The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse) I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2022–23 (HC
1084), which was laid before this House on 2 February, be approved.
It gives me great pleasure to announce to the House the final
police funding settlement for the fast-approaching new financial
year. The foremost role of Government is to keep the public safe
from harm. Our effort to deliver that most critical of
functions...Request free trial
The Minister for Crime and Policing ()
I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2022–23 (HC
1084), which was laid before this House on 2 February, be
approved.
It gives me great pleasure to announce to the House the final
police funding settlement for the fast-approaching new financial
year.
The foremost role of Government is to keep the public safe from
harm. Our effort to deliver that most critical of functions
depends to a large extent on the work of our police service. As
this settlement demonstrates, we remain firmly and fully
committed to strengthening the resources and capabilities
available to the police as they confront crime and protect our
citizens.
Last year Parliament approved a funding settlement resulting in
an increase of up to £636 million being made available for the
policing system. This included an increase in Government grant
funding of £425 million for police and crime commissioners in
England and Wales to continue to strengthen police forces through
our officer recruitment programme. I am delighted to say that
with this funding, along with the £700 million received for year
1 of the programme, more than 11,000 additional officers have
been recruited as of the end of December 2021. That means that we
are more than halfway to meeting the 20,000 target, which is
something to shout about. However, I assure the House that we are
not resting on our laurels. We must keep up the momentum, because
every new officer through the door is another courageous
individual we can call upon in the fight against crime.
Beyond the recruitment drive, this year we have invested £180
million in combating serious and organised crime, £500 million in
Home Office-led police technology programmes to replace outdated
legacy IT systems, and £45 million in the safer streets fund to
put proven prevention measures in place in areas plagued by
neighbourhood crime, and to help combat violence against women
and girls. The building blocks are now in place; now it is time
to hit the accelerator, and next year’s settlement will enable
the police to go further than before in confronting crime.
One of the most consistent asks from policing around funding is
certainty, and on this we have also delivered. The spending
review provides forces with a three-year settlement, ensuring
that they have the necessary confidence and stability to pursue
long-term strategic planning, as well as maintaining strengthened
officer numbers. In 2022-23, the Government will be investing up
to £16.9 billion in the policing system—an increase of up to an
additional £1.1 billion when compared with last year. Of that
significant investment, we have made an additional £550 million
of Government grants available to police and crime commissioners
in England and Wales. As well as supporting continued officer
recruitment, that funding will allow forces to invest in critical
capabilities, while focusing on modernising the police service to
meet future demand.
(Warrington South) (Con)
I am delighted that the work of the Conservative police and crime
commissioner in Cheshire is paying off, with more than 100 new
officers in post already. Could the Minister tell me, though,
what work is going into ensuring that we retain officers?
Recruitment and retention go together, and having spoken to
members of the Police Federation, I am concerned that we are
witnessing some churn. Is that something that he is aware of and
dealing with?
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Cheshire constabulary on
their recruitment. I am told that they have recruited 149
officers to their complement, which is a fantastic achievement.
They still have to get to their allocation by March, and their
allocation next year will, I think, be a further 120 on top, so
my hon. Friend should see plenty of uniforms across that
beautiful county in the months and years to come.
My hon. Friend is quite right that recruitment is only half the
battle; retention is the other half. We are monitoring the
attitudes and experience of those new recruits incredibly
closely. I know he will be pleased to hear that their
satisfaction in the job, the fulfilment of their expectations of
the job, is overwhelmingly positive, but we need to bear that in
mind as we train them and instil the right values in them. As
they hopefully embark on a long-term career, we will be staying
in touch with their sentiments very closely.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
Will the Minister comment on capital investment support for
police forces? My understanding is that the new joint firearms
unit between Dyfed-Powys, Gwent and South Wales police will cost
around £40 million, and that has largely been funded out of
reserves. Clearly, that is not sustainable.
Having been, effectively, a police and crime commissioner in the
past, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the removal of the
distinction between capital and revenue receipts and spending
would have been a blessed relief. In the old days of local
government restrictions in that regard, in the police and in
local authorities, there was an entire science devoted to the
creation of capital as revenue and the conversion of revenue into
capital, to get round the Treasury rules, but we have done away
with that division now. [Interruption.] Of course, as a chartered
accountant, I feel slightly bereft, having been put out of
business. It was quite an art form, which was very satisfying to
achieve.
However, the removal of that division means that a cheque goes to
the police and crime commissioner, and along with the chief
constable they may then decide on the division between capital
and revenue as they wish. Having handled such budgets in the
past, I think that is a very welcome development. I know, for
example, that in Wales that has been used to great effect. In
Dyfed-Powys the police and crime commissioner, on first coming
into the role, made a huge investment in CCTV across the entire
force area, which is paying enormous dividends, and he is able to
do that as he wishes, capital and revenue being irrelevant. That
is the kind of freedom that we want to give police and crime
commissioners as they pursue their mission.
This is a crucial year for policing, particularly on the
recruitment programme. The settlement is designed to ensure that
we hit that important mark of 20,000 new officers. Forces have
made outstanding progress to date, and that is testament to the
hard work of all involved in the campaign. The recent statistical
release of the police uplift programme demonstrates how many
forces have already met, or in some cases exceeded, their year 2
target. PCCs are grabbing this investment with both hands and
already a number of forces have more police officers on their
books than they ever had before.
(North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister knows that Durham constabulary is an efficient
force—it has been recognised as such—but since 2010 we have lost
325 police officers. Even with this funding, we will still be 153
short on where we would have been in 2020. How does he square
that?
By the time we get to the end of the uplift programme, there will
be a large number of forces who are above the number of police
officers that they had in 2010. That will be a function of
decisions that were made by police and crime commissioners in the
intervening decades.
Mr Jones
Nonsense.
It absolutely is—they had to make often difficult decisions about
finances. I was one of those police and crime commissioners, so I
know that prioritising police numbers within that overall formula
means that some have a better baseline from which to build than
others. For example, in London, for which I was responsible, we
made a strong case to the then Mayor, now the Prime Minister,
that it was our job to prioritise police numbers. As a result,
the baseline to build off the uplift programme means that the
Metropolitan police now have the highest number of police
officers they have ever had in their history, with more to
come.
I cannot mitigate the financial decisions made by police and
crime commissioners in Durham, the West Midlands or other forces,
but, having said that, Durham will receive significant extra
police officers in the third year. I hope that with the freedom
and flexibility on extra funding that the police and crime
commissioner will get through the precept will mean that they
might well add to that number as well.
It is not me saying that Durham is an efficient force. The
inspectorate said that it is an “outstanding” force in that
regard. It lost 325 officers. It will still be worse off by 153
officers by the end of the uplift, and the reason for that is the
low precept in the council tax base in County Durham. Unless that
is sorted out, the force will never be able to afford the
Minister’s ambitions, unlike the Chancellor’s constituency, which
will end up with 190 more police officers than it had in
2020.
I am happy to continue the argument with the right hon. Gentleman
outside the Chamber rather than occupying significant amounts of
time on what is—
Mr Jones
You are wrong.
No, I am not wrong. There are forces similar to Durham that will
be in a better position. It has to be the case that financial
decisions made by police and crime commissioners have an impact,
otherwise what is the point of having them and on what basis did
they stand for election? The Mayor and I stood for election in
London on the basis that we absolutely wanted to maintain police
numbers, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr Jones
Will the Minister give way?
I am not going to continue the argument. I suggest to the right
hon. Gentleman that he goes back and looks at the manifestos that
the police and crime commissioner in Durham produced in those
elections and see whether they promised to prioritise police
numbers or not, or whether all they did was whinge about
Government funding. I am happy as a trade to take responsibility
for the very difficult financial decisions that this Government
had to take after the crash in 2007-08 and after our coming into
government in 2010. I take responsibility for that—I absolutely
do. Thank God we did as well, given what has happened to us
subsequently. However, I will only do that if the right hon.
Gentleman will take responsibility for the decisions of his
police and crime commissioner in those intervening 10 years. I
will move on.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
The Minister’s debate with the right hon. Member for North Durham
(Mr Jones) comes to the heart of how the Government go about
this. The money that is given to the police and crime
commissioners is £796 million, I think, as long as the full
flexibility of the precept option is taken up. Does that not
undermine the whole purpose of the accountability of police and
crime commissioners?
I am a bit perplexed by that. No, absolutely not. We are giving
full flexibility. They can use the £10 if they want and if they
do not they do not have to. All they have to do is justify that
decision to the people who elect them. Happily, as far as I can
see, every single one of them so far has taken the full £10,
which suggests to me by the crowdfunding decision that we got the
number about right. In some parts of the country, not least in
Wales where they have other flexibility, they might go further.
In my view we have given them lots of flexibility and they are
using it. I hope that they will use it wisely to raise police
officer numbers in Durham and elsewhere.
Mr Carmichael
Will the Minister give way?
Go on, I will give the right hon. Gentleman a second go.
Mr Carmichael
The purpose of the precept is to give flexibility and
accountability to the police and crime commissioners.
Effectively, under this settlement the police and crime
commissioners have to be accountable for decisions made by the
Minister.
I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman’s logic is right.
Absolutely not. If they want to raise the contribution by less
than £10, they can. There is no problem with that and the idea of
there being an upper limit and a cap is a well-accepted feature
of police funding. If a police and crime commissioner wants to
raise the contribution by £5, £6 or £7 they can, and in fact if
they do not want to spend it on police officer numbers they do
not even have to do that. The right hon. Gentleman is making a
rather poor argument, and I might say that the settlement has
been greeted with pretty universal pleasure and a claim by police
and crime commissioners from across the political divide, so I am
not quite sure where this dissatisfaction is coming from.
Will the Minister give way?
No, I have to move on.
Police officers, whether new recruits or experienced hands with
decades of service, perform a unique and vital role in our
society. I must put on record how grateful I am—I know that all
hon. Members are—to everyone in the policing family, including
civilian staff and volunteers who work tirelessly day in, day out
to keep our people safe from harm.
I return to recruitment. It is only right that the Government
hold forces to account to ensure that they are delivering the
outcomes that the public expect from this investment. The
Government will therefore once again create a ringfenced grant to
ensure that the success of the police uplift programme is
maintained in the coming year. Forces will be allocated a share
of the £135 million grant in line with their funding formula
allocation. As in previous years, forces will be able to access
the funding as they deliver progress on their recruitment
targets.
As announced in the 2021 spending review, police and crime
commissioners in England will have access to further flexibility
around levels of police precept to make additional funding
available for local matters for the next three years. The
settlement allows PCCs in England to raise council tax
contributions for local policing by up to £10 a year for a
typical Band D household. If all police and crime commissioners
decide to maximise that flexibility, the outcome will be a
further £246 million of funding for local policing in the coming
year. I must stress that—we have discussed this—council tax
levels are a local decision, and I know that police and crime
commissioners weigh carefully in the balance what their local
people can afford and want to see from policing before they make
that decision.
We are also enabling counter-terrorism policing to confront
terrorism in all its forms. That is why, for the first time,
funding for counter-terrorism policing will total over £1
billion. That significant funding will allow CT policing officers
to continue their critical work, support ongoing investigations,
and continue investment in the operations centre and in armed
policing. In addition to the increase in Government grants and
additional precept flexibility, I am delighted to announce that
we are investing £1.4 billion to support national policing
priorities that will benefit all police forces across England and
Wales. That funding will help accelerate progress on key areas of
Government focus including crime reduction and improvements to
the service received by the public. Of that investment, £65
million will support policing capabilities specifically,
including funding to drive improvements in local police
performance; measuring responsiveness to 101 and 999 calls; and
funding for a national crime laboratory to push the use of
innovative data science techniques to prevent and reduce
crime.
The Government recognise the need to maintain focus on cutting
crime to make our communities safer. That is why we are also
providing additional investment in regional organised crime units
so that they are equipped with the capabilities they need to
tackle serious and organised crime and to protect the most
vulnerable citizens from abuse. We are committed to working with
PCCs and other partners to tackle crime and make our streets
safer. As announced at the 2021 spending review, we will provide
investment in new projects to improve crime prevention as well as
maintaining and enhancing existing programmes. Funding
arrangements for specific crime reduction programmes will be
confirmed in due course and will follow a matched funding
principle.
(Kettering) (Con)
May I commend to the Minister the idea of sending a police
officer to every scene of a burglary? In that respect, I commend
Northamptonshire police’s Operation Crooked, which has slashed
domestic break-ins across the county by 48% in two years, down
from 5,500 burglaries in 2019 to 2,850 in the 12 months to
December 2021. That is what the public want to see. It is
demonstrably effective and a really good use of the funding that
he is giving to the police.
My hon. Friend is an eagle-eyed participant in the House, and in
the “Beating Crime Plan” that we published last July he will have
seen a chapter entitled “Excellence in the basics”. In that
chapter was exactly the proposal that he outlined from
Northamptonshire: that we would purloin that idea and spread it
to other forces. For the moment, Northamptonshire and Greater
Manchester police will do exactly as he says and visit every
burglary, because we believe that forensic and other
opportunities eventually drive the numbers down. It is that basic
fulfilment of people’s expectations that we want to see from this
increased funding, and I congratulate his force on leading the
way on that.
As I have set out, the Government continue to invest
significantly in policing. It is therefore only right that we
expect policing to demonstrate to the taxpayer that such funding
is spent effectively and efficiently while ensuring the highest
possible quality of service for the public. As announced at the
spending review, the Government will expect to see over £100
million of cashable efficiency savings delivered from force
budgets by 2024-25. For 2022-23, we expect to see £80 million of
efficiency savings, which is reflected in the funding set out in
that part of the settlement.
With greater investment in modern technology infrastructure and
interoperable systems, we expect to see an increase in
productivity and therefore the delivery of key outcomes. We will
continue to work with and support the policing sector through the
efficiency in policing board, with a renewed focus on the
improvement of the measurement of productivity gains so that we
can show how our investment delivers for the public beyond the
rather dry management language in which it is described.
Right from the beginning this Government have made clear where we
stand on law and order: on the side of the law-abiding majority
and squarely behind the brave men and women who go to work every
day to keep us all safe. This settlement demonstrates our
unwavering commitment to ensuring that the police have the
resources they need to drive down crime, protect the public and
improve outcomes for victims. I commend the settlement to the
House.
3.25pm
(Croydon Central) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the people who serve in our police service. It
has not been an easy time: 10 years of cuts followed by covid has
placed enormous strain on them. Thanks also go to the officers
who work here to keep us safe and to those who acted with such
bravery on Monday as an angry mob surrounded the Leader of the
Opposition shouting claims made by the Prime Minister in this
place last week. We must not, though, shy away from recent
reports on some of the worrying misogynistic, racist and sexist
culture and practice in policing that have shocked many of us and
challenged police throughout the country to strive always for
higher standards.
The police grant report comes at a difficult time for the
country. Inflation is rising, energy prices are rising and taxes
are rising. We have had a wasted decade of low growth, the
challenges of covid and a Government who have wasted billions and
billions on covid fraud and incompetent PPE contracts that never
delivered. In April, tax goes up, and inflation is forecast to
rise to 6% in the spring. The Government’s only answer is a buy
now, pay later energy scheme that will not help those most in
need or help the economy.
Because of the Government’s mismanagement of the economy, the
additional funding in this year’s police grant will not go
anywhere near as far as we need it to go. There has never been a
more important time to invest in policing.
Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Government announce
increases in police funding, as the Minister has done today, they
forget to tell people that the bulk of that funding will come
from local council tax payers? The Government are continuing the
policy of the past 11 years of moving the cost of police funding
from central Government to local taxpayers.
My right hon. Friend is completely right: a third of the extra
funding now comes from the council tax precept. That is a very
high proportion.
Total crime went up 14% over the past two years—contrary to what
the Prime Minister said in this place last week, for which he has
been criticised by the UK Statistics Authority. As we heard
earlier in Prime Minister’s questions, there are 14,000 cases of
fraud every day—although the Prime Minister and the Government do
not count them as real crime. Arrests are down and prosecutions
are at their lowest levels. Just one in 50 burglaries result in a
charge and, shamefully, only 1.3% of reported rapes lead to a
charge. Criminals are getting away with it.
A proper plan backed by proper investment has never been more
important, yet we yet have a demoralised police workforce who
have declared no confidence in the Home Secretary. Pay in real
terms is lower than it was in 2010. Despite the uplift that has
already taken place, the total police workforce has more than
17,000 fewer people in it than it had in 2010. The number of
police leaving the service with mental health problems is high.
Neighbourhood policing is decimated, with nearly 50% of police
community support officers gone and police staff cut.
Only 400 of the first tranche of 6,000 new police officers were
deployed in neighbourhood roles. Police officers are backfilling
vital police staff roles because forces do not have the budgets
to pay the salaries of the number of police staff they need. As
my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has
said, despite the uplift many areas will still end up with fewer
officers than they had in 2010. Merseyside will be 456 officers
short and the West Midlands will be 1,000 officers short. This is
the woeful context in which we debate the police grant.
The overriding sense I take from the police grant report is the
total lack of any meaningful ambition to come even close to
fixing some of the challenges we face, and the lack of any kind
of vision or plan from the Home Office to tackle crime and its
causes. It is a woeful attempt to make up for a decade of cuts by
heaping the tax burden on to local council tax payers through the
precept.
Budgets have started to increase, but they are not inflationary
increases. We are not back to 2010 levels in real terms. Once
money for new officers is counted out of the figures, direct
funding to PCCs is rising by only 4.8% at a time when inflation
is rising steeply and is predicted to reach 6% in the spring.
That means the Tories’ failure to keep inflation down will hit
day-to-day police budgets and the police’s ability to keep
communities safe.
While police officers across the country recover from the
pandemic, they will be paying higher national insurance and
higher energy and petrol costs. Officers and staff will see less
value in their income because of inflation. The Government are
also demanding £80 million in efficiency savings on top of it
all. Members should not just take my word for it;
Gloucestershire’s Conservative PCC, , has had to admit that his
manifesto pledge to add 300 officers is “unachievable,” adding
that he would be “jolly lucky” to achieve it.
In Merseyside, it is estimated that inflation will cost £2.3
million, the pay increase will cost £5 million and the national
insurance increase will cost £2.3 million, while Merseyside
police is making savings of £2.9 million. The additional precept
income is being used to cover the cost of pay, price inflation
and the national insurance levy. Earmarked reserves are being
used to balance the budget in-year, and there is a potential
long-term increase in expensive police officers sitting behind
desks to cover crucial police staff roles.
With these kinds of pressures, how can arrests and prosecutions
increase? How can the police tackle serious violence, violence
against women and girls, drug addiction and all the other
pressures with the strength we expect? That is Conservative
Britain.
The Government expect more and more police funding to come from
local taxpayers, but there is a gross inequality in this
overreliance on the precept because it is the most deprived
communities, those with the fewest band D properties, that will
get the least. There should be no winners and losers when it
comes to public safety.
Northumbria has the lowest band D precept, and just 18% of
Northumbria police’s funding came from the precept in 2021-22,
whereas Surrey police got 55% of its funding from the precept.
Budget pressures will be even greater if PCCs are not able to
bring in as much as the Government have projected from the
council tax precept, as the £296 million increase depends on
every PCC making full use of the flexibility to increase the
precept. Even if they all do so, as we think they will all be
forced into doing, it means more tax rises on local people during
a cost of living crisis.
We are debating police funding, so we should return to the
age-old question of when the Minister will finally get round to
reforming the funding formula. This was vaguely promised by the
Minister before the election but, if the Government wait until
2024, they will have spent nine years dithering while police
forces have had to make massive efficiency savings and local
taxpayers have had to pay the price. Is there any chance of news
of progress today?
This settlement should be a real opportunity to recruit a more
diverse police service that better reflects the communities it
serves. The annual increase in the proportion of black and
minority ethnic officers is 0.3 percentage points. At that rate,
it will take 20 years to reach 14% black and minority ethnic
officers, which is the make-up of the country, so much more needs
to be done, so much more.
Only one in 20 crimes leads to prosecution. The “Beating Crime
Plan”, whatever the Minister says, has no meat, no ideas and no
strategy. It will not do to pretend that everything is okay with
press releases that the UK Statistics Authority says
“presented the…figures in a misleading way.”
It will not do to claim that crime has fallen because of the
“Beating Crime Plan”, when it has actually risen, and when
certain crimes which reduced in number did so largely because of
covid restrictions and are now on the rise again. It will not do
to allow antisocial behaviour to blight people’s lives, serious
violence to make a generation of young people fearful, and women
and girls to continue to be the victims of violence and
abuse.
We need a properly funded police service, an economy that
functions and leadership from the Government. That is what the
public expect. A Labour Government would put victims first and
ensure that every neighbourhood where people are frightened and
afraid has a new police hub and neighbourhood prevention teams,
bringing together police, community support officers, youth
workers and local authority staff. Labour’s record in government
shows that, unlike this Government, we can be trusted on policing
and crime. By the time we left government, there were 6 million
fewer crimes than in 1997. It took us years to build up
neighbourhood policing, and this Government are spending their
years undoing that good work.
The Opposition will not vote against the plans, because some
funding is better than no funding, despite the poor economic
conditions that the Conservatives have created, which will mean
that the money does not go anywhere near as far as we need. This
Government, like the two Conservative Governments before them,
are failing to deliver on crime. They are failing to bring down
total crime, failing to deliver justice to victims, failing to
rebuild neighbourhood policing and now failing to control the
inflation hitting day-to-day police budgets. They should go back
to the drawing board and try again: “Must do better.”
3.35pm
(West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank my right hon.
Friend the Minister and particularly the Conservative police and
crime commissioner for Dorset, , for all their hard work.
However, I do not think I am remiss in reminding the Minister
that I have been sharing my views with him for some time on the
police funding formula and Dorset’s priority in it. I warmly
encourage him to accelerate the changes that a little while ago
in this House he kindly said he would make.
I feel that there is an assumption within the Government that
Dorset is a wonderful place. It is, of course—it is full of
rolling green hills, chocolate-box villages and so on—but we have
many difficulties to contend with as well. Dorset is an importer
of serious and organised crime, including county lines drugs
gangs that use our rail networks to get into West Dorset. The
population of Dorset trebles in the summer months, when people
from all over the country come to our beautiful county. It has
such places as the Cerne Abbas giant, Sherborne abbey, the
Jurassic coast and Lyme Regis, so we can understand why people
would like to visit, but that attraction brings interest from
those who wish to deal drugs.
It is important to note that Dorset comes right at the top for
demand, which is measured by crime pressure and calculated on the
basis of severity of crime and number of officers per force.
Demand in Dorset is three times the national average, but our
police force is 28th out of 41 for total funding. That does not
sound too bad in the grand scheme of things, but it takes into
account the local funding from the precept; in the police grant
report, Dorset police force comes 40th out of 41. The funding
calculations do not take into account the huge seasonal
population increase. There needs to be a real understanding that
Dorset is the sixth highest region in the country for visitor
trips. Regrettably, the methodology used means that Dorset is not
eligible for violence reduction funding. I hope that the Minister
will consider that point next year.
I recognise that this year’s settlement has increased the funding
for all police forces. I put on record our gratitude to the
Minister for the 4.8% increase that Dorset has received, but it
is a little less than the 5.8% average. I am not petitioning for
limitless funding for police support, as some Labour Members and
others in the House have done, but I hope that the Minister
appreciates my petition to him, to the Government and to the
House for Dorset to get its fair share to ensure that we can do
what is right by our constituents.
Our police and crime commissioner, and the chief constable have
impressive plans to tackle the drug issue in Dorset, along with
others. I know it is a national priority, but the reality is that
we really need the resources to do it. Dorset requires and
deserves its fair share of the police funding settlement, so that
we can protect the people who need it and we can take on the
criminals who take advantage. The police and crime commissioner
has recently written to the Minister, and I have followed that
up. I think the police and crime commissioner is doing an
exceptional job, and I hope the Minister will be able to respond
and meet us in reasonably short order so that we might be able to
address some of these matters. I know that Dorset police want to
get on with their priorities and indeed with national priorities,
but they need the backing of the Government and funding to do
that, and I hope my right hon. Friend will indeed take that into
account.
3.40pm
(North Durham) (Lab)
I would like to begin by thanking the men and women of Durham
police and the support staff for their commitment and dedication,
particularly given the difficult time they have had over the last
couple of years with the pandemic, and for their support during
Storm Arwen recently. I would also like to put on record my
thanks to Jo Farrell, the chief constable, for her effective
leadership of a force which, despite what the Minister pushed to
one side, has been continually rated as outstanding for its
effectiveness and efficiency. I am sorry that the new police and
crime commissioner did not see fit to brief MPs on the
settlement, but that does not matter, because I have been making
the same arguments about the budget for the past 11 years, and I
possibly know the police budget better than many.
To listen to Ministers today, we would think that the election of
the Government in 2019 was ground zero and that nothing happened
before then, or that nothing that happened before then was their
responsibility. Somehow it is not their fault that we in County
Durham lost 325 experienced police officers or, for example, that
Dorset, even after the much-vaunted 20,000 officers promise, will
still have 70 police officers fewer than it had in 2010. This did
not happen by accident; this happened because of the political
decisions taken by successive Tory Governments since 2010. It is
very interesting that the Minister said that the first duty of
Government is to protect citizens and policing is a main part of
that, but the main point is that the police funding budget was
cut by some 16% over that period.
The other point—and this leads to the problem we have in Durham
and, I think, in many forces, including Dorset—is the fact that
policing was traditionally funded mainly by the central
Government grant and the precept then made up the remainder. What
has happened since 2010, and it continues in this latest
settlement today, is that that central Government grant has been
cut by 30%, which has basically pushed the cost of policing on to
local council tax payers. The overall tax burden has gone up
since 2014-15 by some 13% on local council tax payers. In some
areas, it has gone up even more than that, and I will explain the
reasons why in a minute.
The Minister has again peddled the same line today. The
Government say that there will be x millions extra for policing,
but what they never say is that the bulk of that will come not
from central Government taxation, but from local council tax
payers. The Minister then says that it is up to the local police
and crime commissioner to decide whether to put up the council
tax. No, they should read the actual policy. It assumes that the
announced funding figure is based on all the councils putting it
up to the maximum. Frankly, they do not have a choice in that if
they want effective local policing.
All I ask of the Minister and of the Government is to be honest
when they make these announcements. When they announce that the
budget is going up this year by a certain number of hundred
millions, why do they not split it out into what the Government
are doing centrally and what increase the Government are asking
local council tax payers to pay?
If the right hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my speech,
he would have heard me say specifically that £500-odd million was
coming from the Government to PCCs, and that, if they all took
their flexibility, £200-odd million was coming from the PCCs. I
specifically enunciated in my speech what the balance was. By the
way, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I know that the right hon. Gentleman
will not want to mislead the House, let me say that that does not
indicate that the bulk of police funding is coming from the
precept. It is quite the reverse: the bulk is coming from central
taxation.
Mr Jones
I understand police funding, and I understand what the Government
have been up to for the past 12 years. When the Minister—and he
did this today—or the Prime Minister say that this Government are
providing an extra certain amount of money for policing, why do
they not put that caveat on it? They never do, because that is
the sting in the tail. That has been happening continuously. It
happens not just in policing, but in local government funding and
in the funding for our fire and rescue services, so this creates
a problem for local policing, local government and the fire and
rescue service in County Durham. It has got to the point where
our fire and rescue service will survive this year, but could
actually fall over next year, because of the way in which this
Government continue to push the emphasis onto the local council
tax payer.
Why is this a particular problem for County Durham? The root of
it is that 58% of the properties in County Durham are in council
tax band A. In Wokingham, in Surrey, only 2.8% are in band A. So,
if the precept for policing in County Durham is increased by 1%,
it will raise £3.8 million, whereas in Surrey, it raises £8.9
million. Therefore, what we basically have with this policy,
which is slowly pushing more and more funding onto local council
tax payers, is that the poorest areas with the lowest council tax
banding systems are the losers, while other, more affluent, areas
are the gainers.
The Government have this slogan—they govern in slogans—that they
will create another 20,000 new police officers, but, again, in
County Durham, we have lost 325 officers since 2010. Even with
the settlement today and the PCC putting the precept up to the
maximum, we will still be, by the end of this, 153 officers short
of where we were in 2010. I look forward to the next election
when the three Conservative Members for County Durham put out
their election leaflets, claiming another 20,000 police officers.
I doubt whether they will be honest with the public and say that
the party of which they are members has cut the police officers
by 153 over that period. The problem is not just about numbers,
but about the experience of those officers. Because of those
cuts, we have lost some long-serving, experienced officers, who
have been replaced by individuals who will logically take a while
to gain experience. In any organisation, historical and corporate
knowledge is important when it comes to the effectiveness of a
police force, so it is not just about numbers, but about the
experience of those officers.
As I have said, we will end this period with 153 fewer officers
than we had in 2010. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s
constituency in North Yorkshire will end up with 190 more
officers than it had in 2010. That is because every 1% increase
in the precept in County Durham raises about £400,000, whereas in
North Yorkshire it raises £800,000. Unless we tackle the funding
formula, areas such as County Durham—and, I suspect, Dorset—will
continue to be at a disadvantage.
That goes to the central point, which is that this is all a
result of the Government continuing with a political decision
that they took 11 years ago when they said, “We are going to cut
central funding and push it on to local council tax”. Let us add
to that the fact that policing is just one part of law
enforcement, but we have seen court closures in County Durham and
cuts in the number of prosecutors in the CPS, which has led to a
system in crisis. That comment does not come from me; it comes
from talking to local police officers. Even when they are
successful in catching criminals, getting them through the court
system is time-consuming. I accept that covid has had an effect,
but a lot of it is not about that; it is about the capacity of
the CPS and courts to find the time needed.
The Minister said that the Conservatives were the party of law
and order. I am sorry, but we have to look at our courts system
and our justice system today—they are not the party of law and
order, given the paralysis in our justice system. The situation
is also not fair for victims because they are waiting an
inordinate length of time to get justice or even court dates, and
in the end, some will think that they have not got justice when
cases are dropped because of the time they have taken.
If we do not have a fundamental review of the funding formula,
the situation will continue. Even with this settlement, County
Durham—I put this on record yet again—which is deemed an
“efficient” and “effective” force and as “outstanding” by the
inspectorate, is still missing some £10 million for the next few
years. Where will that come from? The only way is through more
efficiencies. I have spoken to the chief constable and some great
things have been done to make sure that there are improvements.
However, over the past 11 years, the pressures on our police have
not stood still, which has not helped. Legislation has put more
demands on them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central
(), the shadow Minister, said,
the nature of crime, is changing. House burglaries are traumatic
and terrible for individuals, but so are fraud and scams. I found
it pretty depressing to hear the Business Secretary more or less
dismissing fraud as though it is somehow a victimless crime. Just
speak to some victims of that type of crime—they feel terrible.
But fraud is a crime that is going to need more specialism. The
nature of crime and the demands on our police force are changing,
and that needs long-term stability and investment in our police
force to provide such specialism. Without that, we will continue
this cycle.
The Minister is a very combative individual and, on a personal
basis, I get on quite well with him. However, the approach is all
front; all smoke-and-mirrors. We need to disaggregate the spin
and the headlines about 20,000 officers from the reality of what
is happening on the ground. Unless the funding formula is
addressed quickly, efficient and good police forces such as
Durham will continue to suffer. The only people who will pay for
that are my constituents and people in County Durham, who will do
so through higher council tax bills and a potentially poorer
service.
3.54pm
(South West Bedfordshire)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I wish to
start, as I am sure every Member would, by paying tribute to the
police officers and staff from Bedfordshire police. Everyone who
serves as an officer or member of staff in a police force does so
in a noble profession; they keep us safe and look after the most
vulnerable. We cannot thank them enough for what they do.
In Bedfordshire, in the settlement, we now have 1,369 officers,
which is 135 more than we had back in 2010, and we have a budget
that has gone up to £136.1 million, which is an increase of 5.4%.
It would be remiss of me not to say thank you for those
increases. Gratitude is sometimes somewhat slow to come off the
lips of politicians, but occasionally it is due and where it is
due I pay it gladly. The Minister knows well that the
Bedfordshire police finances have been sustained in recent years
only through a series of special grants. Last year, he was kind
enough to give us two of £3.6 million each, making a total of
£7.2 million. It was only because we had those two special
grants, which we have had for a number of years now, that we have
been able to balance the books. I am sure he will agree that that
is not a sustainable basis on which to go forward, and he will
therefore not be surprised to hear me raise again the issue of
the funding formula. In Bedfordshire’s case, this goes back to
2004 and the introduction of damping, which has taken about £3
million—the equivalent of about 95 officers on our streets—off
our budgets. We are starting to make good on some of that with
the increases, but it is not sustainable to leave Bedfordshire
police finances where they are with the current funding
formula.
This is not just about increases in budgets, because we have to
look at what those budgets are asked to do. The Minister will
know that we have a high number of organised criminal gangs and
of county lines gangs in Bedfordshire. He will also know that
from time to time we need hundreds of officers to police things
such as Traveller funerals. If we look at Operation Venetic, we
see that Bedfordshire had 26 packages of intelligence, whereas
Hertfordshire, a much larger county, had only 11 and
Cambridgeshire, bless it, did not have any. That illustrates the
extent of the demand in Bedfordshire, whose budget has been
adversely affected by the introduction of damping from 2004. This
is not just about the total officers; it is also about where
those officers are based. The largest town in my constituency is
Leighton Buzzard. In 1988, it had a police station, with an
inspector, six sergeants and 27 constables— 34 warranted officers
in the town. Now we have a shared emergency services hub.
Unfortunately, we do not have a 24/7 first responder presence,
which we used to have. It takes time for officers to travel to
where the crime is. They do not have magic carpets or a TARDIS to
get from A to B. If they are travelling from Luton or wherever,
that takes time. It is often low-paid staff in our pubs and clubs
who have to deal with the first five or 10 minutes of the fight.
That is not the role of bartenders and people working in
hospitality, so where those officers are matters and sorting out
the funding formula will enable us to deal with that issue.
(West Ham) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the closure of some police
stations might make it quite a long journey to take somebody from
an incident to the police station for the processing, taking too
much time out of their shift, and we are perhaps getting to a
point where there are not as many arrests as we would expect for
the types of crimes that our constituents are seeing on the
streets and would like to have tackled? Does he share my concern
that the closure of police stations is not allowing us to deal
with that antisocial behaviour on our streets?
The hon. Lady is right; time spent taking offenders to custody
suites is time when those officers cannot be on the streets doing
their job. However, we cannot spend the same pound twice. I would
like to see a 24/7 first responder response, and there are ways
we can do that. We have a large public estate, and I think we
need to be a bit more imaginative about how and where we base our
police officers, because the primary focus is on having officers
on the beat in our large centres of population 24/7.
On the police funding formula review, I have been asking every
Policing Minister about this since I was elected in 2001, and I
was pleased to have confirmation from the Prime Minister recently
that we are moving forward and are going to deliver on this. I
also received a letter from the Minister himself, in which he
said that the consultation on the police funding formula review
would take place this summer—so I have it in writing in an
official letter from the Home Office. I was very pleased indeed
to read that. It sounds as if the train has left the station.
This is about being fair to Bedfordshire and those other forces
that have been left out, and I look forward to swift
implementation. The Minister talked about effective transition
arrangements for that review. I want it to be effective but I do
not want it to take too long, and I hope he will bear that in
mind.
(North Durham) (Lab)
This is welcome news, but it will be interesting to see when the
train actually arrives. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part
of that review has to involve the fundamental question of what
the split should be between central Government funding and what
is raised locally?
The right hon. Gentleman is right, in that no one likes paying
council tax—I have often called it the most unpopular tax in the
UK. The primary focus for us in Bedfordshire is to have a
well-funded force, to have enough officers and to have them in
the right places, and our greatest issue is the resolution of the
funding formula issue. This Government have committed to that,
and they have done so very publicly. We will have the
consultation this summer. It needs to deliver, and deliver
quickly.
4.02pm
(Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
(Lab)
I want to start by paying tribute to the officers and civilian
staff in both police forces that cover my constituency: South
Wales police and Gwent police. I also pay tribute to the wider
police family. I was fortunate enough a few years ago to take
part in the police parliamentary scheme, and I did some shifts
with the Met here in London. I know that we are all grateful for
the dedication and professionalism of all our police officers
right across the country.
I obviously welcome any new officers, but it is important to
remember that the increase in the number of officers is merely
replacing the 20,000 police officers that have been cut since
2010. It is also important to remember, as my right hon. Friend
the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has highlighted, that the
significant resource is now being put on the council tax payer
and that in areas such as his and mine that will have a
detrimental impact on council tax payers.
I know that my hon. Friend’s area is similar to mine, in that it
has a low council tax base. This is also unequal because, as
council tax is a regressive tax, we are asking the poorest people
to pay the most.
I absolutely agree. I do not have the exact figures, but the
number of properties in band A in my constituency, and in his, is
significant compared with other parts of the country.
I want to talk about neighbourhood policing, because its
decimation has been felt acutely across the country.
Neighbourhood policing is a key foundation of policing, and it
has two major benefits: providing reassurance and building a
rapport across communities; and providing a deterrent against
what is often low-level disorder before it becomes a bigger
issue. As the shadow Policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member
for Croydon Central (), has highlighted, it seems
that only 400 of the first 6,000 officers were deployed to
neighbourhood roles. I am pleased that in Wales, thanks to the
Welsh Labour Government, we have had significant financial
support to employ 500 additional police community support
officers, with an additional 100 being added during this current
term of the Senedd. These officers support the police and the
local authority community safety officers in helping to provide
reassurance to residents and to act as a deterrent. Labour’s plan
for the new community safety hubs will be a huge step
forward.
This takes me back to the early 2000s, when I was a county
councillor under the last Labour Government. In my ward we had a
policing team of four officers—two constables and two PCSOs—who
worked closely with the council community safety wardens, youth
workers and local councillors. In fact, we carried out monthly
door-to-door community safety surgeries with police officers, so
that local authority issues and policing issues could be tackled
jointly. That certainly had the impact of driving down antisocial
behaviour. Sadly, that style of policing has been decimated
across the country. We know that total crime is up 14%, not down,
as the Prime Minister wrongly claimed. Over the past two years,
the reduction in the number of officers has clearly had an effect
on that increase in crime, and it is still having an impact
now.
Finally, will the Minister consider the unfair position of Welsh
police forces in respect of the apprenticeship levy? I understand
that Welsh forces are around £6 million worse off compared with
English forces due to the Home Office’s funding formula. Despite
ongoing discussions between the four police forces, the Home
Office and the Welsh Government, the matter remains unresolved,
so I ask the Minister to examine that issue again because the
situation is unacceptable and unsustainable.
4.06pm
(South Dorset) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this interesting
debate. I want to heap praise on my hon. Friend the Minister,
with whom I have had many dealings and who has been simply
fantastic at talking to us in Dorset. We look forward to him
visiting us as soon as possible. I also thank my hon. Friend the
Member for West Dorset (), who is right here beside me
and who spoke on Dorset’s behalf. I shall be brief, although I
suspect I may repeat some of his facts and figures, but they are
worth repeating.
I also thank the new chief constable, Scott Chilton, and our new
PCC, . I am glad to say that they
are joined at the hip and want to tackle crime—that is
refreshing—and protect us on the streets. They are doing a
wonderful job, and my hon. Friend and I, and the other Dorset
MPs, are right behind them both.
In 2006, when I was selected to be the candidate in Dorset, I
remember waving my placard saying, “More money for the police.” I
regret to say that we were bottom of the funding formula, but we
still are, and the Minister knows that. Out of the 41 forces, we
are the 40th, excluding the council tax precept, which many hon.
Members have mentioned, including the right hon. Member for North
Durham (Mr Jones)—we do not always agree politically, but I will
call him my friend and we sit together on the Defence Committee.
I agree to a certain extent that this is a vulnerability, but
council tax is high in Dorset and paying any more would affect my
constituents, many of whom are struggling to pay this dreadful
tax. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North
Poole (), a Government Whip, is
equally passionate about the police in Dorset.
I now have a few statistics—forgive me, but the Minister will
understand. Under the national funding formula, Dorset receives
£91.79 a head. The range is from £188 to, say, £90. The median is
£109.28. To reach it, Dorset would need another £13.5 million in
funding. On net revenue expenditure, Dorset is 28th out of 41
forces—I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset
mentioned that. The median is £189 a head, and Dorset would need
an extra £5.4 million to reach the median.
Dorset is so beautiful that millions of people visit it, and we
welcome them. However, the population trebles in the summer, and
there is no extra funding or resources for that. There is no
extra grant funding to tackle drugs and violence, despite the
10-year drugs strategy. Yet Bournemouth, which is not in my seat
but clearly part of Dorset, is ninth in the country for heroin
and crack cocaine use. This is a worrying trend, and Bournemouth,
Poole and Christchurch—town or city; call it what you will—have a
growing problem and need the resources to tackle it. We also have
no violence reduction unit or Project ADDER funding—the Minister
will understand what those are.
I have had briefings from Dorset police that county lines is a
real problem for us in Dorset. I worked with my hon. Friend the
Member for West Dorset on this, and the railway police came down
to Weymouth to brief me on the issue of 14, 15 or 16-year-old
youngsters travelling by train, sent by drug dealers—now, more
often than not, armed with knives, which is extremely worrying,
or with cash—and getting into Dorset to ply this ghastly and evil
trade.
Dorset is 40th out of 41 on the national funding for violence
prevention and safe spaces. Our request to join the electronic
monitoring of offenders pilot was sadly rejected. The crime
pattern between ’17 and ’21 is well understood and follows an
established pattern, but it remains high. We receive more 999
calls than most similar group forces, despite a similar volume of
crime. That is mainly due to the peak in the summer and all the
millions of people who come to our beautiful county. We are the
sixth-highest area for visitor trips, but that is not considered
in the national funding formula.
My hon. Friend mentioned the crime pressure estimate, which
measures severity of crime using the Home Office tool against the
number of officers in the force. Dorset crime pressure in 2020 is
more than three times the national average—the highest of any
force. Organised crime groups such as county lines disrupt Dorset
police disproportionately compared with larger forces. We are a
rural area, but the volume of crime we are getting is
disproportionate to our ability to deal with it in such an
area.
Finally, and extraordinarily, we are just outside the top 10 for
armed deployments per 100,000 head of population. That is
extraordinary, when we live in what my hon. Friend described as a
“chocolate box” area. That is clearly what so many people think
we are, but we have our issues, and I know the Minister is aware
of that. We look forward very much to him coming down to visit
us; I hope that when he meets the new and excellent PCC and our
chief constable, we can discuss how to resolve at least some of
those issues.
4.12pm
(North East Bedfordshire)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to join my hon. Friend the Member for South West
Bedfordshire () in paying tribute to the
officers and staff of Bedfordshire police, who keep our county
and its residents safe.
Crime remains a serious and major concern for many of my
constituents, but my contribution will focus on 10 pieces of good
news on crime. First, there is the news about the funding
formula, an issue that has cross-party support in Bedfordshire. I
am so pleased that the Minister has now brought forward that
review and that, as he said, the train has left the station.
Secondly, the Minister will know that funding is a partnership
between the national funding formula and local councillors. I am
sure he will be pleased to learn that the cross-party police and
crime panel agreed unanimously, with no abstentions or votes
against, an increase in the local precept to support the local
policing plan. I pay tribute in particular to the chair of that
committee, Councillor Ian Dalgarno.
Thirdly, there is the leadership of our police and crime
commissioner, , and the programme he
has put in place to direct those resources in the most effective
way. He has said that the funding he is receiving locally will
pay for 72 additional police officers and that he will focus them
on rural crime teams, which are so important in my constituency.
As my piece of good news 5(a), I also commend the Minister on
taking forward the hare coursing legislation that is so important
for so many rural constituents. Festus has also paid due
attention to the responsibility to get the security and policing
right at Luton airport—another important issue locally.
Festus has also paid due attention to the responsibility to get
the security and policing right at Luton airport—another
important local issue. Following the inspiring leadership of the
Prime Minister, knife crime reduction—a crucial issue across the
country—is now a priority in Bedfordshire. On prosecuting serious
sexual violence, Bedfordshire was in the lowest quartile a few
years ago but is now the sixth best, which is a tribute to our
chief constable. Burglary and detection rates have trebled in the
past year, and the rates of solving burglary have doubled.
My tenth and final piece of good news is the strength, confidence
and hard work of the officers of Bedfordshire police who, through
the covid period, continued to keep us safe, and continue today
to provide that quality of service that the British public have
every right to expect.
4.15pm
(Croydon Central) (Lab)
This has been a good debate; if only it was a good settlement. A
wasted decade of low growth under the Conservatives is holding
back Britain; it has left our economy weakened, with inflation,
national insurance and energy prices all putting pressure on the
police. Inflation is predicted to rise still, which will put more
pressure on our services. The Government have wasted public money
through crony contracts, covid fraud and PPE waste, so there is
less funding for policing.
To make up for the lack of central Government police funding, the
Minister is burdening local taxpayers. Total crime is rising,
prosecution rates are at an all-time low, and criminals are
getting away with it. The police do not feel supported; pay is
still lower in real terms than it was in 2010. The settlement
will not go far enough. There is no leadership from Government on
the challenges facing the service and no plan to cut crime.
This was an interesting debate that touched on all the major
issues that we have debated on many occasions.
The hon. Lady accuses the Government of not cutting crime, but I
remind her that it is the chief constable and their officers—they
do such a valuable job—who tackle criminals, not the
politicians.
I was not aware of that. I thought the Government had some role
in tackling crime, but clearly the Conservative Government think
not.
With 17,000 fewer people working in the police force now than in
2010, it is also harder for the police to do the job that we
expect them all to do. I was glad to hear about the new train
leaving the station on the funding formula, and I was pleased to
see Bedfordshire Members in the Chamber—if they were not here
making the argument, on either side of the House, I would worry
that something was amiss. I am glad that they have an answer on a
timescale, but the formula was first promised in 2015 so we are
already seven years down the line. I look forward to seeing
that.
There was much debate about the council tax precept and the fact
that a third of the increased funding must now come from council
tax. It is not possible to level up by using the precept to pay
for policing. Inequality is bedded in to the formula. My right
hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said
eloquently that it is the sting in the tail, and the hon. Member
for West Dorset () agreed with that. The hon.
Member for South West Bedfordshire () said that no one likes
paying council tax; everybody is being forced to put council tax
up to its highest level. The Cambridgeshire Conservative PCC, who
has asked for a £9.99 tax increase on band D properties, stated
that
“if I thought for one minute that we were likely to get
substantial financial increases from government then I would’ve
happily used reserves to plug the gap and not ask to raise the
precept.”
The Conservative PCC for Bedfordshire said that rising costs due
to inflation means taxes will need to rise to avoid cuts in
police services. He said:
“We are facing rising costs across the public sector because of
inflation. This means that next year an increase in the precept
will be needed just for Bedfordshire Police to maintain its
current position and meet the costs of pay and price
increases.”
We heard about police numbers and the lack of policing in our
neighbourhoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and
Rhymney () talked about the 500
additional PCSOs that the Welsh Government are providing, which
will make a difference. My right hon. Friend the Member for North
Durham talked about the lack of police officers—the 325 they have
lost and how, even with the increasing numbers, they will still
be 153 officers short. The alternative universe that the
Government try to peddle—that somehow they did not cut tens of
thousands of police before they started to recruit a few—will not
wash. There are 17,000 fewer people working in police services
than there were in 2010.
Crime affects everywhere. The hon. Member for West Dorset talked
about the delightful area he represents, but also about the
violent criminal drug gangs and county lines that are there. This
is an issue that every single one of our constituents cares
about. Criminals are getting away with it. Charge rates are at a
record low. Victims have lost faith in the criminal justice
system. The Government are not showing any real grip on tackling
crime. They do not have any ambition to get prosecution rates up.
They cannot level up without cutting crime. I hope the Government
will go away and think again.
4.20pm
The Minister for Crime and Policing ()
I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to this debate.
It has been useful and I know that police officers up and down
the land will have particularly welcomed at this difficult time
the tributes to their bravery and commitment to the work they do
to keep us all safe. I add my gratitude to them.
There were two key themes coming out of the debate. As the hon.
Member for Croydon Central () said, the Bedfordshire
“massive” are, as usual, present for these debates, as they have
been every year for the last few years, and the Dorset posse have
been pushing me hard on the funding formula. I am pleased to
confirm that work is under way. The technical oversight group has
been appointed and has a chair. We expect to go to consultation
this summer and I will begin my parliamentary engagement, shall
we say, in late spring, so Members should look out for an
invitation to a meeting winging their way quite soon. I explained
what might happen with the formula.
I would just caution those calling for a funding formula review.
This is a very complex process, as those who have been involved
in funding formula reviews in the past will know. There are two
things to bear in mind. First, all cannot have prizes. There will
undoubtedly, proportionately or otherwise, be a redistribution
from one to another in a funding formula. Secondly, when
particular indicators are pushed, such as tourism, there may be
unintended consequences. For example, I get a strong lobby on
tourism and visitor numbers from south-west Members, but if that
were to be part of the funding formula what would that say about
funding for London? How much of the overall cake would then be
absorbed from forces across the land to deal with visitor numbers
in London? We deal with that in London through a capital city
grant and obviously there would be a consequence to that being
part of the funding formula. I do not necessarily want to dwell
on that point, but I ask Members to think carefully about
unintended consequences before they make a contribution towards
the consultation.
London is a metropolitan area and far easier to police. Dorset is
a massive rural area with fewer police. The point is that
rurality is not taken into account in the funding formula.
There is, actually, in the current funding formula a sparsity
indicator, but nevertheless these are exactly the sorts of issues
we will have to deal with in future and they are certainly
something I want to focus on.
The other broad issue which a number of Members mentioned was
dealing with a specific problem in a specific geography that may
emanate from elsewhere. A number of Members, particularly those
from Bedfordshire and Dorset, mentioned county lines. It is worth
remembering that we are spending significant amounts of money on
dealing with county lines in London, west midlands and
Merseyside, where the vast bulk of the exporting drugs gangs come
from. Money spent in London on intercepting and dealing with
those gangs will pay benefits in Shaftesbury, Luton and other
parts of the country. We make that investment in those forces,
but on behalf of the whole country. That is a part of our having
to see the whole of policing expenditure as a system, whether
that is the National Crime Agency—which is no doubt doing work on
the Dorset coast—the Metropolitan police doing work on county
lines, or indeed the British Transport police, with whom I am
very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset
() met. We are funding its
taskforce on county lines, which is doing extraordinary work
intercepting young people with knives, drugs and cash on the rail
network, gripping it in a way that it has not been gripped
before.
On the point about focusing on where county lines come from, they
also come from Luton, which is another reason why Bedfordshire
needs to be treated fairly.
As my hon. Friend knows, we have been happy to fund Operation
Boson, which has been dealing with serious and organised crime
and drug dealing in and around Luton—which, as he says, is a
particular hotspot. Our county lines settlement provides some
money for receiving, or importing, forces to try to step up to
the plate. However, I hope all those forces will realise that
there will be a huge impact on violence specifically in their
areas if they co-operate with the operations coming out of those
three big exporting forces, and I hope that people will look
carefully at both the funding formula and the impact of the
overall investment package on their force before drawing a
negative inference.
Will the Minister give way?
No, I am going to finish, because we have to move on to other
business.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central () invariably presents a
dystopian vision of our work on crime. She is a very hard person
to please. Let me now read out the bit of her speech that she
obviously crossed out for some reason, in order to remind the
House that according to the most recent Office for National
Statistics publication, produced just last week, violence is down
by 15%, murder by 16%, stabbings by 15%, theft by 20%, burglaries
by 30%, car crime by 28%, and robberies by 34%.
Will the Minister give way?
I will not.
I am the first to admit that the fight against crime is always
two steps forward and one step back—it is never a linear
progression—but after this settlement, and given the history of
the Prime Minister and myself in this particular matter of
policy, I hope that no one will doubt our commitment to fighting
crime throughout the United Kingdom, and I hope that through this
settlement we have once again demonstrated our enduring
commitment to the police who conduct that difficult job. We are
giving them the powers, the resources and the tools that they
need to continue this ever-important battle, and I hope that the
House will support the financial settlement.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2022–23 (HC
1084), which was laid before this House on 2 February, be
approved.
|
