the beat because the Home Secretary thinks that quality, not quantity, counts. How many Government Members have the courage of the Home Secretary’s convictions? Does the Home Secretary have the courage of her convictions? What a great slogan in Maidenhead: “Vote for me and have fewer police officers on the streets.” After all, it is quality, not quantity, that counts. If the Home Secretary is so taken with having fewer police officers, let her have fewer in her constituency and not in mine. If the Policing Minister is so enamoured with having fewer police officers from Apsley to Woodhall, he should put it on his website for all to see. Perhaps he could have a photo in his gallery or a spot the difference competition before and after the implementation of a new botched policing formula.
Patricia Gibson
The hon. Gentleman has pointed out, quite sensibly in my view, that nobody would volunteer to have fewer police on the streets and nobody would volunteer to have less money spent on policing, yet that is exactly the accusation that has been made against the Scottish Government in this Chamber today—that we volunteered to give away £25 million a year to the Treasury.
Peter Dowd
Let me return, if I may, to the Select Committee’s report. The outstanding understatement in a report packed full of understatements was the following:
“The outcome for police funding in the Spending Review came as a surprise to many interested parties, including the policing community.”
I suspect that it came as a surprise to the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister, as well.
Finally, what would be most surprising is the unbridled ability of the Home Secretary, aided and abetted by the Policing Minister, to botch the review, leading to uncertainty, a reduction in police numbers and quality, and a serious threat to resilience and, ultimately, to the safety of the public from Maidenhead to Merseyside via Hemel Hempstead and many other communities across the country. The message from this House is quite simple: the police service is not safe in Tory hands.