There are many reasons why the use of Parliamentary time should be scrutinised. One being that each day in Parliament contributes towards the annual £2Bn costs of running the institution. Bearing in mind that since the fixed term Parliament Act was introduced, our Parliament has sat for an average of 150 days each year, the cost per day is worth around £13.5m of our money. On 16th October Parliament sat for 6hours and 28 minutes so that meant the value for each hour in the chamber was around £2m or £33,000 per minute. The exchanges on 16th October between the Home Office and MPs who had asked written questions covered a number of themes and each question and answer  lasted only a minute or two, however this was time that could have been dedicated to other matters if the questions or answers are judged to have been a little bit pointless.

The question I spotted came from Huw Merriman, MP for Battle and Bexhill. It was a very pertinent question. HM: What steps she is taking to tackle rural crime. 

The response came from Sarah Newton who is the The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. The answer came in two parts, the first was not a very effective answer as it brought nothing new to Parliament, it was simply a restating of Government Policy and actions that took place 5 years ago. SN: The Government have ensured that, through the election of police and crime commissioners, communities—including those in rural areas—have a strong voice in determining how police resources are allocated, to tackle the crimes that most matter to them.

There was then a second part of the Government’s response which is where the issue of politics comes into play in the way in which our Government likes to pat itself and its own party members on the back SN: I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Katy Bourne on her work to prioritise rural crime in Sussex.

This then opened the door for Huw to spend more Parliamentary time on name checking Katy. No doubt if the Sussex PCC was not a Tory, this would not have happened.

HM: I certainly congratulate Katy Bourne, who does a great job.

But he then went on to imply he did not necessarily view Katy as having prioritised rural crime enough: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that the police investigate all crimes and not give a perception that certain offences, particularly those prevalent in rural areas, will not be pursued?

SN: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course, police will investigate all crimes.

This statement is a bit confusing in itself, particularly as it follows the comment about prioritising certain forms of crime. If it is stating what the Home Office believes takes place currently, then they are factually incorrect, not all crimes are investigated. On the other hand if this is the statement for the future, there will need to be a major investment in police budgets to enable all crimes to be investigated.

Sarah then went on with yet one more mention of her friend and political colleague and the need for priorities to be set: Extremely good police and crime commissioners who work with their communities, such as Katy Bourne, are able to prioritise what matters most to people. They often work in partnership with great organisations such as the National Farmers Union to come up with the right solutions for the community.

Whilst PCC’s are certainly meant to work alongside Chief Constables in setting priorities in terms of strategy, neither can achieve the impossible. All public services are constantly forced to make compromises and setting priorities based on what all people want in absolute terms is impossible, particularly when one gets into the area of Policing. Many people want to see police officers patrolling their streets, in order to reassure them that they are safe. However identifying the perpetrators of crimes including those that take place inside the homes of people who sometimes deny the crimes depends on a much more complex set of actions than simply sending men and women out in uniforms to walk down all of the streets in towns and villages and along our country lanes. The nature of priority setting is that it emphasises some areas at the expense of others. The idea that all crimes will be investigated, but some will be prioritised seems to add to the confusion that Sarah Newton provided with her answer. Perhaps next time Huw needs to ask a more direct question than asking Sarah Newton what steps she is taking to tackle rural crime as clearly that was pretty much a waste of time, let alone a waste of public money!