Police Funding Formula

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mike Penning]

rose—

[Peter Dowd]

No, I will not give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think you already have.

[Peter Dowd]

Let me repeat that the right hon. Gentleman’s insouciant and dismissive attitude towards Members of this House has antecedents—in other words, he has form. It extended to last year’s police funding formula consultation process, which was widely agreed to be an unmitigated disaster—there are no other words for it. The Home Affairs Committee said:

“It is regrettable that the Minister proceeded on this timescale, and it is unfortunate that he accepted that advice from officials. It is not surprising that, as a result, the process ended in chaos”—

I repeat that police funding in Britain ended in chaos—

“with an Urgent Question in Parliament and the decision to suspend the whole review.”

[James Berry]

The reason for that, as is clear in the Home Affairs Committee’s report, is that a civil servant made a fundamental error in calculations, for which the Minister came to the House to apologise and for which he was commended in this report.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I will not give way now, but I will do so in a minute. Most of the debate was not about the future funding formula; it was about the previous funding formula and previous austerity measures. There was a degree of concern—from, I accept, Members on both sides of the House—about how that was done and about how we should go forward.

Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), have asked about the uplift in firearms capability. We have put £36 million out there, and there will be more to come. It is separately funded. Hon. Members have raised the issue of counter-terrorism, which is also funded separately from the formula.

I accept that in Bedfordshire, as the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) said, there are some real issues with the funding formula, and I have met him and other Bedfordshire Members to talk about that. There is more that could be done. Bedfordshire was given counter-terrorism money but did not manage to spend all of it. That is really interesting, in view of the fact that it was given the funding for that specific use. The percentage of warranted officers who are off duty because they are not fit for operational duties is 10%. That percentage is high for such a small force, and it is, understandably, a concern. I accept that there is work that we can do together.

[Peter Dowd]

Does the Minister acknowledge—let us use that word—that given what happened with the review of the police funding formula and its withdrawal, there is deep concern that the same thing should not happen again and a fear that the formula will not be fair? That is the concern.

[Mike Penning]

Opposition Members can exacerbate that fear, but they cannot deny that I came to the House and ate an awful lot of humble pie because my officials got things wrong. As a Minister of State, I took responsibility for that, and we will go forward to make sure that we get it right. I repeat that there will be winners and losers; that is always going to be the case. Some people will be happier than others.