Police Funding Formula Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Justice

Police Funding Formula

John Bercow Excerpts
Monday 9th November 2015

(8 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read 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

Paula Sherriff Portrait Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The director general of policing sent the letter outlining the error on Thursday 5 November. Is the Minister honestly telling us he was not made aware of its contents until Friday?

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - -

Order. I entirely understand the rationale behind the hon. Lady’s question, but may I gently say one should not insert the word “honestly” into any question? The working assumption has to be that every Member in this House is always honest. We do not accuse Members of dishonesty or suggest as much; we debate issues. The hon. Lady is a new Member and I understand the purport of her question. I have no desire to get at any individual Member, but I think it is useful for new Members to get to grips with the new procedures—for example, recognising that debate goes through the Chair and that the word “you” is not used, and so on. I hope that is regarded as helpful.

Mike Penning Portrait Mike Penning
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Even those of us who have been here quite a long time get things wrong as well.

The first I knew of the letter was Friday.

--- Later in debate ---
None Portrait Several hon. Members rose—
- Hansard -

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - -

There is a notable triumvirate at the back; we will take the fellow in the middle: Mr John Glen.

John Glen Portrait John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his characteristic honesty and integrity in coming to the House today and responding in the way he has. When he comes to contemplate the future funding for Wiltshire, will he make sure that not only is the absolute amount of money considered carefully, but also the freedoms that exist for small rural forces to work collaboratively with larger forces nearby—for example, Avon and Somerset?

--- Later in debate ---
None Portrait Several hon. Members rose—
- Hansard -

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - -

Order. A good many colleagues are still seeking to catch my eye, and I am keen to accommodate all of them. If we are to have any realistic prospect of succeeding in doing so without jeopardising subsequent business, we shall require brevity both from Back Benchers and from the Minister. I am sure that we can look for the provision of a textbook question to a distinguished former Minister, Mr David Hanson.

--- Later in debate ---
None Portrait Several hon. Members rose—
- Hansard -

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - -

Order. Before we come to points of order—there is an expectant House and the appetite is clearly great—I just want to say two things, following the Minister’s observations. First, I am genuinely grateful to the Minister of State, whom I have known for a very long time. It does not surprise me that he has conducted himself with courtesy.

Secondly, because I think it is very important that our proceedings and procedures are intelligible to and meaningful for people beyond this place observing them, it is only right to say that this very welcome apology and dedicated response to questioning by the Minister took place because urgent questions were submitted and because I granted an urgent question. The Home Office itself declared in writing that the matter was not urgent, and it clearly did not think that the urgent question should be granted. It was entitled to its point of view, but I think the House would concur that it suffered from the quite material disadvantage of being wrong.