Police Grant Report
Debate between Matt Vickers and Jess Phillips(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Vickers
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?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
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?
Matt Vickers
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.
Matt Vickers
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—
Matt Vickers
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?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
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.
Matt Vickers
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.
Jess Phillips
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.
Matt Vickers
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?
Jess Phillips
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?
Matt Vickers
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.
Tackling Stalking
Debate between Matt Vickers and Jess Phillips(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and for advance sight of it. We welcome the Government’s announcement on stalking and remain committed to working with Members across the House to do everything we can to tackle violence against women and girls.
I pay tribute to Nicola Thorp for sharing her experiences, which are harrowing to hear. I cannot even imagine the fear and worry that she will have gone through during this ordeal. Speaking up takes a great deal of courage, and I cannot thank her enough for bringing this situation to light.
I also thank the Minister for all she has done throughout her career to ensure that women and girls who have encountered violence of all kinds receive the support and care they need. I also pay tribute to her for speaking up about her own experiences as a victim of stalking.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) said in a previous debate, we must also discuss the role of men in these incidents, as the evidence shows that men are more likely to be the perpetrators of violence against women and girls. Furthermore, we must not forget the large number of male victims, who overwhelmingly experience violence at the hands of other men too.
The previous Government made real progress on this issue. We launched our tackling violence against women and girls strategy to increase support for victims. We elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that police leaders must treat as a national threat. We ensured that victims can always access professional support. We doubled the maximum sentence for stalkers from five to 10 years, keeping behind bars for longer those who devastate their victims’ lives. We also made stalking a specific offence, to ensure that women and girls are protected and to show beyond doubt that stalking is a crime. We know that the most harmful illegal online content disproportionately affects women and girls, and that is why the Online Safety Act 2023 requires platforms to proactively tackle illegal content such as harassment, stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour, extreme pornography and revenge pornography.
It is not right that victims have to live in fear because they are not allowed to know who their stalker is, so I welcome the Government’s announcement that the police will be able to reveal the identity of online stalkers under the new “right to know” powers. I am pleased that the courts will be able to impose stalking protection orders directly at conviction or on acquittal, if there is enough evidence to suggest that there is still a risk to the victim. We also welcome the announcement that multi-agency statutory guidance on stalking will be introduced so that professionals know how better to work together to tackle this issue.
We know, however, that there is still much more to do to tackle not only the crime of stalking but violence against women and girls. I welcome the Government’s pledge to halve the rate of violence against women and girls in a decade, as it is a significant target. The Minister has confirmed that the Government are still working towards this target, but will she confirm that the target has not disappeared from the Government’s priorities? Could she also set out what metrics will be used for measuring the rate of violence against women and girls and, therefore, the Government’s success against the target?
Members across the House, and people across society, must work together to stop violence against women and girls. We welcome the Government’s actions on stalking, and we want to work with them to eradicate this crime once and for all.
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support and the tone in which he has approached the issue. I do not know where the idea that the Government have dropped their mission to halve violence against women and girls has come from, so I will say as clearly as I can: it is still the mission of the Government to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. That mission is not something that only the Home Secretary and I fought for, with people rolling their eyes at us; it comes right from the top, from the Prime Minister. The subject is an obsession of his, so the mission has not gone away and the hon. Gentleman need not worry.
On how we will measure the success of our mission, the prevalence of violence against women and girls is currently measured by the crime survey for England and Wales. That will be our key headline metric for measuring the ambition to halve VAWG. The Office for National Statistics is producing a combined violence against women and girls prevalence measure that will include domestic abuse, sexual assault and stalking, because the data is not necessarily collected like that at the moment. There will be not just a headline metric but many metrics and tests sitting underneath it, such as for female homicide, femicide, repeat domestic abuse victims and the prevalence of sexual harassment, which will inform a suite of measures. The hon. Gentleman is right that the previous Government’s efforts in the House and on the statute book were not without care or attention to violence against women and girls, but the difference that that made on the streets is questionable. We need robust measures to ensure that the nice words that we write on goatskin actually mean something.