Police Grant Report

Members will have seen on the Order Paper that the police grant and local government finance reports were due to be considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments this morning. I can confirm that the Select Committee has reported that these reports do not raise any issues within their terms of reference that need to be drawn to the special attention of the House.

15:54:00

I beg to move, That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2025-26 (HC 621), which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to express my condolences to the family and friends—and to the wider school community at All Saints Catholic high school—of Harvey Willgoose, who was the victim of a stabbing in Sheffield earlier this week and sadly died. I echo the comments made by the Prime Minister that schools must be places of safety and learning, not violence and fear. It is a privilege to present to the House the final police funding settlement for 2025-26. This is the first opportunity that the Labour Government have had to set out our commitment to and support for funding the police of England and Wales. In year one of this Government, we are starting the hard work of rebuilding neighbourhood policing and giving the police the tools to do the job. In contrast, year one of the previous Tory Government, in 2010, saw the start of massive cuts to frontline policing that cut over 20,000 police officers, baked in the unfairness in funding that many now complain about, and weakened powers to deal with antisocial behaviour and neighbourhood crime, the consequences of which we now see around the country. I will commence my remarks by expressing my heartfelt thanks to the thousands of dedicated officers and staff, up and down the country, for their unwavering commitment and bravery. In the months since I was appointed to this post, I have met many frontline officers from around the country—from Bedfordshire, Cleveland, the Met, West Midlands, Suffolk, Merseyside and Humberside. I have seen and heard about countless examples of outstanding police work. In the summer, the police demonstrated exceptional bravery and compassion in the face of unimaginably distressing scenes in Southport. The following day, those same police officers faced the most disgraceful violent attacks from criminals and thugs, with 302 officers injured while working to keep the public safe. We are incredibly fortunate to have so many courageous men and women devoted to keeping us all safe and pursuing criminals without fear or favour. This Government will never take their service and sacrifice for granted. The police deserve our respect and support, and the investment we are making through the settlement underlines our commitment to working with the police to deliver the safer streets all our constituents deserve.

I join the Minister in thanking the hard-working police officers and police community support officers in Essex. Last week, the Conservative police, fire and crime commissioner threatened to get rid of all 99 Essex PCSOs, who do incredibly hard work supporting my community of Harlow. Does the Minister welcome the fact that the PFCC has U-turned on that, and will she recognise the £27 million in extra funding for Essex police?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of Essex. I will come on to talk more about the funding that is going into all police forces, including Essex. I am delighted that the threats that were being made about the reduction in the number of PCSOs will not come to pass. All police forces will benefit from the settlement, as I will go on to talk about.

The right hon. Lady referred to neighbourhood policing. In Norfolk, the new settlement will mean four officers on duty at any one time over an area of 2,000 square miles. Norfolk’s chief constable, who is also the national lead, has warned that there is a £4 million funding gap for Norfolk, and that he will have to lose experienced police staff as a result. Why is the Minister not giving Norfolk and other rural areas the settlement they need?

I will go on to talk about neighbourhood policing, but all police forces are getting additional money in the police settlement. On the neighbourhood policing money that is being made available, we are working with all police forces so that they come up with plans for how they can best deliver the neighbourhood policing guarantee in their area. I will talk about that in a moment.

Will the Minister give way on that point?

I just want to get my next point on to the record, and then I will certainly give way. In 2025-26, overall funding for policing will total up to £19.6 billion. Of that amount, the funding available to police and crime commissioners for their local police forces will be up to £17.5 billion. That is an increase of an additional £1.1 billion for next year, and a 6.6% cash increase. Just so we are all clear, that is £1.1 billion in addition.

I am happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden).

Can the Minister, for the benefit of the House, clarify how much of that uplift will be taken up by the increased national insurance contributions that have to be made by police forces as a result of Labour’s policy?

The national insurance increases that were announced in the Budget are fully funded in the settlement. I think I saw the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) rise.

The Minister talks of increasing the draft settlement—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”]

I call the Minister.

If hon. Members want the exact figure given to police forces to cover national insurance contributions, it is £230 million. I will now give way to the right hon. Lady.

The Minister talks of increasing the draft settlement, but extra funding for Welsh police forces only plugs the gaps left by the Labour Welsh Government reducing police community support officer funding in recent years. Plaid Cymru PCC Dafydd Llywelyn tells us that 56% of Dyfed-Powys police funding now has to come from local residents. Surely the time has come to review police funding in Wales and have devolution of policing on the table.

Issues such as the precept in Wales are obviously a matter for the Welsh Government. There is general agreement that a number of Members are concerned about the police settlement. It is historical; it is what we inherited from the previous Government. I know that the previous Government had two attempts to reform the formula and did not do so. I will come on to talk about that in a moment. However, I just want to go through some of the figures so we are all clear about what is being announced today. I have just set out the £1.1 billion extra being made available to policing in the next financial year. That funding is based on the assumption that PCCs make use of the full precept flexibility of £14 for English forces—I know that is different in Wales. That measure provides important flexibility that could result in an additional £329.8 million in funding should all forces choose to fully utilise it. It is important to make clear, however, that those decisions are ultimately made at the local level. I will now come on to the neighbourhood policing commitment. Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of our policing model. Every community deserves visible, proactive and accessible neighbourhood policing, with officers tackling the issues that matter most to those areas. Under previous Conservative Governments, neighbourhood policing was slashed in communities across the country and more than half of the public now say they never see a bobby on the beat. Shockingly, that number has doubled since 2010, eroding community confidence and leaving people feeling less safe. Sadly, over the 14 years of those Governments, as I have said, neighbourhood policing was decimated, with the number of PCSOs halved and the number of special constables reduced by two thirds. That has dire consequences for public safety and public confidence. Over the 14 years of the Conservative Governments, too many town centres and high streets across the country were gripped by an epidemic of antisocial behaviour. We are at the highest levels of shop theft for a generation, and that is corroding our communities and cannot be allowed to continue.

Retail crime is one of the biggest issues that businesses across Clwyd East raise with me. It is fair to say that the way in which the last Conservative Government characterised and deprioritised dealing with so-called low-value theft is the reason why we are in such a mess and there has been such a rise in shoplifting, which is now at a 20-year high. Will the Minister share my thanks to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the Co-operative party for what they have done in that area? Will she also tell us a little more about how the extra funding will help bolster our neighbourhood policing teams so that they can do the real tireless work to make sure both our shops and shopworkers are kept safe?

My hon. Friend raises an important matter. That neighbourhood policing presence that we are talking about in our high streets and our town centres will be so important in getting to grips not only with antisocial behaviour, but with the rise in shop theft and assaults on retail workers. This Labour Government want to turn the page and put neighbourhood policing back into our communities, in every corner of the country. Our neighbourhood policing guarantee will see the recruitment of thousands of additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables, who will be equipped with the tougher powers they need to crack down on the crimes blighting our high streets and town centres. That is why we are doubling the funding for neighbourhood policing compared with the provisional settlement that was published in December, to a total of £200 million, to kick-start the work on neighbourhood policing in 2025-26. The impact of good neighbourhood policing on local community confidence and crime prevention can never be overstated. That is why it is integral to our safer streets mission, which is in turn a core strand of the Government’s plan for change. I expect policing to make use of this funding to increase neighbourhood teams across every force next year. That increase in neighbourhood policing, alongside the neighbourhood policing guarantee, will strengthen the connections between the police and the communities that they serve, and clearly demonstrate to the public that the police are responding to local concerns and priorities. I turn to the subject of police officer numbers. We are committing £376.8 million to support forces in maintaining officer numbers for 2025-26. Of this, £270.1 million will be allocated to forces on the condition that they meet their officer targets. An additional £106.7 million will be provided as a top-up grant to support recruitment efforts in 2024-25 and 2025-26. This funding will be unconditional and distributed based on the extra recruitment that each force achieves. This settlement represents a significant increase in funding for police forces, but in return the Government will expect all police forces to raise their ambition on efficiencies, drive forward improvements to productivity and ensure that every penny invested in our mission to create safer streets counts. That means that forces will be required to participate in the recently launched commercial efficiencies and collaboration programme to unlock immediate cashable savings and develop additional opportunities for increased income generation. Our first focus will be on forces signing up to national approaches to buying energy, vehicles, fuel, temporary staff and software licences. We are also increasing firearms licensing fees that have not changed since 2015 and are now significantly less than the cost of the service provided by police forces. The additional revenue raised will be retained by police forces to support the important improvements that are needed in firearms licensing. Those are our initial priority areas, but we will be going further, ensuring that the foundations are in place to deliver hundreds of millions of pounds of efficiency savings by the end of this Parliament. We will also reduce burdens, tackle bureaucracy and free up resources within policing, whether that is through better utilisation of AI to rapidly triage and disseminate thousands of digital forensics records and eliminate any wasteful and unnecessary redaction of files passing between the police and the CPS, or supporting the roll-out of enhanced and rapid video responses to improve response times and victim outcomes. Improved productivity has the potential to unlock millions of hours within policing, free up vital officer time for redeployment on to the frontline, unlock further savings for police forces and improve outcomes. We will ensure that we provide support to forces to measure the benefits of these improvements and ensure that time saved is reinvested into our priority areas, such as the delivery of the neighbourhood policing guarantee. I wish to say a few words about counter-terrorism. The preservation of our national security is the first duty of any Government. This settlement provides essential support for counter-terrorism policing, the funding for which will increase by 14% to £1.1 billion to ensure that it has the resources that it needs to deal with the threats that we face. Despite a very challenging fiscal inheritance—a black hole of £22 billion—we have prioritised investment in the police because we recognise that people cannot thrive unless they feel safe, and that our country cannot realise its potential unless the foundations are strong. No doubt there is much more to do. I have heard the feedback, and I know that some police forces are facing tough decisions to balance budgets. I will continue to work in partnership with the police in our quest to restore neighbourhood policing and deliver safer streets. I think this is a shared mission to improve the lives of the people we all serve; to reduce harm and restore confidence; to equip and empower our police for the challenges of today and tomorrow; and to build a fairer and safer country for all. The settlement that we are debating will aid us in those endeavours, which is why I commend it to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

16:10:00

Before engaging in the substance of the debate, I thank the brave, hard-working police officers, PCSOs, police staff and volunteers who work tirelessly to protect the public. They work day and night to make our communities safer, and run towards danger while others run away. We recognise the huge sacrifices that they make, giving their time, their health, and in the most tragic cases, their life. I know that MPs across the House recognise our responsibility to support the police in their work. I am therefore pleased that Members have expressed their concerns to the Minister about this settlement. The reality is that the funding settlement put forward by the Government is inadequate. Everyone in this Chamber who has spoken with their local police force knows that the settlement will not provide the necessary resources, particularly given the inflationary pressures. Last week, when questioned by Nick Ferrari about the absurd tax raid on our police forces and the fact that her settlement will cut the number of police on our streets, the Minister said that she was “not pretending that it isn’t…challenging for police forces”. Today, however, she and her colleagues are attempting to present a different picture, understating the settlement’s impact on reducing police numbers, and the financial challenge that it poses to our police forces. Last week, she stated that PCCs and chief constables must make local decisions about the composition of their forces. Will she now acknowledge that her Government’s decisions have created that impossible position for police leaders? At first glance, the settlement may appear generous in cash terms; however, there is a sleight of hand. The cash increase is not enough to cover new financial pressures, the biggest of which have been created by the Government. The funding will not be sufficient to sustain police forces. Without further action, it will ultimately lead to reductions in officer numbers. Since the funding settlement was announced, numerous PCCs, chief constables and representative bodies have warned the Government about the challenges that it will create. Why are police forces so concerned? The impact of this year’s funding must be assessed in the context of two key factors. The first is the Government’s increase in national insurance contributions. Some £230 million of this apparently generous settlement will go straight back to the Treasury to pay the Government’s own tax raid on our own police forces. The Government are literally taxing the police off our streets. Economic data has already shown the harm that the national insurance raid has inflicted on businesses and jobs, but it has also reduced the financial benefit that the police will receive from the settlement. Since the Government chose to impose this tax nationwide, it is only right that the Home Office should fully cover the cost of the tax increase for police forces, but the Government now claim that the £230 million that covers their own tax hike somehow counts as a funding increase. It is not a funding increase; it just covers an extra cost that the Government have imposed on our hard-working police forces. Would that money not have been better spent on more police officers, investments in technology to improve efficiency—something that the Government claim to prioritise—or targeted interventions?

The shadow Minister, like so many Conservative Members, was supportive of the health and social care levy, which was a larger and more wide-ranging increase in national insurance than anything proposed by this Government. I have just checked Hansard for the entire time that he has been a Member of this place, and not once did he speak out against that tax hike and not once has he referenced police funding, until today. What is it about being in opposition that makes him think he now has the moral high ground?

That is a false statement, actually—it is misleading. I have definitely mentioned police funding in the House before.

When?

Have a play with Hansard and let us see. In fact, the sum of £230 million alone could have funded the recruitment, or at the least the retention, of thousands of officers who could have been out there protecting our neighbourhoods. Instead, it will be funnelled back into the Treasury to cover a host of other public sector pay demands from Labour’s union paymasters.

Would the shadow Minister like to explain how he could sit on the Government Benches for several years but not say a word about the 20,000 officers who were lost, including the 500 lost in Cleveland?

After the last Labour Government’s spending and borrowing splurge caused the economic crisis of 2008, cuts were made, but the hon. Gentleman should be happy because thereafter we increased the number of police officers on the streets of the UK to record numbers: 149,679. That is the highest number of police officers ever on our streets.

No, I am going to make some progress, thank you very much. Some might say that the Minister is giving with one hand and taking with the other. However, given the tax rises, it is clear that she is giving with the left hand and taking back with the far-left hand—[Interruption.] Does the Minister want to intervene?

I wonder whether the shadow Minister knows what pays for policing. The money comes from the Treasury, and when there is nothing left—for example, because the Home Office in which the shadow Home Secretary was a Minister did not put any money towards many of the schemes set out in their Budget—where does he think the money has to come from?

Taxpayers—the people who go out day and night, work hard and cough up for the national insurance rise. It is those small businesses battered by the Government’s slashing of rates relief on leisure, hospitality and retail businesses—absolutely horrendous. Those hard-working men and women out there paying their taxes fund these police officers. The second big issue with the funding formula is that previous Conservative Governments provided in-year funding for PCCs to cover the police pay award, which was then added to the baseline, so any increase was on top of that already elevated baseline. By contrast, the in-year adjustment for this year’s pay settlement was not added to the baseline, so about £200 million of this apparently generous increase simply makes up for that omission. Around £430 million of that apparently generous increase actually makes up for the Government’s own choices. Adjusting for that, the increase in funding for policing next year is not £1.9 billion at all, but more like £660 million—nearly £300 million less than the last increase under the previous Government. That actual increase of £660 million is not enough to meet pay and inflationary pressures. Freedom of information requests from police forces highlight the financial strain, with some forces not receiving the full amount required from the Home Office. That shortfall must then be covered, either by local taxpayers or through cuts elsewhere. I would be interested to hear the Minister for Policing’s view on this, given that her party was a strong proponent of freezing council tax in 2023—a principle that, like so many others, seems to have been abandoned now that Labour is in government. All that means is that police budgets are overstretched and the forces will inevitably have to make tough decisions. Although estimates vary, the National Police Chiefs’ Council projected in December a £1.3 billion funding gap over the next two years, which the council’s finance lead said would inevitably result in job losses. Other estimates suggest that the funding shortfall is closer to £118 million per year, even when accounting for the additional funding announced last week. Regardless of which estimate we use, either should be of serious concern to the Home Office and the Government. Given current staffing costs, the lower figure of £118 million could mean job losses for over 1,800 officers, which is unacceptable. Yes, a Labour Government who are borrowing like no one is watching and spending like there is no tomorrow could still leave us with 1,800 fewer officers on our streets.

I would like to explore a little further the shadow Minister’s understanding of how taxes pay for things. He says that taxation pays for police officers and he believes that he has identified a funding gap. Will he explain to the House how he would fill that gap?

Last year there was funding of £900 million-plus; this year it is only £660 million. The hon. Gentleman is completely overstating what the Government are giving police officers. [Interruption.] He is wrong. We managed the finances to put the largest ever number of police officers on the streets of the UK. The Minister has given no guarantees that she will maintain that.

Will the shadow Minister give way?

I will carry on; I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities for everybody to contribute to the debate. Thanks to measures introduced by the then Conservative Government, the total number of officers stood at 149,769 in March 2024—the highest headcount since comparable records began.

Will the shadow Minister give way?

The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities to contribute. I know that Labour Members do not like this fact, but the Conservatives left office with record numbers of police and thousands more officers on our streets than ever before. All we are doing is calling on the Government to try at the very least to maintain that number, not reduce it. In reality, the Government are placing police forces in an impossible position. How do they expect forces to meet their financial obligations without cutting officer numbers? The Government will point to their intention to recruit new neighbourhood officers, but we all know that includes only a relatively small number of new officers—just 3,000. Most of the claimed 13,000 officers are either being reassigned, are part time, are volunteers or are PCSOs with no power of arrest. Given the existing budget shortfalls, I am concerned that that level of recruitment will not be enough. The £200 million allocated in that inadequate settlement appears insufficient to meet the Government’s stated objectives.

Will the Minister be honest and acknowledge that in order to achieve what has been outlined, officers will need to be reassigned? If so, will she assure us that those officers will be assigned appropriately? Can she assure MPs—

Let her intervene!

I am sure that the Minister will have opportunities to come back to me. Can she assure MPs that when their constituents ring 999, they will not have to wait long for an emergency response, because response officers have been redeployed to neighbourhoods?

Go on—you are welcome.

I just thought it might be helpful if I gave the shadow Minister a reminder. He is right that there were 149,769 police officers in March 2024, but in June—when the Conservative Government were still in power—that figure had been reduced by 1,232 to 148,536 officers. The numbers went down on the previous Government’s watch.

By the measurements in September, that is not the case. By the time September came—[Interruption.] Is the Minister going to give us the guarantee that the numbers will not go down any further as a result of the funding? The Government have undeniably set well-intentioned goals. Halving knife crime and tackling violence against women and girls are ambitions that will be celebrated across Parliament and across the country, but what are the actual measures for halving violence against women and girls? Without enough police officers available to prioritise those issues, progress will be far more difficult. Moving forward, will the Government commit to fully funding pay increases and ensuring that additional tax burdens are not placed on police forces in the years ahead? What has been put forward today does not do enough to provide the resources that the police need to tackle criminals in our society, meaning that the only winners will be those who thrive on criminality.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister suggested that I had misled the House, by suggesting that what I said was not true. I would like to be absolutely clear that the shadow Minister mentioned police funding on three occasions prior to the election, and each of them was an obsequious pleasantry about how wonderful the last Government were. That is not what I suggested he could have said.

That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Before we move on to the first Back-Bench contribution, I remind Members, including Front Benchers, not to use the word “you.”

16:25:00

I begin by putting on record my congratulations to Trevor Rodenhurst, the chief constable of Bedfordshire police, on being awarded the King’s Police Medal for distinguished service. It is well deserved. Like others, I thank the police officers, PCSOs and all police staff at Bedfordshire police for their service. After years of campaigning for better funding for Bedfordshire police, I am very pleased that this Labour Government have demonstrated our commitment to safer streets and more police in our communities by bringing forward this core funding settlement. Bedfordshire police has been awarded £67.8 million, an increase of 6.6%, as well as £1.8 million in neighbourhood policing guarantee funding for 2025-26. This increase comes after 14 years of Tory cuts and underfunding.

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

I will not give way. Those cuts and that underfunding have required Bedfordshire police to cut spending by over £50 million. I thank our Labour police and crime commissioner for Bedfordshire, John Tizard, for his commitment to ensuring that we make the best use of our funds to increase policing capacity, and for his dedication to tackling violent crime across our county. I particularly thank him for his ongoing desire to work in partnership with other public services and the voluntary sector, with a focus on prevention. Bedfordshire has a diverse landscape, and our police cover urban, densely populated towns including Bedford and Luton, which suffer from crime associated with metropolitan areas. Our county has significant transportation links—road, rail and air—making Bedfordshire a particular hotspot for organised crime, including firearms and drug supply offences. Unfortunately, our police force is also tackling the impact of knife crime; in the period from January 2023 to March 2024, there were 449 knife crime-related incidents in Luton alone, and in recent weeks we have seen more violent crime in Luton. Two stabbings have taken place, one of which tragically resulted in a fatality. Despite those factors, Bedfordshire police is still currently funded as a rural police force, due to failures by the previous Government to fix the archaic funding formula. Special grants have been provided each year since 2019-20 to tackle the disproportionately high gun and gang crime in Bedfordshire, with a further grant awarded since 2021-22 to combat organised crime. I cannot comment on the contributions made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), but I and many other Members from across the House who represent constituencies in Bedfordshire have spoken many times about the funding formula for our police force. It is currently awaiting confirmation of the continuation of those special grants, which equate to 5% of its total budget. Announcements are expected later this month, so I urge the Minister to consider the specific circumstances of our police force when taking those decisions, as the impact of those grants cannot be overestimated. I will close by saying how pleased I am to see multi-year settlements for local government coming in, because that provides local government with more stability in its partnerships with our police forces, working to ensure community safety.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

16:28:00

I rise today to address some of the urgent issues affecting communities across the country. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their home and while walking through their own neighbourhood, but for many people in the UK today, that is simply not the reality. The previous Conservative Government failed to keep our communities safe from crime by decimating neighbourhood policing, taking officers off our streets and leaving our communities far less safe. Our communities look to the Government to step up and fix this by properly funding the officers our communities need, not simply passing the buck to local police chiefs to put up people’s council tax instead. My constituency of Hazel Grove, while undoubtedly the finest in the country, sees crime rates higher than any of us would want to see, and a force that is straining to give our community the policing it needs. In towns and villages like Marple or Romiley, shop workers are facing a surge in shop theft, with little expectation that the police will be able to respond effectively. For them it has become simply part of the job; that is unacceptable. In recent weeks in Romiley, a string of burglaries has hit small businesses, including a pet shop, a nail salon and even a charity shop. Small businesses are already struggling with rising costs, and many cannot afford to keep taking losses in this way. The reality is that neighbourhood policing has been gutted. It is no wonder that 6,000 cases are closed daily in England and Wales without a suspect being identified, and that just 6% of crimes reported to the police result in a suspect being charged. The previous Conservative Government slashed over 4,500 police community support officers since 2015, leaving fewer officers to prevent and respond to these crimes. It is exactly those PCSOs who called on the small business in my patch to check in on them after they had been burgled, and exactly that sort of community policing that victims value. One of the most persistent issues raised on doorsteps in my constituency is the scourge of illegal offroad bikes. Whether in Offerton, Heaviley or High Lane, residents are intimidated by this antisocial and often dangerous behaviour. Bike theft is yet another example, with local gangs targeting cyclists, especially teenagers. A resident from Hazel Grove recently shared their fears after two violent bike thefts occurred within just one week near Aquinas college and on Chester Road. In Marple, residents have reported bike muggings occurring in broad daylight; children have been threatened with knives, pushed off their bikes, and had their bikes and phones stolen. These are exactly the kinds of issues that community policing should be addressing, but after years of cuts, neighbourhood policing teams lack the officers they need to do their jobs effectively. If we are serious about tackling antisocial behaviour, we must invest in more visible policing, ensuring that officers have the time and resources to act on these concerns. The Lib Dems have long championed the local approach, and we would ensure that more police are on our streets by scrapping the expensive police and crime commissioner experiment, and investing the savings in frontline policing instead. We have also been calling for a new national online crime agency that would take over on issues like online fraud and abuse in an increasingly complex online world, leaving more time for local forces to tackle neighbourhood crime. In her opening remarks, the Minister rightly thanked our police officers and talked about the phenomenally difficult and valuable job they do. The mental health situation in our police force needs attention. Like so many—too many—in our society, too many police officers are struggling to access the mental health support they need. One of my constituents, Louise from Hazel Grove, got in touch with me about her son, who is just 21 years old. As a new police officer, in only one week he had to respond to multiple suicides and, in one particularly harrowing case, a man who had been hit by a train. The emotional toll of such traumatic incidents is immense, yet in his station, Louise reports there are no mental health first aiders, no formal support is offered, and there is no access to psychological assistance. When her son raised his concerns with his sergeant—at the time the only person available to listen—he was simply placed on restricted duties with no promise of further help. That cannot be the standard response to officers who are struggling with the mental health issues associated with their work. If we fail to support our officers’ mental wellbeing, we will see brilliant, well-trained professionals leaving the force, further weakening our ability to keep communities safe. The Lib Dems have also been clear about our support for tackling rural crime. NFU Mutual’s latest figures estimate that the cost of rural crime increased by 4.3% year on year to £52.8 million in 2023, as criminal gangs targeted farmyards and fields, looking to cash in on continuing high inflation and ready resale markets domestically and overseas.

As a vet I spend a lot of time driving around rural areas, working with families and livery yard owners in the Meon valley in Hampshire, and in Madam Deputy Speaker’s beautiful constituency of Romsey. Rural crime is a huge issue. It is common, expensive and difficult to tackle. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the provisional police grant report does not specifically mention rural crime once?

I am sure that my hon. Friend accurately represented your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker; if we are creeping, let’s all get in on that! I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the lack of specificity on rural crime. The Minister and I have discussed questions about rural crime before over the Dispatch Box. She is right that neighbourhoods are different and that neighbourhood policing can approach rural areas, urban areas and suburban areas differently, but all forces should have a rural focus and specificity. My area of Mellor is much more rural than, for example, Offerton, and the crime profile of those areas will be different, so I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) strongly on that. I urge the new Labour Government to set up an independent taskforce to produce a strategy on tackling rural crime and then to implement that strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) has pushed for that with a Bill he has presented to this House. The Government should also extend the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 to include GPS theft—that crime contributed to a loss of £4.2 million in 2023 alone—and to enforce stricter penalties for livestock-related offences. The issues I have raised today are not isolated concerns; they are the direct result of a decade of Government cuts and neglect. When our police forces are underfunded and overstretched, criminals feel they can act with impunity and law-abiding citizens are left to suffer the consequences. We cannot and we should not continue to accept a police system where shop theft becomes routine, where young people fear for their safety just going about living their lives, where rural crime goes unpunished and where our police do not get the support they desperately need. Our officers deserve better support and our communities deserve the reassurance of visible, effective policing. I urge the Government to take these concerns seriously and to commit to real investment in neighbourhood policing, mental health support for officers, and stronger enforcement to keep our streets safe. Our communities across the country deserve nothing less.

16:36:00

I thank the Minister for her speech and for the money that we are going to see. I also associate myself with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) about community policing and neighbourhood policing being decimated over the last 14 years. With that decimation comes insurance, including motor vehicle insurance, rising through the roof, shoplifters marauding our streets without fear and low-level crime going out of control. The last time Labour was in government, we were tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Following 14 years of the Conservatives’ mismanagement, crime and policing have fallen into crisis. Crime has increased, and despite what has been said in this place, police numbers have declined. Prisons have crumbled and victims have been denied justice. Locally, the borough I led was home to five police stations in 2014. Following a decade of Conservative cuts, only a single police station remained standing. Everyone deserves to feel safe—safe from burglary in our homes, safe from assault on our streets and safe from violence in our daily lives. In Ilford South, we have all felt the consequences of rising crime. Knife crime, in particular, has plagued our streets, claiming the lives of so many young people just starting out—people with their whole futures ahead of them, who are caught up in gangs or victimised. We have seen high-profile cases of domestic abuse where women are murdered and families shattered. Only recently, Jorge Ortega lost his life while working at Ilford train station. He was a victim of violent assault, which deprived his family of a beloved father, grandfather and husband. It is vital that the police are adequately resourced to act as both deterrent and enforcer. Without fair police funding, we ultimately accept the decriminalisation of low-level crime and the exponential increase of serious crime. We all know that crime can destroy communities, devastate families and degrade the bonds of our society. After 14 years of Conservative cuts to policing, closing police stations and empowering criminals, it is beyond time for a change. I welcome the Home Secretary’s funding report, which addresses the significant issues of police funding cuts and acknowledges the vital importance of having officers back on our streets. The announcement of a 6.6% cash increase in police funding will mean more uniformed officers patrolling our streets, protecting our communities and responding when we need them most. The funding for the Metropolitan police will support policing across the capital, ultimately making our streets safer. Labour is bringing back community policing, increasing police numbers and beginning the hard work of restoring public trust. Funding is one part of the solution. To deliver safer streets and improve community confidence, we need a holistic approach, focusing on prevention as well as cure. We need spaces for young people to go to socialise and to be inspired. In Ilford South, I have had the great pleasure of working with Stephen Addison of Box Up Crime—a local organisation that runs boxing clubs, offering young people an escape, an education and a safe space away from crime, antisocial behaviour and gang violence. As council leader, I led investment in youth centres in Loxford, a leisure centre in Goodmayes and libraries across Redbridge, giving young people places to exercise, learn and make friends. We also brought back community policing locally, as the Labour Government will now do nationally. We delivered enforcement and engagement hubs—bases for police and council enforcement officers to engage with the public and conduct patrols, as an affordable replacement for the police stations that the Conservative Government defunded. The latest one opened last week. I was honoured to invite my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when she was the shadow Home Secretary, to launch our very first enforcement hub. I am now delighted to support her in government to deliver community policing across the country. Today’s report on police grants gives us the opportunity and resources to prevent crime, improve community safety and build confidence in the police. Under this Labour Government, the public can rest assured that, once again, we will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, delivering community policing, fair funding and the innovation needed to prevent crime before it happens.

16:42:00

I welcome the Government’s increased funding for the Metropolitan police, but this commitment does not go anywhere near far enough to deliver what is required for safe policing on the streets of London. The Labour party was elected into office on the mandate to restore community policing, which was gutted by the last Conservative Government. The shadow Policing Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), may profess his own interest in police funding, but a more eloquent story is told by the empty Benches behind him when it comes to their commitment on this issue, which was demonstrated throughout their Administration. We need to see real action and a real commitment to neighbourhood policing in order to address the ongoing issues of crime and antisocial behaviour that we are seeing across London, and to give the police the tools that they need to restore trust and confidence in our police service. I am concerned that this grant is not enough to protect current services provided by the Metropolitan police from further cuts, let alone enough to restore policing numbers and infrastructure to their previous levels. The force is experiencing real challenges in the recruitment and retention of police officers, which is affecting its ability to fill vacancies. I receive regular correspondence from my constituents, who have passed on their experiences of being victims of burglaries and other criminal activities. The recurring theme in this correspondence is the difficulty that victims experience in ensuring that their cases are investigated in detail and at length by the Met. That is a direct consequence of cuts to our forces because our neighbourhood teams are severely stretched, meaning that the time they can spend on each case is limited. My constituency of Richmond Park used to be home to three police stations, but after years of cuts they have all been closed. Richmond police station acted as a hub for our community, and provided reassurance to residents that they could quickly report a crime or a development in a case to an officer in person. The lack of these police stations in my constituency is causing that connection between the public and the police to be lost, due to the reduced visibility of police officers on our streets.

Does the hon. Lady recognise, as I do, that the previous Government’s cuts to policing have led to a void of experience in community policing? We need to get that experience back, but that, sadly, will take time.

The hon. Gentleman is precisely right. Having had conversations with local police teams, what I find frequently is that there is a large turnover of police officers in neighbourhood policing, which really affects the ability of police officers to develop a relationship with their local communities. That lack of experience can be so telling when it comes to responding to issues such as antisocial behaviour.

Although I represent a Sussex constituency, when I knock on doors in towns across my constituency I often discover that I have Met police officers living in my patch. I vividly remember a conversation last year with an officer in Burgess Hill, who told me the only reason he was still in the police was out of loyalty to his colleagues. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to boost morale in the police?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I speak to my local police officers—the officers patrolling the streets of my constituency—I find very often that they actually live quite some distance from the communities they serve. That is obviously a direct result of the cost of living in London, but it creates a real problem for Londoners in that they are not served by Londoners in the police force. My hon. Friend is also exactly right about morale—that really has to be urgently addressed. This story is common across London. More than 100 police stations have been closed by the Met, while there has been a 64% reduction in community policing since 2015. However, the Met is now in a position where it cannot sell off any more of its estate to balance its budget, and it is clear that it requires a significant influx of funding. The Metropolitan police is responsible for policing regular and well-attended protests in central London, which require a greater intensity of resource to police. In Richmond Park, we regularly see our local officers abstracted away from their neighbourhood responsibilities to provide additional support at these events, which has resulted in a lack of cover on our streets, which adds to people’s anxieties about the lack of policing. Recently, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has warned about the deeply concerning shortfall faced by the Met. In December, referencing a £450 million funding shortfall, the commissioner warned that if substantial funding is not provided, the Met would be forced to cut 2,300 officers and 400 members of staff in the next financial year. The funding proposed by the Government today is, therefore, a drop in the ocean compared with what is required to prevent cuts to our London officers, and this provision of funding is certainly not in keeping with the Government’s promise to restore neighbourhood policing numbers to our communities. While I cannot match the speeches on rural crime from my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), my constituency does have a significant police force, the Parks police, which specifically patrols the Royal Parks. The Parks police plays a crucial role in keeping crime and antisocial behaviour in the Royal Parks across London to a minimum, while its expertise in its domain enables the force to quickly address emergency situations. In response to a survey I recently conducted, nearly 1,000 of my constituents voiced their strong opposition to any proposed cuts to the Parks police, as well as providing first-hand accounts of times the Parks police helped to provide a quick resolution to what could otherwise have developed into a crisis situation. With all that in mind, will the Minister provide us with assurances that the new grant funding for our police forces will mean that cuts to such important and valued police departments are not on the table? I urge the Minister to go further, and to really consider the specific demands of the Metropolitan police and the valuable work it does right across our city in keeping our community safe.

16:58:00

I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister on the tragic loss of Harvey Willgoose, and extend my deepest condolences to his family. I also thank Chief Constable Kate Meynell and all her police officers and staff at Nottinghamshire police for the important and heroic work they do for the communities I represent in Gedling. I would like to begin by paying tribute to a constituent, PC Chris Duffy, and his police dog, Reno. When attending an incident in March 2023, PC Duffy was struck on the back of the head by an attacker in an alleyway, leaving him with a seven-inch wound as he fell to the ground. Despite what had happened, he got himself back on his feet and 15 minutes later arrested his attacker. I was delighted, as his Member of Parliament and as a lifelong school friend, to see him recognised and nominated for a prestigious Pride of Gedling award last year. I pay tribute to PC Duffy and Reno for their heroic service. Thanks to this Labour Government, residents in Gedling will be the beneficiaries of a much-needed funding increase for Nottinghamshire police. I welcome the Government’s announcement of a total £7.2 million boost in funding for Nottinghamshire police—a 6.1% increase—meaning more police on our streets in communities across Gedling and more resources for our brave police officers to clamp down on crime and antisocial behaviour. The Government are working constructively and closely with our Labour police and crime commissioner, Gary Godden, who has been a tireless champion for Nottinghamshire police and our hard-working police officers across the county of Nottinghamshire. Himself an ex-copper, he understands first-hand the devastating impacts of crime and antisocial behaviour on communities like the ones I represent in Gedling. That is in stark contrast to the previous Conservative police and crime commissioner of Nottinghamshire, who spent more time defending her own speeding offences than tackling people offending by speeding on our roads. As we saw under the last Conservative Government, when the number of police officers is cut, it is always the hard-working, law-abiding-majority who pay the price. I have seen that first-hand in Arnold, Carlton and Netherfield town centres, where lawless thugs have tried getting away with mindless antisocial behaviour. My constituent John has been playing darts on a Wednesday evening in Arnold town centre for over 20 years. He recently told me about the gangs of young people smashing up bicycles outside a local supermarket at night. John said to me that it was getting worse “week by week” and that it was putting people off visiting the area in the town centre. In Carlton, my constituent Louise recently visited a local church to donate school uniforms. She was confronted with offensive graffiti daubed across the church walls, leading her children to ask her uncomfortable questions about what the vile vandalism meant—graffiti on the walls of one of our most beautiful churches. And last week I met Sarah, who is a governor at Warren primary academy, a fantastic school in a wonderful community. Sarah and the headteacher at Warren primary told me how parents are afraid to let their kids play in Muirfield park due to weekly incidents of vandalism of public property, including the burning of park equipment, people carrying knives and “off-road bikers ripping up the park, wearing full balaclavas”. Think about that: parents afraid of letting their children play in parks because of some lawless thugs and vandals. That is totally unacceptable and must change. Local councillors, the community and I have been raising these issues with the police and crime commissioner in Nottinghamshire, as well as the Government. I hope that the new uplift in funding from the Labour Government for our local police is put to good use to increase neighbourhood policing and ensure that this kind of antisocial behaviour is stamped out. On the Labour Benches, we believe that all crime should be prosecuted. We believe in the need to take tough action on criminals and those who are intent on attempting to intimidate the law-abiding majority. We believe in a zero-tolerance approach to the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour in places like Arnold, Netherfield, Carlton and Warren Hill; unlike the Conservatives, who effectively legalised shoplifting under the value of £200, slashed the number of police by 45,000 in their first four years in office and then expected us to thank them for promising the return of only 20,000. Police force numbers—to be clear to the shadow policing Minister—at the end of the last Conservative Government were still 2,000 lower than when Labour left office in 2010. At the same time, what did we see? We saw a rise in fraud, a rise in knife crime and the continued presence of antisocial behaviour. It is this Labour Government who will increase the number of neighbourhood bobbies on the beat by 13,000, introduce a named police officer for every community and invest in youth hubs across our country so that we can tackle the root causes of antisocial behaviour. I will never, ever apologise for a zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour: it is what my constituents in Gedling expect, and I am delighted that this Labour Government are working with our police and crime commissioner, Nottinghamshire police, MPs and local councillors to stamp this out.

16:55:00

While I am grateful for the additional funding outlined in the Police Grant Report, it is clear that it does not go far enough. Police forces in rural constituencies such as mine continue to struggle with historic underfunding, and once again the funding settlement falls short of what is needed. Dorset police will see an increase from £180.1 million to £191.8 million, a 6.5% rise, but the national average increase is 6.6%, which means that yet again Dorset will receive less than most areas despite being one of the most underfunded forces in the country. It receives just £246 per head, well below the national average. Ours is the eighth lowest-funded police force in the country, and that is unacceptable. The current police funding formula is fundamentally flawed. It fails to recognise the importance of rurality, which means that rural forces such as Dorset, which has to police an area of more than 1,000 square miles but with a low population density, loses out in comparison with urban forces. It fails to account for the very real challenges that rural policing presents, including the difficulty of maintaining a visible police presence over vast geographical areas. In West Dorset, residents already struggle to see a police officer around their communities, and this funding report does little to address that issue. The formula also fails to take account of seasonality and the impact of tourism. In West Dorset we see a 42% population increase during peak holidays seasons, stretching police resources even further, and the financial strain is already dire. Dorset police faced a funding deficit of £3.6 million last year, and that is projected to rise to £7.3 million this year, even before rising costs and increased employer national insurance contributions are taken into account. The fact is that much of the additional funding announced will simply go towards covering those increased costs, rather than addressing the deep-rooted financial difficulties faced by the police force. Despite evidence-backed requests, submitted last August, for an additional £12.2 million in annual funding, the Government have failed to provide that essential support. As a result, Dorset police is forced to make severe cuts including a 43% reduction in the number of community support officers, a freeze on staff recruitment, the sale of vehicles and buildings, restrictions on overtime, and a halt to all non-essential spending. This will only weaken the ability of our hard-working police officers to keep our communities safe. I urge the Government to revise the police funding formula as a matter of urgency to ensure that rural forces such as Dorset’s receive a fair and sustainable settlement that reflects the true demands placed upon them. I recognise and appreciate the additional amount that has been provided, small though it is, and I want to work with the Government to secure the support that police officers so desperately need. This is not just about fairness; it is about ensuring that every community, no matter how rural, has the security and protection that it deserves.

16:58:00

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for her opening speech, and I welcome the almost £20 billion of total funding for policing in England and Wales in today’s settlement, an increase of up to £1.1 billion when compared with the previous deal under the Conservative Government. This is a real-terms funding increase of 4.1%, and a cash increase of 6.6%. The announcement of the doubling of funding to kick-start the recruitment of 13,000 more neighbourhood police officers is vital. Policing on Teesside continues to be impacted by the legacy of Conservative cuts. In March 2010, we had over 1,700 officers. After an initial loss of 500, we still have around 200 fewer officers than we did in 2010, so I welcome the new recruitment funding announced this week and the Minister’s recent visit to my constituency. I trust that she was as impressed as I was by the incredible engagement from not just police officers across Cleveland—particularly those from Hartlepool and Middlesbrough—but other agencies and stakeholders, which demonstrated the complete rejection of the terrible events that we saw on our streets in the summer.

I join my hon. Friend in thanking the Minister for her unwavering support during the troubles last summer, which was appreciated by me and other Members of Parliament whose constituencies were affected. Will he join me in congratulating Cleveland police on their exemplary work in dealing with what happened last summer, particularly as we recognise that some police officers in Hartlepool ended the night in hospital as a result? Will he also join me in reminding all Members that having temperance in the way that we speak about crime is incredibly important? Not doing so makes the job of our police harder, not easier.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is critical that when discussing crime and social tensions, we express ourselves in this place and outside with the greatest care. It falls to everybody on both sides of the House to ensure that people do not rush to social media to try to exploit an already inflammatory and delicate situation. We all have that obligation, and I share his celebration of the response from the community and the police in working together. That was truly remarkable, and it was only as successful as it was because the community and the police worked together in that way. The Minister will no doubt remember a very impressive officer from my hon. Friend’s constituency of Hartlepool, who I know only as Coggy. He is the most impressive individual, and he took it upon himself—his colleagues did the same across the Cleveland force area—to engage with young people who had lost their way and were not engaged. He told me that on one occasion, he had to remonstrate with a young man by saying, “I went to school with your dad, and he would be embarrassed.” The young man said, “No, that’s not true. You didn’t go to school with my dad. You went to school with my grandad.” Coggy is a remarkable man. I want to talk about some of the impacts on my local force, Cleveland Police, and to put on record my thanks to our police and crime commissioner, Matt Storey. A big positive for Cleveland is the doubling of the neighbourhood policing grant, which will help us to deliver on our commitments locally and to drive the Government’s pledges nationally. It is clear that this Government’s commitment to funding community policing is like night and day by comparison with 14 years of Tory austerity, but there are some comments that I would like to make. The funding formula still hurts us in Cleveland. We have the budget of a small rural force, with metropolitan levels of crime. We need a formula based on need and deprivation, just as local government has had. Cleveland’s grant is slightly below the national average, which means that we have to make up the gap somewhere else. The chief constable’s analogy is that we have a king-size bed with a single duvet: we are constantly moving it around, but we cannot cover everything. For example, a neighbouring force, with far less need than Cleveland, received £10 million more than we did in 2010. Today, the gap is £30 million. We need the funding for our historical investigations unit to continue at its current level and not taper off, as had been planned. The unit is doing critical work and has been given excellent inspection reports. The work it is doing is essential to ensuring justice on some very complex issues. I will raise those issues directly with the Minister outside the Chamber. It is clear that under the Tories, neighbourhood policing was slashed in communities across the country, but this Labour Government are now recruiting the neighbourhood police officers that we need to help and protect the public and keep our streets safe, and the constituents that I serve in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East will very much welcome that. I want to finish with a comment about the loss of 20,000 police officers since 2010. This has been remarked on by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), prompted by an intervention about the loss of experienced officers. I cannot think of anything more reckless and cavalier, and I shudder to think of the consequences that have flowed from the loss of that level of experience across our country. It was the most reckless thing to do, bordering on negligent, as would be seen if we were to monetise it in terms of the demand placed on other public services by the lack of police officers’ presence where they were needed. Frankly, the Conservatives should reflect very carefully on their record in office and hang their heads in shame.

17:06:00

When it comes to the police, politicians are all too eager to demand more and more while giving less and less. Years of failure and ineffective resourcing from the previous Conservative Government have left police forces across the country overstretched, understaffed and unable to focus on the crimes that impact our communities the most. While the shadow Police Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), spoke about the 20,000 officers his Government finally restored, he did not mention the fact that they were funded by getting rid of 30,000 backroom staff, with officers required to do their jobs. It was no more than a disingenuous conjuring trick in search of headlines. This funding settlement represents a welcome increase, but it is ultimately a missed opportunity. The National Police Chiefs’ Council estimates that the settlement still leaves a £1.3 billion funding gap over the next two years, so rather than improving police provision, it will in fact do no such thing. The situation facing the Met, which serves my Wimbledon constituency, is stark. I met the commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, recently. He told me that he still faces a £130 million shortfall, and is determined to take a strategic approach to the inevitable cuts, rather than salami-slicing the entire service. What impact this will have on particular areas is currently unclear, but in Wimbledon we fear that our police station is again under threat. When I was attacked in my home, my life was saved by two brave officers from that station who arrived within eight minutes of my eldest daughter dialling 999. If Wimbledon police station had not been there, I would not be here. That is why, when the Mayor of London sought to close it in 2017, I took him to court and won. Despite Baroness Casey’s review noting that the closure of 126 police stations had contributed to the reduction of frontline policing, the current basic command unit commander for south-west London, at a recent Merton council scrutiny session, was equivocal about whether Wimbledon police station’s long-term future could be guaranteed. I consequently raised its future with Sir Mark when we met, and while he recognised its importance, he was unable to offer any guarantees. It is clear, however, that if we are serious about community policing in my constituency, Wimbledon police station must be retained. The settlement also fails to address a critical systemic issue. The police funding mechanism is not fit for purpose, as the Home Office acknowledged a decade ago when the previous Government announced plans to reform it but then—surprise, surprise—did nothing. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has described the current model as “outdated”, as it leads to large regional disparities in how particular police forces are funded, as we have heard. The Home Secretary should have seized this moment to reform how the mechanism works. Sadly, she looked the other way, just as her predecessors have done for the last 10 years. Yesterday, when he appeared before the Home Affairs Committee, I asked the Home Office’s permanent secretary, Sir Matthew Rycroft, whether he had had any discussions with the Home Secretary about reforming the police funding mechanism. “Yes,” he said, but he then talked about picking the right moment, as there is clearly a lot of politics involved, before finally admitting that he is not sure when it will happen. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today. To be clear, I welcome the settlement but remain concerned that the Home Secretary is not using the opportunity to address systemic issues, while continuing to fund follies such as the expensive and ineffective police and crime commissioner model. Politics is all about making hard choices, and I acknowledge that the Home Secretary has more than her fair share to make, but I remain unconvinced that she has made all the right choices on this occasion.

17:10:00

I thank the Minister for her update on the settlement. I start by thanking Leicestershire police’s chief constable, Rob Nixon, and all his officers and staff for their dedicated service locally. Despite the Conservative party’s protests, we all know that the significant cuts to the policing budget resulted in a significant loss of officers. In Leicestershire between 2010 and 2016, we saw 550 officers lose their jobs—about 20% of the force. Police forces across the country, including Leicestershire, saw experienced officers, PCSOs and police staff leave their posts. The Conservatives recognised their mistake, promising to recruit 20,000 more officers, as though we had not lost that many already. Under the Conservative plan, we barely got back to where we were in 2010. The Conservatives have a proven track record of making mistakes, promising to fix those mistakes, then failing miserably and looking for somebody else to blame. It is easy to talk about statistics, but this has real-life impacts on our communities. In my recent conversations with officers in North West Leicestershire, I was shocked to discover that Leicestershire police have only three teams of three road traffic investigators—those who investigate serious traffic collisions—for the whole county of about 1 million people. This means that justice for victims of dangerous driving takes much time to resolve, causing more trauma along the way. This makes my constituents’ ears prick up, as there are limited public transport options and currently no passenger rail. Roads are the only way to get around. Our local beat teams are working hard, and it is a pleasure to meet them regularly to discuss the local policing issues facing residents in North West Leicestershire. However, like so many of my colleagues here today, my communities have been suffering from an increase in antisocial behaviour. I welcome this announcement, which is a huge step forward and will lead the way out of the Tories’ mismanagement. We need to ensure that our communities have visible neighbourhood policing, which is so important, particularly because our rural towns and villages experience the same levels of crime as our cities. Visible policing not only makes people feel safer but acts as a deterrent. I am sure every Member will raise their local funding challenges. The last 14 years have devastated our public services, and Leicestershire is no different. I understand that the Minister and the Department use a complex funding formula to decide the police grants, and Leicestershire has historically had a low base. As a Leicestershire MP, I will always advocate for more resources for my communities and my key services, including our police. I will work with colleagues to ensure that the settlement for Leicestershire works for North West Leicestershire and beyond.

17:13:00

There is much talk lately of a crisis of trust in our institutions. Well, there is no greater way to tackle that crisis head-on than by delivering on the basic function of the state itself, which is to keep people safe. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home and walking down their own street, but that is simply not the reality for far too many people in the UK today. Knife crime continues to plague our cities; scammers, fraudsters and burglars are too often allowed to act with impunity; and rural crime, which the provisional police grant report fails to mention even once, continues to fly under the radar. The net result is that trust is shaken and victims are left picking up the pieces of their lives, devastated by crimes that should have been prevented in the first place. I, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, recognise that the situation that the Government have inherited is awful. Years of failure by the previous Conservative Government decimated neighbourhood policing. Real-terms cuts were made at precisely the time when greater investment was needed. In the context of policing, it should be abundantly clear to Members across the House that failing to keep pace with inflation is akin to failing to keep pace with crime itself. If that is not clear, then allow me to highlight the following: 6,000 cases are closed each day in England and Wales without a suspect being identified; 75% of car thefts and burglaries are going unsolved; and PCSO numbers are down by nearly 5,000 compared with nine years ago. There is a sense on the doorsteps of my constituency, and across London, that crime is being allowed to pay, and that the days of effective community policing have been consigned to the past. It is vital that the House now gives police forces the resources they need to do their job properly. The measures the Government have outlined are noble in ambition, but flawed in execution. As the London spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, it would be remiss of me not to highlight three things. First, hiring more PCSOs in the capital will not in itself address the frustrating situation whereby far too often the officers doing the nitty-gritty of neighbourhood policing—the safer neighbourhoods teams—are pulled away from their local beats to assist with major events in central London. That issue would not be immediately solved with the greater capacity the new support officers would provide. It requires a structural shift within the Metropolitan police towards keeping those operations separate, as far as possible, so that local policing and national security policing are no longer put in tension. The Met itself has sounded the alarm and said that despite the Government’s proposals, it will still be facing a budget shortfall of between £130 million and £450 million. Instead of benefiting from new blood, the Met will have to decimate the force, cutting one in every 10 officers. When I met my borough detective superintendent a few weeks ago, as we went through his staff list, he regularly mentioned positions that will soon be subject to “tough decisions”. That is the brutal reality that the figures announced today will not fix: officers working in preventive community roles, who stop kids turning to crime or being sucked into gangs and antisocial behaviour, will be lost to “tough decisions”. Secondly, the ambitious number of 13,000 new PCSOs nationally will seem foolish if in urban areas, like London, the thinning out of trust in the police and uncompetitive salaries mean that those recruitment drives flounder. It is vital that the Government support the Met commissioner in his attempts to reform the police and win back the trust of London’s diverse communities. Finally, the Government must recognise that the funding mechanism built into their proposals is deeply unfair, and amounts to passing the buck on to local taxpayers through the fatally flawed and regressive council tax system. Increasing policing precepts simply drives council tax up. We are under no illusions: the police need that money, but it should be funded through Government investment, not increasing the burden on working people. Indeed, the £230 million in this package simply to offset the rise in national insurance contributions is unfortunate. The Government could have reduced the cost of the package by not introducing that foolish tax hike in the first place. I hope the Government listen to the concerns outlined in the House today and work across parties to improve their plan. No expense should be spared in keeping our constituents safe, and the Government ought to reconsider and find more sensible ways to make the investments our forces need. Big banks ought to contribute to the safer high streets we need, not cut and run from them. Social media companies profit from the sharing of graphic, violent videos of crime. Only today, while preparing my speech, I saw on my news feed a video of a violent stabbing in Carshalton that occurred last week, flanked above and below by adverts for local companies. That website was not promoting the crime, but it was profiting from the sharing and viewing of those videos. Those companies, which have failed to do enough to remove such content and to prevent online crime, ought to contribute to a safer, more reliable online space. The Government must focus the burden of taxation on them, rather than passing the buck on to the council tax payer to fund greater policing, because those companies have a stake in a safer society too. If the Government are so committed to fixing the foundations, they must understand that such half measures will mean crime will continue to undercut the very notion of Britain as a safe place to raise a family and do business. It disheartens the shopkeepers across London who feel powerless in the face of shoplifting, and the tradesmen I met on Monday who were robbed of their tools and, with them, their livelihood. It unsettles new parents looking for homes and schools or pensioners fearing ever more sophisticated scammers. It encourages and even vindicates those who would seek to undermine Britain’s stability.

17:20:00

I want to thank the police officers and PCSOs of the Metropolitan police, who bravely serve the communities of Leyton and Wanstead. I also want to thank the Minister for her leadership in this area. Her attentiveness to these issues was manifest in her visit to Leyton and Wanstead, where she saw at first hand the problems the additional funding will address. The visit was valued by our police force, council and constituents alike. More broadly, we welcome the Government’s significant investment in our police services, which is much needed after a decade in which real-terms funding for the Metropolitan police was cut by £1.2 billion. In combination with the actions being taken by the Mayor of London, who has doubled the mayoral funding for policing, the investment needs to enable better policing for our communities of Leyton and Wanstead. I particularly welcome the largest increase in the national and international capital city grant in a decade, which responds to concerns I have been raising about the impact of police officer abstractions on our communities. At some points last year, a number of our wards had no community response officers at all because of the number of abstractions taking place. In total, we lost more than 26,000 hours of officer time from Waltham Forest alone, and in Redbridge, we have areas that have no identifiable community support officers at all. Last Friday, I again met a group of constituents from Leytonstone who are being blighted by persistent antisocial behaviour and criminality, including allegations of drug dealing, fencing of stolen goods and other organised criminal activity being run out of premises in the local area. I have been working closely with the community support officer locally and the council’s ASB team, both of whom are actively engaged but struggling to make a difference with the resources they have. I want to thank Councillor Limbajee and Sergeant Mubasher for their efforts. When it comes to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, Labour’s commitment to putting 13,000 additional bobbies on the beat in our neighbourhoods is essential for laying the foundations for change. It will give the reforms and better leadership we require the space they need to work. Last week, on the Redbridge side of my constituency, we saw the opening of a community police hub in Woodford, from which officers will cover South Woodford and Wanstead. As we know, Boris Johnson as Mayor of London downgraded the neighbourhood policing presence, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), and closed Wanstead police station and the front counter in Woodford in 2013. That failed to recognise the value of bricks and mortar in connecting policing with our communities. Thankfully, that is being redressed due to the hard work of the outstanding Labour council in Redbridge under the leadership of Councillor Kam Rai. A neighbourhood policing presence is seriously needed in the area. The Co-op on George Lane in South Woodford has had at least 30 shoplifting incidents in the last 12 months alone. Increased police numbers and the improved police presence will be essential to addressing that tyranny. There is also good, responsive policing being done across our communities. Yesterday, for example, I bumped into the territorial support group officers in Langthorne Park—I think they were rather shocked to see me. It is a known hotspot, and that is why I and they were there. They told me that they were acting on information from local people and proactively targeting criminal activity that had been identified. It is that kind of visible policing, backed by strong community engagement, that helps to restore trust in our police and their ability to protect us. There are, I hope, some early signs of this co-ordinated work paying off, with a significant reduction in ASB reports in one of our most affected wards during the final months of last year. That was due to a reduction in the number of abstractions. Sadly, too often, when our neighbourhood police engage with serious antisocial behaviour issues locally, all it does is move the criminality to a different location, or suppress it only temporarily. To resolve these problems, we need better joined-up work as well as the resources to make policing more effective. Today’s announcement of funding for our councils as well as for our police is doubly helpful. I would like to see our council licensing departments working more closely with the police to shut down premises that are being used for organised crime, even where the evidence is not yet strong enough for the police to make arrests and secure prosecutions. Alongside the Government’s action on respect orders and on wider work to strengthen prevention, there is more that we can do to ensure that these additional resources deliver a sense of greater safety and peace for our communities. Finally, I want to amplify a point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). The police must be of the people, for the people. However, in London, there are many structural challenges that prevent this from being so, including pay, which this Government have chosen to tackle with their significant uplift in the Budget. Housing is another issue. When I was a child, I recall Mr Abbott, our local bobby, living in police housing. Although this might not be appropriate today, similar housing support is necessary to encourage more Londoners to contribute to the peace and security that they hope to enjoy. This grant must be the start of such a journey.

17:27:00

I very much welcome this police settlement, and I shall focus my remarks specifically on Essex. From 2010 onwards, the Conservatives cut 350 PCSOs in Essex. Last week, the Conservative police, fire and crime commissioner announced that he was cutting the remaining 99, despite receiving increased funding from this Government. I am very pleased to say that, today, he has suggested that he will reverse that decision following a public outcry and, indeed, a bail-out from the increased police grant. That is a huge relief not only to those PCSOs and their families, but to our residents whom they so brilliantly support. It is also a huge relief to Unison, which represents many employees in our policing services. When she winds up, will the Minister confirm that she continues to engage with Unison on this and other policing workforce issues? I also need to raise an extremely sad matter in the House today: the loss of six young lives on Essex roads at the weekend, including four in Colchester, my constituency. All four of those were much loved students at the University of Essex. I wish to put on record a tribute to the police and first responders at that terrible scene, and to ask the Minister whether she would meet me to discuss road safety in my area.

17:28:00

As I am sure Members know, Southend and Rochford is an area of immense cultural heritage, vibrant businesses and a picturesque coastline. Last summer, we faced high-profile incidents of antisocial behaviour and crime. I would like to thank the Minister for her support during that time. As a new MP, it was a very traumatic time for both me and the community. That is why I was shocked when, last week, the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Essex announced the sacking of all 99 PCSOs across Essex. I am pleased that our Labour Government have saved the Essex PCSOs from Tory cuts. In fact, this year the Labour Government are investing a record amount of funding in Essex policing. I hope the Minister agrees that we need police officers back on the beat in local communities, equipped with tougher powers to crack down on the crimes blighting our high streets and to restore confidence among businesses, consumers and local communities that the city centre is a place that people can enjoy.

17:30:00

I hugely welcome this police funding settlement on behalf of all my constituents in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield. They know that policing in this country has been underfunded, overstretched and undervalued for far too long. I thank the Home Secretary and the Home Office for bringing forward this vital funding package—an essential investment in keeping our streets safe and ensuring that our brave and hard-working police officers have the resources they need to do their jobs effectively. The report commits up to £19.5 billion to policing in England and Wales, an increase of over £1 billion compared with the previous year. For too long—for 14 years, in fact—our police were hollowed out and stretched, with officers having to do more with less, people feeling like the police were just not there for them, and crimes going unpunished. This increase is not a silver bullet, but it marks a step in the right direction, ensuring that police forces can meet the growing demands of modern crime and public safety. As crime evolves, so too must our approach to tackling it. Officers today face challenges that go beyond traditional policing. We are seeing increases in violent crime, organised criminal networks and the damaging effects of anti-social behaviour on our communities, especially in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield town centres. At the same time, police forces must modernise to tackle cyber-crime, fraud and online exploitation, which are rapidly becoming some of the most common yet complex threats that we face. Increasing neighbourhood policing and funding was in our manifesto. We said it; we mean it. Tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime. You have, whatever your age, a responsibility to your community. Disrespect that, and we will come down hard on you. This funding will strengthen local forces, put officers back on the rounds and go some way towards restoring public confidence in policing. This funding increase will benefit forces across the country, and Lancashire is no exception. Our local force is set to receive £284 million in Government grants, and approximately another £130 million from the precept—in total, around £414 million, a £23.4 million increase. We are not just talking the talk on crime on our streets, but walking the walk and putting our money where our mouth is. In Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield, residents are calling for a greater police presence, quicker response times and much tougher action on repeat offenders. They want to feel safer in their communities, and see the difference that this police funding will make. With this increase, Lancashire constabulary will be able to invest in officer recruitment, improve resources and deliver the kind of policing that local people expect and deserve.

I thank the hon. Member for everything he is saying about improved policing on our streets. Something that would massively help my constituents is the reopening of the Chichester custody centre. At the moment, the police have to drive people they arrest all the way over to Worthing, which is a two-hour round trip that takes officers off our streets. Instead, they are stuck in traffic on the A27—something I would not wish on anybody. Does he agree that opening that custody centre would make a huge difference to my constituents?

My powers as a Back Bencher are somewhat limited, but I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench have heard the hon. Lady. I have some sympathy, because there is currently a petition to reopen the Burnley custody centre—it is opportune to be able to mention it. Currently, police officers have to drive to Blackburn, which feels like a universe away. I am currently lobbying my police and crime commissioner, as are local councillors, and I encourage the hon. Lady to do the same. We are having some success and I am hopeful, but we will see. The funding is not just about more money; it is also about better policing. We need police forces that are modern, efficient and equipped to tackle today’s challenges. I welcome the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will put more police officers on the streets doing the rounds, ensuring that every community has a named, contactable officer who understands local issues and priorities. This is not just about visibility; it is about building trust, improving engagement, getting local intel and making policing more accountable to the communities it serves. As promised, we will deliver 13,000 new officers, PCSOs and special constables, and that will make a real difference to towns and cities across our country. Those officers will play a crucial role in tackling antisocial behaviour, shoplifting and street crime, helping to make our high streets and town centres safer for everyone. I should be able—anybody should be able—to walk into Burnley, Padiham, and Brierfield town centres and feel safe at any time. I should be able to know that if I call 999, I will get a good response time for an emergency service. I should be able—anybody should be able—to know that repeat offenders will not be dealt with lightly and that the kids throwing rocks at buses in Padiham or Burnley town centre will get a clip round the ear and so will their parents. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] I am not sure if that is policy, but we will go with that. We seem to be in the middle of a crisis of respect in our young people, in part because of long-term police underfunding. At the end of the day, the funding is about making people safer. It is about ensuring that when someone calls for help, officers are there. It is about ensuring that criminals face consequences for their actions and that our communities feel protected and supported. In recent years we have seen rising rates of shoplifting, which the previous Government all but decriminalised in small towns such as mine. We have seen a surge in violent crime and an increase in vehicle thefts. Those are not abstract statistics but real issues affecting real local people. A well-funded, well-equipped police force means safer streets, faster response times and greater public confidence in policing. For those reasons, I of course support this funding settlement and encourage all colleagues in the House to do the same.

17:36:00

We have heard a great deal from Members across the House about the grant and the impact it will have on various communities. I reiterate my earlier point that we are deeply concerned about the effect that will have on policing. Members do not need to take my word for it; they can listen to the words of police leadership. Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, previously said that the force would be “scaling back our ability to tackle serious violence and organised crime”. Norfolk’s chief constable, Paul Sanford, who is the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for finance, described the funding package as challenging and said that cuts were inevitable. One of Labour’s own police and crime commissioners, Joy Allen, PCC for Durham, also said the money “may not go as far as we would all hope” and that “We will have to wait and see what this additional funding covers and how long it lasts”. Does the Minister think the £100 million announced will be enough to stop those cuts? Unfortunately, we have seen that sentiment reflected not only in words, but in the actions of police forces. Lincolnshire Police says there is a budget gap of £14 million. To manage that, it plans to reduce the number of police officers by around 200, bringing the total down to 1,000 officers by 2028-29, alongside cancelling the upcoming police officer intake for March. Lincolnshire is unfortunately not alone. In Essex the shortfall in the Government’s police funding settlement led the police force to announce plans to eliminate all 99 of its police community support officers—[Interruption.] I am coming to it; worry not!—and reduce staff numbers by around 65 people. While I acknowledge that that was prior to last week’s announcement, Essex will still receive £2.2 million. However, Essex Police had identified a £5.3 million budget shortfall, so it is still over £3 million short. While the additional funding is welcome, it will not be sufficient to bridge the gap. That is a direct result of the funding shortfall. Derbyshire’s chief constable stated that its budget shortfall of £1.5 million by the end of the financial year had increased to £5.5 million after the Budget. However, it did not stop there. She said that it was compounded further by the Home Office grant settlement in December, which increased the amount that the force needed to balance the books to more than £8.5 million. In that context, last week’s announcement appears to be only 18% of the previously announced shortfall. Meanwhile, PCCs across the country—from Norfolk Constabulary to Thames Valley Police, and even in my home force of Cleveland Police—have repeatedly highlighted the challenges they face while having to increase the precept. Those decisions expose the hollowness of Labour’s so-called neighbourhood policing guarantee. How can the Government claim to be delivering that if forces must cut staff simply to maintain officer numbers at their current level? Another aspect of this debate is the decision to increase funding through precept rises. During last year’s debate, Labour’s then shadow policing Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), said from the Opposition Benches that “the Government have lifted the cap on the precept so that PCCs can raise it by £13 next year for band D properties. That in itself is a challenge for people’s finances, but it also creates differential challenges across the country… That failure of leadership has consequences for less well-off areas”.—[Official Report, 7 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 286.] Yet now that the Labour party is in government, its stance appears to have changed. This year’s precept increase is even more significant than the one announced last year. Like so much about this Government, they promise one thing to win an election and do completely the opposite when they are in charge. Given their actions now, will they acknowledge that they underestimated police funding needs when in opposition, and seem to be continuing to underestimate them now that they are in government? Of course, we will not do anything to stop the police from getting the resources they need, so we will not vote against the motion, but I hope the Government recognise that their actions will not only make their job more challenging but risk undermining communities across the country. They have used a sleight of hand to pretend that the extra money for policing is more than it really is. As a result, police forces will not have enough funding to meet cost pressures, and cuts to police numbers are inevitable. If the Minister for Policing disagrees, will she guarantee that total police numbers will not fall from the record level at the previous Government’s last national workforce count of 31 March 2024? I know that my colleagues want to work with the Government to empower police forces in their constituencies by giving them all the resources they need. However, we remain concerned that this settlement is a sign that the challenges that the Minister for Policing refers to will only grow over the course of this Parliament. Instead of a tax raid, we should give our police forces the resources they need and show our brave frontline officers the respect and support that they deserve.

17:42:00

First, I express my gratitude to all Members who have contributed to the debate. Before I respond to their points—and I will respond—I take this opportunity to say a massive thank you to the police officers, staff and volunteers who work tirelessly to keep us all safe. The contribution they make to our society is simply extraordinary, and we are fortunate to have them. I shamelessly take this opportunity to give a shout-out to Orla Jenkins and Jim Carroll, my sergeant and inspector, who almost live in my office—which is not a particularly good thing. They are absolutely amazing, responsive and well-known neighbourhood coppers. It is so important that people know the names of their neighbourhood officers and can contact them. I do not plan to repeat the top headlines of the settlements that we are debating, as they were covered at length by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, but I reiterate that the settlement represents a significant investment in policing that will kick-start the delivery of the safer streets mission. Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of British policing. That is why we have injected an additional £100 million into neighbourhood policing compared with the provisional settlement, which means that we are doubling the funding available to forces to a total of £200 million so that they can carry on the fight against crime and keep communities safe. Let me turn to some of the points raised during the debate. I welcome the comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). It seems that he lives in wonderland. He has talked today as if we have come from some amazing nirvana with regard to policing, not from a situation where every single part of our system—whether it is our courts, our police, our mental health services or our housing—has been so utterly degraded that all of that work landed on the hard-working police forces that he sought to praise.

Will the Minister give way?

Go on.

I was just wondering whether the Minister knew how much this national insurance tax raid was going to cost her local police force and those hard-working police officers in her part of the world.

I am not exactly sure how much it will cost West Midlands police, but what I do know is that the Home Office is going to give it to them. The shadow Minister has talked as if taxes do not pay for our public services—that is an absolute madness; money has to be raised to pay for our public services. The Home Office is funding the national insurance rise for West Midlands police and every other—[Interruption.] I cannot believe that it is being argued that our police forces were not completely and utterly decimated, and there seems to have been a tiny bit of whitewashing from some Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches about the role that their party also played in taking 20,000 police officers off our streets. The shadow Minister specifically questioned the Policing Minister on 999 calls and response officers, and on how we will halve violence against women and girls with the help of this settlement. I want to bring him back from wonderland into the real world and tell him a story about Raneem Oudeh, who called 999 13 times on the night she was murdered by her husband. She called out to West Midlands police 13 times, and there was no immediate response—the immediate response that I am being told has always existed, along with, “Oh, something is going to change.” Oh my gosh—I do not know what system the shadow Minister thinks has existed for the past 14 years, but I will tell him what we are going to do. We are going to put specialist domestic abuse workers in every single one of our police force response rooms, because of the failures of response under police forces decimated by the years of Conservative Governments. Frankly, I am flabbergasted by the shadow Minister’s gall. My husband often says, “I don’t know why you continue to be surprised.” My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) raised the issue of the funding formula, as have many other Members in the Chamber today. I know that the Policing Minister has visited Bedfordshire and very much heard the particular challenges they face. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) talked about the mental health and morale of police. I went out to Hertfordshire police recently to see some police officers who were dog handlers; the dogs were there to sniff out the hard drives of sex offenders and child sex abusers. One of the officers had this amazing dog, Micky, and I noticed that it was the first time I had seen a police officer look genuinely happy for quite a long time. Morale in policing and the health of our police officers have been dreadfully tested over recent years, and I noted how chuffed this bloke was to be doing his job with this dog—the dog was lovely. We need to make sure we are looking after our police officers, and the Policing Minister informs me that as part of our reform programme, we are having a very close look at how occupational health is handed out to police officers. The hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) all raised the issue of the Met. The Met is large and complex, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned—as did many others—the issue of police officers being taken away from the frontlines in their neighbourhoods in order to undertake not just policing of the capital, but sometimes national policing in other areas. I reassure Members that the funding formula for neighbourhood policing means that it has to be spent on neighbourhood policing and cannot really be pulled away to other areas.

Does the Minister think that reducing the number of people working in response policing to make up the numbers in neighbourhood policing will improve or reduce response times?

What I think is that we have put £1.1 billion extra into policing, and what I expect to happen across police forces is that we will work with them. As we have seen today from Members in Essex—[Interruption.] Would the shadow Minister like to intervene? What are you shaking your head about, sir?

Go on.

As we have heard, once you take out your national insurance tax raid and the pay rise that you took from the base, it is more like £660 million, which is £300 million less than last year’s settlement from the Conservative Government.

Earlier, I heard everybody groan on your Benches—

Order. They are not my Benches.

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker—they are definitely not your Benches. I heard groaning earlier about the black hole that was left. The shadow Minister makes a point about the uplift in pay, but in this year’s settlement nothing had been put in that budget by his Government to increase the pay of police officers. Nothing was put into the budget, because that was the way that they operated.

Utter rubbish.

It isn’t utter rubbish—it’s a fact. Anyway, I shall go back to the people who are engaging with the debate. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) that I send a massive thanks to Chris Duffy, who sounds like an amazing officer. I imagine that he is happy in his work because he works with a dog. Maybe giving every police officer a dog is the answer—that is not Government policy, and neither is clipping people round the ear, however much we might want to. I say to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) —I will repeatedly say this—that I am from the West Midlands police force, and there has not been a year since I was elected to Parliament when the problems with the funding formula have not been raised with me. The west midlands is one of the areas that the issue affects deeply, so I massively hear that point. Two attempts that the previous Government made to look at the funding formula were abandoned, so we felt very much that this year we had to create a stable system. I remind hon. Members that this is our seventh month in government, but we absolutely hear the arguments about the funding formula, which was not reformed in the last 14 years. We have inherited this.

May I press the Minister on the specific point about the west midlands? She is talking about funding in the west midlands and I am also a west midlands MP. How does she think that the whopping bill that the west midlands force will face from employer national insurance contributions will impact on its budget? When it comes to money, if she is so passionate about neighbourhood policing, as indeed am I, what assurances can she give that funding from the abhorrent sale of Aldridge police station will come back into services for residents of Aldridge-Brownhills?

The first thing I would say is that it will cost West Midlands police nothing because the Home Office is going to fund it. Apart from the amazing world we have apparently lived in with policing for the past 14 years, Aldridge police station was shut down under the budgets that the right hon. Lady’s Government gave to local areas. I am led to believe today that those were like milk and honey.

I imagine the point that the right hon. Lady is going to make is that we have a Labour police and crime commissioner, but they can only work with what they are given. I was not going to give way to her, but go on.

I think that the hon. Lady is agreeing with me that the closure of Aldridge police station has come on the watch of the Labour police and crime commissioner, who delayed and delayed making that decision for years.

I do not disagree that that is how the budgets are given out, but the number of police stations that were closed under the last 14 years of Tory Governments is phenomenal. I believe that a Member mentioned earlier the ones closed by Boris Johnson when he was the Mayor of London. Maybe the right hon. Lady would have heard me already talking about the west midlands, had she been in the debate. I note that a previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), is coming into the Chamber, but for most of the time there have been no Conservative Members in here for any of this debate. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East please pass on my massive respect to Coggy? The Policing Minister wanted me to confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) that she met Unison last week, and she is absolutely happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the terrible and tragic losses of life in her constituency and in the wider area of Essex. We are all looking forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) reopening the Chichester custody suite, which he has now become responsible for. Many Members, including him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), have talked with great passion about the importance of neighbourhood policing and the problems of antisocial behaviour in our areas. We face few things more often as Members of Parliament than complaints about failures on antisocial behaviour in our neighbourhoods. I will not do what the previous Government did, and pretend that everything is world-beating and the best it could ever be and that nothing will ever be better than anything that they could ever do. I am not going to do that.

Rubbish.

The hon. Member says from a sedentary position that that is rubbish, but the Conservatives literally used to claim things were world-beating all the time.

Will the Minister give way?

Conservative interventions have not been that world-beating, so no, I will not. Things are not perfect. We all think that there should be more police officers. We all want greater resource on every single street. Every single constituency MP who spoke, spoke up with passion because they want their neighbourhoods to feel safer.

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the funding formula, which is something I have raised with the Policing Minister, too. Seasonality is an issue in my constituency of Bournemouth West. I put on record my thanks to Dorset police for doing so much with the little that they do have, including on things like antisocial behaviour, which blights our town. I invite the Minister to come and see some of the remarkable work that the police are doing with businesses and the council to tackle some of these challenges.

I would absolutely love to come to Dorset. What my hon. Friend says is right. I think somebody mentioned the idea of a double bed with a single duvet moving round it, and although huge efficiencies could still be made across forces, some of our police forces do amazing things. I absolutely praise Dorset police for that work.

Go on then.

I am trying to make a constructive point about the Minister’s remarks on efficiencies. She said that there are huge opportunities for efficiencies to be made. Much of the debate has been on funding, but she is signalling that things can be done better. What is opaque to me, not least from the conversation that I had with my own police and crime commissioner before coming here, is what productivity targets the Government have set and what variation they expect to close across the 43 police forces. How many police hours does she expect to be freed up from working more efficiently on productivity gains? Or are the Government’s actions adding bureaucracy and red tape and making it harder for police forces to deliver?

I do not know yet how many hours. I went out to Thames Valley police and saw exactly how many officer hours were saved by the police having direct video contact. A statement was taken from a victim of domestic abuse in eight minutes, rather than police officers having to go out to their house three days later. That will be rolled out to every police force and will lead to huge time efficiencies in statement-taking. As someone who has given a huge number of police statements—every month—I know how inefficient it is. I would be lying if I stood here and said, “It will be 16,000 hours for each police force.” We will look at exactly what works and how we can make those efficiencies.

Will the Minister give way?

It is a bit galling when people who have not sat through the debate come in and want to speak. There was no one on the Conservative Benches for the vast majority of the debate. Members who have taken part in the debate deserve a bit more respect. This Government back the police 100%. We are grateful for the tireless work that police officers, PCSOs and staff do every single day. We have heard today about some of the crimes that they suffer. This investment is a significant step towards meeting our shared ambition to boost neighbourhood policing and to restore confidence in the police that has been so badly lost, as was mentioned by many Members. This Government have prioritised investment in policing in a time of fiscal constraint, but we know that there is more to do. We will work in partnership with the police to deliver our shared ambition to boost visible neighbourhood policing, tackle knife crime and violence against women and girls and reform the police, and to deliver efficiencies to make their jobs easier. This Government will always give the police the resources, powers, tools and support that they need to get the job done. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2025–26 (HC 621), which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In today’s Prime Minister’s questions, the Leader of the Opposition alleged that a donor to my party was funding a court case challenging the consent to develop the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields. That is entirely untrue. She went on to suggest that the Government’s decision to accept the court ruling was swayed somehow by a previous relationship with Dr Rausing. This is a very serious allegation for which no evidence has been provided. I seek your advice and guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the recourse available to me and other Members to ask the Leader of the Opposition to come back to this House and present the evidence, and if she cannot, to apologise, withdraw the comment and correct the record.

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, which perhaps went further than I had expected. In this House we need to be very careful with language. I am sure that he was not accusing the Leader of the Opposition of deliberately saying something that was untrue.

Not deliberately.

I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that. He will be aware that comments made in this House are not the responsibility of the Chair, but he has put his point on the record, and I am sure that the official Opposition Front-Bench team will have heard it.