Connor Naismith
Main Page: Connor Naismith (Labour - Crewe and Nantwich)Department Debates - View all Connor Naismith's debates with the Home Office
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Community policing is fundamental to public confidence in our police service. When people know their local officers and PCSOs, see them on their streets and can raise concerns directly with them, communities feel safer and more confident that crime and antisocial behaviour will be tackled.
First, I thank the officers—and, importantly, the staff, who do not often enough get the recognition they deserve—in the Crewe local policing unit. I thank all the warranted officers, PCSOs and staff in the LPU for the work they do to keep our communities safe.
We have seen a welcome increase of four additional neighbourhood officers in the Crewe LPU, working across my constituency, which will go a long way to tackling some of the problems that we have. However, significant challenges remain; many of them have already been covered in this debate, including endemic antisocial behaviour, which too often is treated as low-level offending, but needs to be taken on and taken out at the roots.
In the brief time that I have left to speak, I also acknowledge the important work being undertaken by Cheshire police in relation to the investigation concerning allegations against members of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light, and I just ask that consideration be given to urgent, unexpected and complex investigations that police sometimes have to respond to, and to the extra burden that those place on police forces. I welcome the fact that I have a meeting with the Minister next week to discuss that issue, but, if she could say something about it when she responds to the debate, that would also be really welcome.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. I pay tribute to the officers, PCSOs, special constables and police staff who serve our communities, including the teams at Cleveland police and Durham constabulary who serve the people of Stockton West.
Cleveland has the highest crime rate of any police force area in England and Wales and the highest homicide rate in the country, yet in the year to March, Cleveland police lost 17 officers. Our police and crime commissioner called out a £2.4 million shortfall and rightly pointed out that funding is based on population, not crime. If the Government’s commitment to community policing is to mean anything, it must mean having more officers, not fewer, in areas where crime is highest. The Minister will point to the neighbourhood policing guarantee, but moving police officers between roles is not the same as having more of them.
In March 2024, the previous Conservative Government left police numbers at the highest level on record.
Connor Naismith
I anticipated that the shadow Minister might want to have a knockabout on numbers. Does he not acknowledge that the previous Conservative Government were replacing the 20,000 police officers that they had cut, and that the police uplift programme created perverse incentives that meant that many of those replacement officers ended up behind desks? That is not where we want them to be, is it?
We could have a very long debate on that: we could talk about the economic damage done by and the public finance carnage under the previous Labour Government; we could talk about the tough choices that had to be made in 2010; and eventually, we would arrive at 2024, when there were 147,746 full-time equivalent police officers on the streets. His constituents and mine would have liked to see that number continue to go upwards, but it did not, did it? Today, there are nearly 1,900 fewer officers.
This year, the Government scrapped overall headcount targets, making funding conditional on neighbourhood numbers alone. If neighbourhood teams grow while the workforce shrinks, those officers have to come from somewhere, and too often, that is from response teams. Those are the officers who come when a resident—the woman whose ex-partner is hammering on the door or the family woken by someone breaking in—rings 999. Neighbourhood policing matters, but it cannot come at the expense of the officers who turn up in someone’s hour of need. That is why the Conservative party would recruit 10,000 extra officers, deploy hotspot patrolling in the 2,000 highest-crime neighbourhoods and roll out immediate justice, so that those who wreck a public space are seen to put it right.
The problem is getting worse. The crime survey for England and Wales shows that last year, 40.9% of people experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour, which represents a statistically significant increase. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a pillar of the Government’s guarantee, but, by their own measure, things are moving in the wrong direction. I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Government publish force-by-force figures for how many new neighbourhood police officers were moved from response roles? Secondly, will the changes mean that residents will wait longer for help when they ring 999?
Thirdly, on Cleveland, I welcome the Minister’s engagement with the leadership of our force, but warm words in meetings will not reassure my constituents, so will she explain why the force tackling the highest crime rate in the country has 17 fewer officers than it did a year ago? Will she commit to ensuring that by the end of this Parliament, Cleveland police will have more police officers than it does today? My constituents are not asking about 2024 or 2010. They are asking about the year ahead, and they deserve a straight answer. Our constituents judge policing by whether they see an officer on their street, whether their call is answered and whether the person who wrecked their neighbourhood faces consequences. By that test, there is much more to do. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.