Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

This Government, with this plan, will sadly not get on top of illegal immigration. The Secretary of State made much of the fact that the Bill will introduce powers that mirror counter-terror legislation

“to allow law enforcement partners to disrupt, investigate and prosecute those facilitating organised immigration crime”,

but law enforcement already has the ability to disrupt, investigate and prosecute. The Border Security Command and the recruitment of its commander were announced with great fanfare by the Government, but what is there to show for them? Having already removed any deterrent, the number of small boats has risen to its highest level. By the end of the year, the number had risen to more than 30,000 arrivals—now crossing with impunity.

The Border Security Command is due to provide and oversee a long-term vision for the border security system, but what is that vision? Within that system, the commander is responsible for setting the system’s strategic priorities, but what are they? The commander was appointed in September, and it is now February, so when will he set the Government’s strategic priorities for border security?

The default answer of the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to nearly every question is that the Border Security Command is providing “cross-system strategic leadership” to tackle organised immigration crime—because cross-system strategic leadership is the No. 1 thing that people smuggling gangs fear more than anything. I asked what the Border Security Command’s target is for reducing the number of people entering the country via small boat: “cross-system strategic leadership”. I asked what the Border Security Command’s timeline is for reducing the number of people entering the country via small boat: “cross-system strategic leadership”. I asked what Border Security Command provides in the way of cross-system strategic leadership to Border Force, to the National Crime Agency, to immigration enforcement and to the police. The response was:

“The Border Security Command is, for the first time, providing system leadership across those partners.”

Most importantly, several months after the Border Security Command was established, I asked how many organised immigration crime groups had been dismantled —or, to put that in terms that regular viewers may find more familiar, how many gangs have been smashed? The answer was that it is

“collecting key data across the system… This will support the BSC’s ability to drive cohesive delivery across the system”.

So none—not a single gang has been smashed.

The Government have stated that their new approach to border security will focus on prevent, pursue, protect and prepare. Prevent will “disincentivise migrants”, but how will this legislation do that? Currently, if anybody is wondering whether the journey to the UK will be worth the risk, the gov.uk asylum support webpage states:

“You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker… You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast… You’ll usually get £49.18 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.

It continues:

“If you’ve been refused asylum but you’re still eligible for support you’ll be given: somewhere to live”

and

“£49.18 per person on a payment card for food, clothing and toiletries”.

Whether someone is eligible for asylum or not, they will likely still get a home and £50 a week. What deterrent is there in this legislation to mitigate those pull factors? None.

[John Slinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

No, I will not.

The Bill repeals most of the Illegal Migration Act, removes the duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements to remove persons who entered the UK illegally to their home country or a safe third country, and allows illegal migrants to obtain British citizenship—more incentives. The Illegal Migration Act blocked asylum seekers from claiming asylum based on their method of entry, so those who entered the country illegally via small boat were unable to claim asylum, not eligible for support and, crucially, not eligible to claim British citizenship.

The Government talk tough on deportations, proudly boasting that they have deported record numbers of migrants, but more than 80% of those individuals are voluntary returns. When I asked the Home Office how much they were each awarded in financial incentives of up to £3,000 per person, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum could not provide that information. Why does she not know? Even those who lose the game still walk away with a cash prize.

With no credible deterrent since the election, we have seen numbers rocket and migrant hotels reopen. In just three months since the election, the number of migrants in asylum hotels rose by 6,000, which is roughly equivalent to the population of the third biggest town in my constituency. Indeed, in Cambridgeshire, the hon. Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) have asked the Home Office to rethink its decision to move 146 male asylum seekers into the Dragonfly hotel in Peterborough. I imagine that was not on their bingo card for the first six months of a Labour Government.

The only deterrent in the Bill appears to be five years in prison if migrants refuse to be rescued in the channel by French authorities. I will be staggered if a single person is prosecuted for refusing to be rescued by the French. For reference, threatening someone with a weapon carries a maximum sentence of four years’ custody in the UK, so to suggest that migrants will receive a harsher sentence for not being rescued by French authorities is a nonsense.

This is a terrible Bill that pays lip service to controlling illegal immigration by talking tough while crossing its fingers behind its back. We know that Government Members are more comfortable signing letters to stop deportation flights than they are actually deporting people, but this Bill pours fuel on the fire of illegal migration. It encourages it and facilitates it, and I would not be surprised if Lord Hermer had advised on it. The Bill makes for a snappy headline, but it will not be the solution needed to curtail illegal immigration.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

The Conservative party has a record of failure, and now it is failing to back our measures to put things right. On Rwanda, so much money was wasted to deport so few people, and with so little remorse. Imagine the howls that we would have heard if a civil servant or trade union had wasted just 1% of that sum. On the asylum backlog, the graph is like the NHS waiting list under the Conservatives: up and up it went to 166,261 by 2022—an elevenfold increase on the number that they inherited. That is what happens when those who do not believe in government are the Government.

While this Bill focuses more on asylum, the net migration figures also illustrate that the previous Government let things get out of control, with a 220% increase in net migration from 244,000 in 2010—then a record—to 782,000 in 2023. As with policing and defence, so it is with asylum and immigration: the previous Government failed, yet Conservative Members rail against us as we tackle the crisis that they bequeathed us. I do not want to rehearse the excellent policies set out by Ministers and by my Labour colleagues, so I will just gently ask right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches to put their hand on their heart and tell us that they are proud of their record. Do they think it is dignified for a great country such as ours to offshore our responsibilities to Rwanda, a country that they needed—with an Orwellian flourish—to define as safe? Hand on heart, do right hon. and hon. Conservative Members think that it is in the national interest to vote against the robust, practical and principled approach in this Bill?

It is a shame that the Conservative party continues to resort to false promises and populist language. We have heard that tonight, such as “surrender”, or the words of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who spoke about the £49.18 per week that asylum seekers receive to pay for clothes and toiletries. These are human beings. I am sure that the hon. Member was not suggesting that a country such as ours should not be offering people the ability to clothe themselves.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I was not suggesting that people should not have the ability to clothe themselves; my point was that this is advertised on the Government website, and is a pull factor. What does this Bill do to address that pull factor?

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. This Bill proposes numerous measures that will get tough on the evil criminal gangs that are bringing people here on those boats, and my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches have made that point very clearly.

With their hand on their heart, are right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches perhaps feeling ashamed of flirting with the idea of derogating from our international rights obligations? In time, I believe that the public will see that—led by a Prime Minister who has actually tackled criminal gangs—the Home Secretary and her team will leave behind the failure, gimmicks and populism of the past and replace them with effective action.

Southport Attack

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I have introduced a new Prevent commissioner—Lord David Anderson is beginning work as the interim commissioner right now—because there is no independent review of Prevent decisions or processes. That is a problem, because the decisions that Prevent takes are incredibly important. They need to be effective, and we need to make sure that standards are maintained. That is why we need an independent review. We have independent inspectors of aspects of the work of other public services, such as policing. We need an independent commissioner brought in to review not just this case, but similar cases. On the scope of the inquiry, the Prime Minister made it clear this morning that this inquiry will follow the evidence wherever it takes the inquiry, and no stone can go unturned.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On what dates were the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary made aware that Axel Rudakubana was in possession of ricin and an al-Qaeda training manual, and will the inquiry cover public communications after the murders?

[Yvette Cooper]

Ministers were of course updated throughout. The Home Office was advised about ricin in August, and we were advised about the document much later on in October. We made sure that the official Opposition were also briefed. In the end, those decisions and investigations are matters for the police on an operational basis. The tradition in this country is that we have operational independence for policing, and operationally independent decisions made by the CPS.

It is really sad that so many Opposition Members have chosen to ask questions about the timing of the release of information—they know that such issues are governed by the Contempt of Court Act, and that this is about providing justice for the families who lost their loved ones—rather than asking the serious questions about why that terrible, horrific and barbaric act took place. I would just ask the hon. Member, and others deciding what issues they want to focus on, to think very seriously about what the most important issue is here, when so many lives were lost.

Police Funding: Cambridgeshire

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this important debate on police funding in Cambridgeshire. It has taken a number of attempts to secure this debate and I am extremely grateful that it will now be the first Adjournment debate of the year. I am extremely pleased to see so many of my fellow Cambridgeshire MPs in attendance and I welcome their timely interventions. Having spoken to several of them about the subject, I know that this is a topic that concerns us all and transcends party politics. Police funding continues to be an issue throughout the county. I made it a cornerstone of my election campaign and pledged to fight for a fairer funding solution.

Last year, Cambridgeshire experienced significant political change, not only in the make-up of its Members of Parliament but in the make-up of its constituencies, with the necessity to add a new parliamentary constituency owing to the increase in the county’s population. Cambridgeshire is the fastest-growing county and, as such, it is vital that its growing population is properly protected.

The subject of police funding in Cambridgeshire has been a growing issue in recent years. Indeed, the way in which our police forces are funded, via the Government core grant allocation and the policing precept element of the council tax bill, has long since led to an unequal distribution of funding across the police forces of England and Wales. Cambridgeshire is the fourth worst-funded police force. The discrepancies between the funding available to Cambridgeshire constabulary and other similar-sized forces becomes apparent when we look at their per capita allocation. In Cambridgeshire, it is only £217.80 per person, whereas in Durham it is £265.17. The national average is £275.20. Cambridgeshire currently receives a raw deal because the police allocation formula that underpins the funding is based on population data that is now hopelessly out of date.

The current formula was introduced in the 2013-14 financial year and is based on the population size of Cambridgeshire in 2012. The county has, as we all know, grown significantly in the intervening 13 years. When the figures are broken down they show that this year, 2024-25, the total budget for Cambridgeshire is £197.5 million. That is split between 56% Government funding and 44% precept. The national average is 66% Government funding and 34% precept. Why will Cambridgeshire residents continue to pick up the slack next year when there was an opportunity to change the formula to better balance that split and reduce the burden by 10%, which would have brought us in line with the national average? Indeed, that £197.5 million is Cambridgeshire’s share of the total budget for England and Wales of £16,575.7 million. It represents just 1.2% of total funding. That correlates with Cambridgeshire’s share of current police numbers. As of 31 March 2024, there were 147,746 full-time equivalent police officers in England and Wales. Of those, Cambridgeshire had just 1,757 police officers, or 1.2%.

The Government have pledged to restore neighbourhood policing via an uplift of 13,000 new neighbourhood police. The pledge was first made by the now Home Secretary in February 2023 but, as I understand it, the recruitment of those officers will not begin until the 2025-26 financial year, and they are set to be recruited over the remaining four years of the Parliament. Will the Minister clarify whether the 13,000 was on top of the police headcount in February 2023, or against the projected headcount in March 2029? If it was the latter, what is the projected headcount for police in England and Wales in March 2029? In November, the Home Secretary confirmed that those 13,000 neighbourhood police would be made up of only 3,000 FTE police, 4,000 police community support officers, 3,000 special constables and 3,000 officers reassigned from other duties.

On the basis of those numbers and the allocation that I established earlier, Cambridgeshire would, with just 1.2% of those numbers, receive 36 police officers, a figure which, spread over the remainder of this Parliament, amounts to just nine new officers per year. Given that we have eight constituencies in Cambridgeshire that is, realistically, just one new officer per constituency, and assuming that Peterborough and Cambridge, as our two cities, have an increased requirement compared with more rural constituencies, we could easily see zero new officers in some Cambridgeshire constituencies.

Additionally, the current plan includes the redistribution of 3,000 existing police officers. As the previous calculation showed, at just one officer per constituency, it is highly unlikely that there will be any discernible difference. While I appreciate that operational decisions are the responsibility of the chief constable, I gently ask the Minister where she thinks that those officers, in an already overstretched and under-resourced force, will be redistributed from?

Before Christmas, I spoke to Cambridgeshire constabulary about the impact the Government’s neighbourhood policing pledge would have. This provides a useful illustration of what the pledge looks like for the forces that have not been properly resourced. The Government have pledged that every neighbourhood will have a named officer. As things stand the town of St Ives—a town with a population of 17,000 residents—has a single named officer to cover it, who is also the named officer for the smaller market town of Ramsey in North West Cambridgeshire, 12 miles to the north and just outside my constituency, with a further 6,000 residents. That same officer is also responsible for all the villages that lie between those two towns: Warboys, Bury, Upwood, Wistow, Broughton, Old Hurst, Woodhurst, Pidley and, I believe, even Somersham, Bluntisham, Colne, Earith, Needingworth and Holywell. Conversely, the same area is covered by two Members of Parliament and more than a dozen councillors. How big an area should one officer be expected to cover?

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point about the reality of policing in a rural area. My constituency has one of the most consistently underfunded police forces in the country. Two misconceptions are that there is no crime in rural areas, and that if it does exist, it does not require the same manpower as other areas. Both those assumptions are absolutely wrong. The reality is that crime in rural areas is down to county lines, trafficking, cyber-crime and organised crime. Can my hon. Friend attest to the changing nature of crime in Cambridgeshire that we experience in Suffolk, and to the fact that rural crime is not easy to police?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I concur wholeheartedly with that assessment, and I will shortly go into more detail about the difficulties posed by rural crime, in terms of both manpower and the specifics that simply do not exist in other parts of the country.

No one would consider their neighbourhood to be the same as that of another town 12 miles away. When, in November, I asked the Minister for her definition of a community, I did not receive an answer; I was simply told that more detail would be set out in due course. I therefore hope she will now provide her definition of a community in the context of the size of community that a single officer should be expected to cover. Will she also tell us what additional resources the Government will provide in Cambridgeshire to ensure that their neighbourhood policing pledge can realistically be met by the St Ives safer neighbourhood team and, indeed, safer neighbourhood teams throughout the county?

When I speak to residents in some of our rural villages and communities, particularly those west of the A1 in my constituency, the lack of a visible police presence is a constant theme. Many residents complain that they never see a police officer in their community, and that chimes with the Government’s own findings. According to Labour, half the public have said that they never or almost never see an officer on patrol. Will the Minister explain how the Government’s neighbourhood policing pledge will address the paucity of visible policing in rural areas?

In villages such as Brington and Molesworth, residents benefit from the presence of Ministry of Defence Police. Nearby RAF Molesworth is operated by the United States Air Forces in Europe and, with the vast majority of United States air force personnel living in the local community rather than on base, the MOD Police patrol in the surrounding villages to ensure the safety of US personnel. While that provides a police presence of sorts, local residents should not have to rely on the nearby presence of the US military in order to see the presence of the police.

As a result of the lack of confidence felt by some residents given the lack of a visible police presence and deterrence, those in some local villages have turned to private security firms such as Blueline, which covers the area from Catworth to Hail Weston with monitoring and response to calls or alarm activations from those who pay for the service. For local residents who know that their village will be without any sort of visible police deterrent, that is a sensible option for the peace of mind that it brings, but it should not even be a consideration.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue. One of the major issues in the rural countryside that I, he and others represent is the theft of farm machinery, often in the early hours of the morning. The Police Service of Northern Ireland works alongside the Ulster Farmers’ Union. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the police in his constituency work alongside the National Farmers Union to mark all the machinery so that if it is stolen, they can trace where it goes? I know that in Northern Ireland, it goes south towards the Republic and then comes across to England. Perhaps the police and the NFU could look at that together.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the manner of the rural crime that takes place. I will come on to talk about the rural crime action team that we have in Cambridgeshire and how they deal with the specific threat of that type of rural crime.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend highlights an important point about rural crime. He has powerfully set out how Cambridgeshire is underfunded per capita compared with other forces, and he has explained how that is more acute in areas such as Fenland and rural constituencies. Can he also see the irony in the Prime Minister launching his housing strategy in Cambridge, and in the fact that the Government say they want to see much more housing in Cambridgeshire, yet their per capita funding discriminates against Cambridgeshire as an area?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Indeed; my right hon. Friend makes a good point. The Prime Minister launched his housing campaign in Alconbury Weald, which is in my constituency. It currently has around 1,500 houses, with another 4,000 homes to be built in that location. It is indeed a great irony that we are talking about per capita funding in an area that is growing as quickly as it is. We need to address that as a matter of urgency.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is an old friend—we knew each other in a previous life. We are from different parties, but we go way back. I do not know what that does for his street cred and mine, but I wanted to be here to support him.

As we are talking about irony, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is ironic that a former Chief Secretary is taking part in a debate about the lack of police officers and the lack of funding, to which the hon. Gentleman just referred? I wonder whether he shares my quizzical interest in where those officers were and where that funding was.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

My question on funding specifically is about the way that Cambridgeshire is short-changed by the police allocation formula. I explained earlier that the nub of the issue in Cambridgeshire is the fact that the funding is so out of date. On the growth of Cambridgeshire, which was mentioned earlier, adjusting the police allocation formula would go some way towards filling the gap. It is not just about Cambridgeshire; I know that places such as Lincolnshire, which is even worse funded than Cambridgeshire, would also benefit from the formula being looked at.

[Patrick Spencer]

As we have just had a debate on child sexual exploitation, it is worth mentioning that we are seeing the nature of crime in rural areas change very quickly, and that the challenge faced by police forces five or 10 years ago is not the challenge that they face today. In Suffolk, the reality is that we have a massive problem with trafficking and a massive problem with prostitution. We have problems that were just not there 10 years ago. It is all very well for Labour Members to say, “What did you do about it?”, but we are debating how to meet the challenges of today, not yesterday. Will my hon. Friend speak to that for a moment?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that, and he is right about the nature of the threat that is now faced. Aspects such as modern slavery go unseen in rural communities. I can think of countless examples in my own constituency, where individuals have been found in isolated warehouses and barns out in the countryside, usually at somewhere like a cannabis farm. I even attended a cannabis farm right in the middle of St Ives with members of Cambridgeshire constabulary. A number of individuals had been living and working there, presumably under duress. Such activity goes unseen, and increasing the police’s ability to reach unseen areas will be hugely important.

To that extent, I ask the Minister how the Government’s neighbourhood policing pledge will restore confidence in Cambridgeshire’s rural communities, who feel that their needs are not necessarily a priority. In April, the Prime Minister pledged that

“Britain’s rural communities will be protected with the first ever government-backed rural crime strategy.”

Will the Minister confirm when that rural crime strategy will be published and how it will benefit Cambridgeshire specifically, given that we have already established that there will be little in the way of additional resource for the county’s police force?

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Rural crime is a major issue in Cambridgeshire and in my constituency. Yes, we can mark big farm machinery, but people are stealing parts from farm machinery, and those parts are much more difficult to track. Hare coursing is also a major problem. The hon. Member has mentioned the sheer size of the area of Cambridgeshire that the tiny number of police we have are expected to cover. Will he ask the Minister to ensure that when the Government are diverting police, as they are talking about doing, they do not divert them from the rural crime unit, and indeed look to bolster that unit?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. I asked a local farmer a few weeks ago how he would tackle hare coursing on his land, and at what point he would feel emboldened enough to stand up to those individuals. He explained to me that that was simply too dangerous, even though they were farmers and big, burly blokes. He said a friend of his was doused in petrol and had a match held to him by those responsible for hare coursing. It is simply not worth people risking their life to take them on. In fact, hare coursing means a 999 call. If you see a vehicle that you suspect is involved in hare coursing—a 4x4 with no plates and a couple of lurchers in the back, for example—that is a 999 call, and you will get an adequate response.

That is a perfect segue to rural crime. Rural crime is a specialist area, and requires officers who understand how to tackle it. We see hare coursing and the theft of machinery, equipment, GPS, fuel and livestock, with the influence of organised crime. These crimes require a specialist team, and Cambridgeshire’s rural crime action team is one of the best. Having joined it recently on an operation, I saw at first hand how effective it is. It punches above its weight, despite being under-resourced. Just over a year ago, it was awarded the rural initiative of the year by the NFU for Operation Walrus, spearheading a national crackdown on GPS theft.

In April, the now Home Secretary pledged:

“Labour will crack down on these criminals, establishing a dedicated Rural Crime Strategy to restore order to our rural areas, backed up with tougher powers and increased rural police patrols.”

I ask the Policing Minister how this pledge will apply to Cambridgeshire. How will the Government’s pledged rural crime strategy restore order to a county that is 90% rural? How will the Home Secretary’s commitment to increase rural police patrols translate into increased support for an under-resourced specialist team such as the rural crime action team, as well as an increase in visible police presence?

In October last year, Cambridgeshire county council passed a motion that directly addressed the issue of fairer police funding. The motion was brought by Councillor Alex Bulat, the Labour candidate in Huntingdon during the last election, and my opponent. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, fighting for fairer police funding for Cambridgeshire was one of my election pledges to my now constituents. While Councillor Bulat never addressed the issue of police funding during the election campaign, I am hugely pleased to see her taking up that fight now, and raising the issue at county council level. The motion called for this Labour Government to ensure that Cambridgeshire has its fair share of the new neighbourhood police officers, and that they are fully funded by the central policing core grant. It asked Cambridgeshire MPs to lobby for a fairer funding deal for our county, through changes to the Government’s police grant allocation that better reflect population data and local factors. The Policing Minister knows well that I have been campaigning for fairer funding. This debate is not the first time I have addressed the issue with her—I have done so in person and via written questions—and I appreciate her tolerance. Can she respond directly to the requests in the motion from Cambridgeshire county council, and explain to the council why it has not yet received a fairer funding deal?

With that, I give the Policing Minister the opportunity to respond to these questions, but lastly, will she and the Home Secretary meet me, other Cambridgeshire MPs and our police and crime commissioner to discuss the steps required to update the police allocation formula, so that funding for 2025-26 is based on Cambridgeshire’s current and future population size, not on the population as it was nearly a decade and a half ago, and to discuss redressing the imbalance that sees Cambridgeshire residents contribute 10% more than average across England and Wales to make up the Government’s shortfall? Our constituents in Cambridgeshire deserve to feel safe. They deserve to receive the full protection that the Government can provide, and they deserve to not pay over the odds to receive that.

Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. It is rather odd that the picture painted by the Opposition is that all the powers are there so everything is fine and why do we need to change things, when it is quite clear to the vast majority of people, I think, that things are not fine and the powers and the legislation are not working as we need them to. That is why we are bringing forward these additional respect orders and the neighbourhood policing guarantee—the 13,000 police officers, specials and PCSOs who we want to have back in our community to actually use the legislation and get antisocial behaviour under control.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Antisocial behaviour is a blight on our communities and I agree that the police should be given the resources to tackle it. In my constituency, Cambridgeshire Constabulary is overstretched. In the past week, the Policing Minister has twice dismissed my question as to whether she would review the police allocation formula so that it receives its fair share of funding, and my constituents have noticed. Will she review the formula? If not, how will the Government meet their guarantee for neighbourhood policing?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Can I just say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not dismissed anything? I am very conscious of and take seriously my responsibilities in the allocation of resources for policing. We have been in power for five months and we have to announce next month the provisional police settlement for 2025-26. Those figures will be announced in a few weeks’ time. As to whether we want to look longer term at resources, we of course keep that all under review. But for the moment, the thing I think most MPs are concerned about is the allocation for next year. That is what I am working on at the moment. That is the thing the Home Secretary is working on. We are trying to do our best and the Home Secretary has already announced an additional half a billion pounds for policing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Shop theft went up by 21% in the previous year, which is totally unacceptable, and I hear very clearly what she says about her constituency of Bath. That is why the neighbourhood policing model that this Labour Government stood on at the general election is so important for starting to deal with shop theft, which—as we have just been talking about—has become an epidemic.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Home Secretary has repeatedly reiterated her pledge to tackle shoplifting and violence against shop workers by having a named officer in each community, as part of the 13,000 uplift for neighbourhood policing. I spoke to Cambridgeshire constabulary recently, which confirmed that under the Home Secretary’s plans there would be one police officer to cover the whole town of St Ives. That officer would cover not only St Ives, but the town of Ramsey and all the villages in between—Woodhurst, Old Hurst, Pidley, Warboys, Wistow and Bury. Last week, the Policing Minister would not commit to reviewing the police allocation formula to ensure Cambridgeshire receives its fair share of funding. How can one officer be expected to cover such a large area effectively, given that Cambridgeshire is likely to receive only a handful of the officers?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I say gently to the hon. Member that he has to look at what this Government inherited from his Conservative Government after 14 years, during which neighbourhood policing was repeatedly cut. This Government are committed to restoring neighbourhood policing. We have said that we will bring in 13,000 police officers, police community support officers and specials.

Police Reform

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

It is worth reflecting on the fact that the number of PCSOs has halved in the past 14 years, and the number of specials has reduced by two thirds. Those are shocking figures. We want to ensure that we use PCSOs, because they police neighbourhoods in such a valuable way. Also, I am personally committed to making sure that we see more specials on the beat. People who stand up for the local community and do such work on a voluntary basis are to be commended. I hope that across the House we would all support an extension to the work of specials.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Cambridgeshire constabulary is one of the most poorly funded in the country under the current police allocation formula, which is based on population data from 2012. Cambridgeshire has grown vastly since then and is projected to grow by nearly 20% in the next decade. In order to fulfil the Government’s pledges and ensure neighbourhood officers are not overstretched under her plans, will the Policing Minister commit to reviewing the formula before the forthcoming announcement of the 2025-26 police funding settlement, so that Cambridgeshire receives its fair share of the £0.5 billion increase? Will she explain how many officers, of the 13,000 she mentioned, each force will receive?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The Home Secretary announced yesterday that there will be £0.5 billion of additional funding for policing next year, including money for the core grant and neighbourhood policing. The announcement about the 2025-26 police funding settlement will be made in December in this House, in the normal way.