National Crime Agency

Nick Hurd Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The National Crime Agency (NCA) leads the fight against serious and organised crime. It has the power to task other law enforcement partners and a capability, with local to international reach, to disrupt the impact of serious and organised crime on the UK.

This is the fifth HMIC inspection of the NCA. The inspection stemmed from a recommendation in the 2015 NCA internal review of warrants and was conducted jointly with HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI).

This report is being published today and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of both Houses. I have asked Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to publish this report on my behalf and it will be available online at www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk.

The inspection found that the NCA has been working to tackle the areas of concern highlighted in the 2015 review. The inspection of search authorities, search warrants and production orders identified some deficiencies, but overall HMICFRS found the applications are completed to a good standard. HMICFRS made six recommendations which will improve procedures and update guidance and they believe these recommendations will help enhance what is already a mature process.

It is for the director general to respond to these recommendations, in line with the requirements of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

[HCWS1276]

Surveillance Camera Commissioner: Annual Report

Nick Hurd Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying a copy of the 2017-18 annual report of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner before the House, as required by section 35 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The Surveillance Camera Commissioner is an independent role appointed under section 34 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The annual report covers the exercise of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s statutory functions over the year to 31 March 2018 and provides a comprehensive update on the progress made against the “National Surveillance Camera Strategy for England and Wales”, which the commissioner published in March 2017.

[HCWS1261]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Hurd Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of unsolved crime.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

In the year to June 2018, the proportion of recorded crime that was closed with no suspect identified was 47%—a similar proportion to that in the previous year.

[Tracy Brabin]

Charge rates in West Yorkshire have fallen for some key crimes, with charges for sexual offences as low as 4%—among the lowest in the country. The chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council has said that this is because of fewer officers and staff. The Government’s decision to raise money through an increase in council tax means that West Yorkshire will be able to raise almost the same as Surrey, despite having double the population. Will that really meet local need?

[Mr Hurd]

I am sure that, given the seriousness of the point the hon. Lady raises, she will welcome the fact that rates of prosecutions and convictions for rape and sexual offences are at their highest ever level. She also asked about funding, and she wants more resources for her local police force, so I hope that she will support the proposed police funding settlement that will, if the NPCC uses the flexibility, provide an additional £28.5 million for her local police force.

[Stephen Morgan]

In Hampshire, just 4% of sexual offences and just 14% of robberies now result in a charge. Can the Minister honestly tell the people of Portsmouth that after losing 1,000 police officers and a staggering £70 million in central Government funding, my city’s streets are safer?

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman also refers to the conviction rates for rape and sexual offences, which are at record levels. They are low in percentage terms—unacceptably low—but we are making progress, and it is incredibly important that we do so, because one of the success stories of the past few years has been in encouraging vulnerable victims of so-called hidden crime to come forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that and that, given his concern about seeing Hampshire police properly funded, he will vote for the proposed police funding settlement, which would see police funding for his local force double.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Minister will know that in Telford and Wrekin there is currently a call for not only an independent inquiry but a council-led inquiry into unresolved crimes relating to child sexual exploitation. Will the Minister join me in calling on the council to get on with that inquiry and to release information so that the victims can finally get justice?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. When he raised it before, he heard a clear “get on with it” message from the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box. I repeat that, and I am more than happy to offer to meet him and anyone relevant to discuss the matter.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Hon. Members will know from today’s papers that there has been yet another stabbing in London—this time in Kew in my constituency. I am pleased to say that the victim is now expected to make a full recovery and I thank the local police for their full and rapid response. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge, please, that increased crime in the capital is a source of huge anxiety? Will he reassure my constituents not only that getting to grips with it is a top Government priority, but that he is doing everything he can to work with both the Met and the Mayor of London on a co-ordinated and full response?

[Mr Hurd]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, because it is one of the biggest public safety challenges that we face as a city and as a country. I am meeting the Mayor later this evening to discuss this in person. My hon. Friend wants more resources: an additional £100 million of investment is going into the Met police this year and the proposed funding settlement will see an additional £172 million of public money going in to support the Met. That is alongside all the other work that we are doing on the Offensive Weapons Bill, stop-and-search and everything else that he wants to see. I cannot think of a higher priority for the Department at this moment.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

4. What plans he has for the UK’s future immigration system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the correlation between changes in the number of firefighters and fire service response times.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

Response times to fire have increased gradually over the last 20 years. At the same time, as the hon. Lady knows, the number of fires and deaths from fire has, thankfully, fallen. There is no clear link between response times and firefighter numbers.

[Laura Pidcock]

I thank the Minister for his response, but last month a report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services found that fragmentation was resulting in a postcode lottery of 999 response times and standards, which simply is not fair on the public or on firefighters. What steps is the Minister taking to introduce a consistent national framework of standards across fire and rescue services, to provide a proper benchmark against which inspections can take place?

[Mr Hurd]

The independent inspection of the effectiveness of our fire service found that 10 of the 14 fire services inspected were rated good for effectiveness, including their response to emergencies. We are driving up standards and finding out what “good” looks like through independent inspection, the creation of the standards board and robust local accountability, including the chance for local police and crime commissioners to take over governance. That framework will drive up standards across the fire service, which is what everyone wants.

[Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)]

Rising response times are not the fault of firefighters, chief fire officers or local politicians. They are the result of this Government’s austerity agenda, which has led to 10,000 fewer firefighters protecting our communities. Council leaders such as those in South Yorkshire, where £12.5 million has been slashed since 2010, have explained to the Minister that this Government’s austerity measures will risk the public’s safety—they have made that clear. Will he explain how sustained cuts to fire service budgets, which force a reliance on small, one-off, un-earmarked—note the distinction—reserves, provide a sufficient basis for a responsive and well-resourced service? Will he commission a review?

[Mr Hurd]

I would say to the hon. Lady that we have fewer firefighters because we have had 46% fewer fires over the past decade. What I would also say to her, which I said to all the fire chiefs this morning, is that I am absolutely determined that, in the next comprehensive spending review, the fire service gets the resource it needs to continue to be world class.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I met the chief fire officer and the chair of the fire and rescue authority in Nottinghamshire on Friday, and they made no complaint about their funding level. They have had to make a series of reductions, and they have done it extremely well, without any risks increasing at all to the people of Nottinghamshire. They want to make sure that their funding is retained, and I do not expect the Minister to comment on that. However, does he agree with me that our fire services have done remarkable things, with cuts in their budgets, without any risk to the public at all?

[Mr Hurd]

I said exactly that to the fire chiefs today. Through austerity, they have made changes, and they should be commended on their leadership during that period. Their spending power will grow by 2.2% next year, and they sit on reserves worth 42% of their spending power. I repeat to my right hon. Friend what I said to them today: I am determined to ensure that, in the CSR, our fire service is properly resourced.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

12. What steps he is taking to tackle economic crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T4. Investigations by the Independent Office for Police Conduct can take many years, meaning that officers often put their lives on hold although two thirds of gross misconduct cases are subsequently not proven. Do Ministers share my concern about that, and what can be done to address it?

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concern. There is widespread frustration among our police officers about that. She will share my view that, obviously, robust investigation of misconduct is important, but we want the IOPC to focus on the most serious cases and to process those investigations faster. That is exactly what we see happening.

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

T3. The Home Office has a service standard to deal with indefinite leave to remain applications of six months, unless they are complex, when there is no timescale at all. Reviewing my casework, I noticed the worrying trend of cases being badged complex just before the six months, and therefore having no service standard at all. Will the Minister let me know the current percentage of applications that are badged complex compared with each of the previous eight years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

T8. Last November, Tyne and Wear MPs joined together in Westminster Hall to raise the funding problems of the Tyne and Wear fire and rescue service. The Minister undertook to meet the chief fire officer. Will he update us on progress in resolving those problems?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank the hon. Lady—[Interruption]—and the House for that welcome. I recently met the leadership of Tyne and Wear, an excellently led force, and it will be receiving an increase in core spending of 1.5% this year. My undertaking to her, as to all fire chiefs, is that I will work with them to build the evidence base to put in a credible bid in next year’s comprehensive spending review to make sure that our fire service continues to be well resourced and world-class.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

T6. The domestic violence Bill really is an outstanding piece of legislation, and I am pleased it has been getting a warm welcome from both sides of the House, but I am hearing anecdotal evidence that the East Midlands Ambulance Service—and indeed Nottinghamshire police —is not properly using the existing laws. If that turns into hard evidence, would the Minister agree to meet to see what progress we can make?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

People in Corby and east Northamptonshire want to see more police out on the beat, catching criminals and deterring crime. What difference does my right hon. Friend believe the additional funding recently announced will make to achieving that objective?

[Mr Hurd]

We are proposing the biggest increase in police funding since 2010. Almost every force in the country is now actively recruiting and delivering what the public want, which is more officers on the streets and more investigators bearing down on crime.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The National newspaper this morning reports on a female constituent who has been detained and is due to be removed tomorrow despite court papers having been lodged at the Court of Session at the start of the month. Is this the hostile environment in action, and either way will the Minister meet me urgently so that we can secure the immediate release of this constituent?

Eurojust

Nick Hurd Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 General Committees

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan, and I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, despite competing attractions in the main Chamber. I will do my best in my opening remarks to try to address the specific issues raised by the hon. Member for Luton North.

As the hon. Gentleman said, Eurojust is the EU agency for judicial co-operation. It enables member states to do that—co-operate—by co-ordinating investigations and prosecutions in specific cases, encouraging the agreement of a unified approach to tackling criminal prosecutions, including decisions on where to prosecute and, where appropriate, supporting the establishment of joint investigation teams.

I can confirm that the UK continues to value the role of Eurojust in helping law enforcement and prosecution agencies to co-ordinate investigations into cross-border organised crime and terrorism, and is an active contributor to the work that Eurojust undertakes to tackle transnational crime that affects all EU citizens.

To give the Committee some flavour of our participation in Eurojust, in 2017 UK support was requested 290 times —the second highest number of requests to a state after Germany—and the UK desk requested support from other EU member states 82 times. We are a very active participant in this co-operation platform and agency, and we value it highly.

We are a member of the agency by virtue of the 2009 Council decision establishing Eurojust. The coalition Government decided to opt back into the 2009 Council decision as part of the Protocol 36 decision in 2014. The Commission brought forward a proposal to replace the existing Council decision with a new Eurojust regulation in 2013. At that time, the Government decided—as the hon. Gentleman made clear—not to opt in pre-adoption, due to concerns about the original proposed text, but they also indicated that they would consider opting in post-adoption if those concerns could be met during negotiations.

The original text of the regulation retained Eurojust’s key roles and functions but included new provisions about which the UK Government had significant concerns. First, it made granting certain powers to direct operational activity mandatory for all national members, which removed the discretion available in the existing legislation to not apply certain powers where to do so would conflict with fundamental aspects of a member state’s criminal justice system. For example, the proposals included the power to order investigative measures and the ability to issue or execute mutual legal assistance or mutual recognition requests, such as a European arrest warrant.

Secondly, there were many operational, management and administrative links with the parallel proposal to create a European public prosecutor’s office, or EPPO. There was no clear articulation of the effect on member states that will not or cannot participate in the EPPO. The UK was concerned that some elements of this proposal could undermine the discretion of non-participating states to decide how they chose to work with the proposed new body. Thirdly, the requests and decisions of Eurojust acting collectively as a college would be binding on member states’ law enforcement and prosecution agencies.

These concerns were shared with several other member states. The UK Government were active participants in the negotiation process and we are now satisfied that our concerns have been addressed in the final text and that the regulation in its adopted form is acceptable to the UK. Specifically, the regulation addresses the concerns of the UK and other member states about the powers of national members, by stating that national members can only act to the extent they are competent to do so under their national law. Furthermore, Eurojust cannot order that member states begin investigations.

Additionally, the regulation provides the desired clarity about the relationship between Eurojust and the EPPO, providing—as we see it—a clear separation of functions between the two institutions. We are satisfied that the EPPO will not be funded by UK Eurojust contributions, and that the work of the two institutions will not become interdependent. That is reinforced by the EPPO being based in Luxembourg while Eurojust remains in The Hague.

Given that our concerns have been sufficiently addressed, the UK Government believe that it is right that we opt into the Eurojust regulation. To be clear, if we decided not to opt into the regulation, we believe that we would be unable to participate in Eurojust. We believe that it would be impossible for the EU to have an agency set up under two sets of rules—voting rules, funding mechanisms and so on—one for the UK under old legislation, and one for other member states under the new regulation.

We therefore believe that the UK would be unable to participate in Eurojust during the proposed implementation period if we do not opt in. As I have said, the UK values the role of Eurojust. Not opting in would jeopardise current investigations that the UK is involved in and mean reverting to time-consuming and expensive processes of judicial co-operation through bilateral channels.

Furthermore, the decision over whether to opt into the Eurojust regulation must be seen against the backdrop of EU exit. Although the UK will leave the EU on 29 March 2019, until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union. The Government will therefore continue to implement and apply EU legislation until that date, and beyond into any implementation period, including considering the operational, political and legal benefits of opting into new EU legislation.

That approach aligns with the UK’s unconditional commitment to European security in the future. The Government are clear that in any scenario, effective co-operation with EU member states on security and policing will continue to be a top UK priority. In a modern, interconnected world, crime is increasingly international and does not respect borders. After the UK exits the EU, it is a priority for the UK both to preserve the capabilities currently offered by Eurojust and to maintain our current level of contribution to the agency.

Opting into the Eurojust regulation will ensure that we continue to work in line with our European partners in the lead-up to exit day and into the planned implementation period. If we do not opt in, we would drop out of Eurojust, and we judge that negotiating a new model of co-operation as outsiders trying to gain access would be significantly more difficult than remaining active members of Eurojust. It puts the UK in the strongest possible position for beginning negotiations, and positively signals our intention to continue practical law enforcement co-operation with EU partners after we leave.

In conclusion, it is the Government’s view that opting into the regulation is the right thing to do. The regulation as it stands means that remaining in Eurojust continues to be in the national interest while we are still in the EU. In the implementation period, it will bolster our negotiating position for the future security partnership, and will help to support a smooth transition as we leave the European Union.

[The Chair]

We now have until 5.35 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that questions should be brief. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I, too, 100% welcome the Government’s decision to opt into Eurojust, but I have a couple of quick questions. The first is a simple, practical one: has the Minister had any indication about when we might expect a decision from the European Commission? In particular, will it be before or after the proposed Brexit date?

My second question might seem like a bit of a lawyer’s question, but it arises from what the European Scrutiny Committee has said, if I understand it correctly—forgive me if I have not. In its report, the Committee posed a question about whether the terms of the withdrawal agreement would prevent the UK from opting in, if a decision on the opt-in was eventually made after Brexit, because it would amount to enhanced co-operation. If I understand the Minister correctly, however, he said in his letter that he does not think that it would be enhanced co-operation. Could he say more about how the Government distinguish between enhanced co-operation and something that is essentially different?

If the Committee is right about that, or if, during the two-year transition or implementation period, a new justice and home affairs measure amounts to enhanced co-operation, do the Government believe that the terms of the withdrawal agreement will indeed preclude the United Kingdom opting into those measures? If so, what do the Government have planned to try to get around any difficulties that that might cause—for example, the ejection of the UK from existing measures if it cannot opt into enhanced measures?

[Mr Hurd]

I am struck that there appears to be a level of cross-party consensus on this matter that I have yet to witness in the main Chamber on Brexit. I welcome that. Underlying that is, I think, a recognition that no party or Member of Parliament wants to risk losing capability when it comes to security and the No. 1 priority of any Government, which is the enforcement of the law and the protection of our citizens. I welcome both sets of questions and the recognition of the positive decision to opt in and of the wider agenda to try to secure a security partnership that, as far as possible, maintains our existing capabilities. That is our explicit objective.

The hon. Member for Torfaen asked about planning for the next phase. At the moment, as he would expect, the immediate priority is planning for a no-deal scenario, because the risks have risen and the consequences are potentially severe in terms of loss of capability. He will understand and I hope appreciate that the priority of the Government is to prioritise no-deal planning, not least an agreement on Eurojust or any of the other co-operation mechanisms on security, so that we have more time to establish that. A green light and a signal from the Commission is also required to start to engage in the negotiations, and, for reasons we understand, that has yet to materialise. It is fair to say, if the starting point is a standard third country agreement, that we would hope to do better than that.

I make the same point as I do in the context of Europol, for example, where there are some parallels by virtue of our long history inside the agencies and our weight within them. I gave data that made it clear how important we were in Eurojust, in terms of both requests for support and requests for support from other states, and in Europol we are the second biggest contributor of data. We start those conversations with, “What does the deal look like after we leave? Are we third country or third country plus?” We will argue for third country plus. I have spoken to a number of interior Ministers on this journey, and it is clear to me, certainly in the case of Europol, that there is a clear desire for as much continuity as possible, in recognition of the weight and the important value that the UK adds to those agencies.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised an extremely important point about whether we can do this and how consistent it is with the withdrawal agreement. Our position is that we can. As noted by the Committee, article 127(4) provides that the UK,

“shall not participate in any enhanced cooperation in relation to which authorisation was granted after the date of entry into force of this Agreement”.

However, article 4 of the opt-in protocol provides that the procedure for approval set out in article 331 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union on enhanced co-operation applies mutatis mutandis to the UK opt-in request. Therefore, the UK may only opt in if the Commission or Council approves the request. Here is the essence of it: article 4 uses the process set out in article 331, but this does not in itself constitute enhanced co-operation. We therefore consider that article 127(4) of the withdrawal agreement would not affect the operation of article 4 of the opt-in protocol. That is our understanding and we believe that is the understanding of the Commission; we are just waiting for that in writing, but it forms the basis of why we are proceeding as we are.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East asked about timing. Assuming there is an implementation period, our interpretation is that the Commission has four months to confirm the UK’s request to participate in the Eurojust regulations. That would obviously take us into the period after 31 March, but, for the reasons that I have set out, we think that what we propose is entirely valid, and that, in our view, is the view of the Commission as well.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I want to pick up points raised by all three contributors, and especially to echo my colleague on the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North, and to pick up two of the points made by the Committee in the summary of its conclusions on page 5, paragraph 1.18.

I am grateful to the Minister for his letter, which arrived over the weekend. First, how will operational co-operation differ in practice once we have left? How will it compare with the UK’s current level of co-operation with Eurojust? He has touched on that point, but if he can expand on his comments, I would be grateful. Secondly, will opting in make it more likely that we will secure better terms than other third countries once EU law ceases to apply? If he could address those two points, I would be grateful.

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for those additional questions. I welcome his contribution and, indeed, the Committee’s scrutiny of the process and the calling of the debate. It is extremely important that these decisions and processes are scrutinised properly and that the Executive are held to account, particularly at this pivotal, highly emotive stage of the negotiations and the reshaping of our relationship with our European partners.

The key word here is “co-operation”. We are seeking to maximise continuity, and these are co-operation mechanisms that work. They are valued by our partners and are an integral part of our collective effort to protect our citizens and pursue justice. We have invested a lot of time and money over the years in building these mechanisms, and it is our shared desire to continue them. That is my experience from direct conversations with other interior Ministers. I have yet to meet one who does not want to continue the way we are. Obviously, politics might override that in the short term; none of us can know how this will work out. In seeking to opt in, the UK Government’s primary motive is to seek continuity in the existing arrangements. We recognise that if we opted out, we would be out, and we feel that the opportunity costs of that are too high.

My hon. Friend and others asked about operational co-operation on standard third country terms and about what that might look like in the future. Our White Paper, published in July 2018, outlined that if the UK’s participation in Eurojust were limited to the existing third country terms, there would be a reduced capability for the UK and the EU to co-operate in tackling serious cross-border and organised crime. We would have a reduced role in operational activity at Eurojust, and there would be limitations to the extent to which Crown Prosecution Service and Crown Office prosecutors could work with and at Eurojust.

It would not be a disaster—other areas of our security participation toolkit would be more damaged by our being limited to third country status—but our starting point is that we should try to maintain, as far as possible, the capabilities that we have, because that is where we have a mutual interest with our European partners. We will therefore go into these negotiations with a determination to move beyond standard third country status. We are not a standard third country: we helped to build these platforms, we helped to fund them and we are core to their success. That will be the core of our argument to the Commission as and when we get to that point.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am not a lawyer, but we pick up some understanding of these things from our lawyer friends over time. In reading the European Scrutiny Committee statement, I touched on some of the differences between the legal and policing systems across the EU. There are some fairly profound differences in the history of our legal systems: ours derives from common law, and continental systems derive largely from Roman law, which is quite different. How helpful has Eurojust been in bridging that cultural gap?

[Mr Hurd]

My understanding is that Eurojust has been extremely valuable. The value of having 28 representatives of criminal justice agencies of member states in the same building, working together, with access to the files and the ability to co-ordinate prosecutions and criminal justice processes, cannot be underestimated in an age in which the crime that we are pursuing and investigating is becoming increasingly complex—crossing borders and requiring that degree of co-ordination. The simple virtue of having people in the same building, sharing information and working together in that way, has been extraordinarily valuable.

The proof lies in the facts and figures, our participation, the volumes of requests for support and the levels of co-ordination meetings. As of 6 July 2018, the UK desk had 544 live cases. As of January 2019, the UK was participating in 50 live joint investigations—the highest number of any desk at Eurojust. It is a mechanism that a lot of information and co-ordination is flowing through in the increasingly complex world that we are trying to police. Therefore, as a nexus of co-operation it has already proved its value. That is why the Government have reached a very clear view that that co-operation is a capability that we want to maintain.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for his answer. I have another question. Does he agree that entering an international arrangement voluntarily is very different from having an arrangement imposed by a supranational body, and that if one can voluntarily join something one could choose to leave if it did not suit over time? Does he agree that there is a profound difference, and that one is much more democratic than the other?

[Mr Hurd]

As the hon. Gentleman framed it, it is hard to disagree. I sound cautious. Being a bear of limited brain, I am not quite picking up the undercurrent, but I know that there is one.

Coming back to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments, I would say that the British Government did have some profound reservations about what was being proposed before, because it crossed some borders as far as we were concerned in terms of the power at national level versus the power at pooled level. We were very uncomfortable about losing operational autonomy, not least for our police service, so we pushed back on that in a way that I hope he agreed with. We got support from EU member states and got the changes that we wanted, not least in a very clear separation of duties with the EPPO proposals.

Having made those arguments and, frankly, won those arguments, we are now comfortable with opting in to regulations, the primary motivation being to maintain the continuity of the existing arrangements, which work well.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee takes note of Regulation 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and replacing and repealing Council Decision 2002/187/JHA; endorses the Government’s decision to request to opt in under Protocol 21 on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the EU Treaties; and supports the Government’s assessment that Eurojust provides a valuable service to the UK and that opting in would enable us to maintain operational continuity and minimise disruption for UK law enforcement and prosecution authorities during the proposed Implementation Period.—(Mr Hurd.)

Question put and agreed to.

College of Policing

Nick Hurd Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The 2017-18 annual report and accounts for the College of Policing (HC 1767) is being laid before the House today and published on www.gov.uk. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.

[HCWS1212]

Public Service Pensions: Government Contributions

Nick Hurd Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As a humble foot-soldier in the Government, it is not for me to reason why I drew the straw for this debate. I assume it is because I am the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, and I understood that the primary concern of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), as was reflected in the debate, was the impact on emergency frontline services. It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing it. It is an important debate, because it throws a spotlight on two important issues.

The first is how we ensure that public pensions are funded in a sustainable way to protect the value of the pensions of those of our constituents who work in the public services; I know the Labour party cares about that and I would not want to give the impression that it does not. It is entirely legitimate to probe and ask questions about the impact, particularly on emergency frontline services, which we recognise on a cross-party basis are stretched and under pressure. This is an entirely legitimate debate and I welcome it.

The hon. Gentleman rightly asserted that our emergency services deserve our thanks and respect—particularly at this time of year but, frankly, every week and every month of every year—but they also deserve a decent pension, and our constituents as taxpayers deserve full debate and reassurance on how those pensions will be funded in a fair, sustainable way that strikes the right balance between the contributions of the central taxpayer and the local employer. That is what underlies the Treasury position, as I will explain. I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman and others that the Treasury, which is not here to explain itself today, and the rest of the Government are doing everything we can to help our emergency services in particular, but also other Departments, to manage any uncertainties in terms of unexpected costs in 2019-20. I will go into some detail on that.

Quite rightly, the hon. Gentleman and others voiced concerns about what happens after 2020-21, but they will know that the fundamental truth is that at that point we will be into a new comprehensive spending review period. That is an extremely important moment in setting the framework for longer-term funding, not just for our emergency services, but for other Government Departments. I can give the hon. Gentleman my absolute assurance, if I continue to be Minister at that point—we live in uncertain times—that I am determined, as I have said publicly and as my boss the Home Secretary has said publicly, to ensure that the emergency services are properly resourced against demand and risk. That includes a need to ensure that they have the resources necessary to meet their obligations to public pensions.

The hon. Gentleman will understand that at this moment in time, no Government could give absolute reassurances about what the next CSR period will bring, but we have signalled clearly that increased employer contributions to public pensions from 2020-21 will be taken care of in the CSR. In the meantime, the Treasury has set aside £4.7 billion, which I think would seem to all our constituents to be an extremely large number, to help Departments cover unforeseen additional costs in 2019-20. I will go into some detail on the areas of my direct responsibility, police and fire, because concerns have been expressed about people in those services from both sides of the Chamber.

Before I address those concerns, I acknowledge an important point made both by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) about concerns within the community of universities. That is not my area of direct responsibility or expertise, but I undertake to write to the new Universities Minister on their behalf to highlight the concerns expressed in the debate and to ask him to respond to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney in the light of those concerns.

To give a bit of context, the Government—I am sure with cross-party support—want to make sure that public sector pensions remain among the best pensions available, especially for police officers and firefighters, in recognition of their role. We are determined, as any Government would be, to make sure that the cost of providing pensions is fair to the scheme’s members, the employers and taxpayers. I think any Government would take the same approach. We want to be sure that they remain affordable and sustainable for generations to come. That is the context of the changes announced to the discount rate at the Budgets in 2016 and 2018. As the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) said, they were based on the latest independent Office for Budget Responsibility projections of GDP growth.

The changes to the discount rate have resulted in an increase to public sector employers’ contributions to their pension schemes, including the police and firefighters’ schemes. The hon. Lady was quite right that the intention was not to increase the members’ contribution rate. I confirm that that is not being contemplated. It is an increase in employers’ contributions. Critically to the point of this debate, the Government have provided financial support for additional pension costs that could be reasonably expected to be unexpected. The extra funding is £98 million for fire in 2019-20 and £153 million for the police. As I have said before, funding levels for future years will be considered as part of the spending review. That is inevitable, given where we are in the funding cycle for Departments.

A lot of concern was expressed on behalf of both the services. I know the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is aware of the police funding settlement that I proposed last week, although obviously it has not been passed by Parliament. That recognised the additional pension costs to the police. He mentioned a number of more than £400 million. Actually, in 2019-20, the additional costs to the police system would be approximately £330 million. He will be aware that the overall police funding settlement enables up to £970 million of additional investment in our police, although that depends very much on what individual police and crime commissioners do on the precept.

The hon. Gentleman will also know that this funding settlement sees the first increase in the Home Office grant since 2010. The proposed funding for South Wales police, for example, which faces the pressure of additional pension costs of £6.8 million next year, is an additional £3.3 million in Government grant and £3.1 million in specific pension grant, while the police and crime commissioner, Alun Michael, will have the flexibility to increase the precept up to £12.7 million, making a total of £19.1 million. I hope he will welcome that.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about Gwent police, which I know partly covers his constituency. The funding settlement enables additional public investment of up to £8.5 million in Gwent police, which faces pensions pressures of £2.9 million. He will be aware, because he will have heard me bang on about it, that Gwent police is an outlier, with £56 million in reserves—more than 45.3% of its total funding. Those reserves have increased since 2011.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the provisional police funding settlement, which is yet to be ratified by Parliament—I hope he will support it—goes well beyond meeting the specific additional pension costs and tries to support police forces both with their cost pressures and in their ambitions to increase capacity. That is part of a broader funding settlement that proposes a substantial increase of up to £970 million in the police system, compared with additional pension costs of £330 million.

I should also note that the police funding settlement talks about a word that never comes up in these conversations, but that is important for all our constituents, who ultimately pay for all this through their taxes: efficiency. The shadow Minister views austerity as ideological but, after eight years of austerity, that we can still sit down with our police leaders and agree £120 million of further cost savings through smarter procurement—they are spending our constituents’ money—tells us that we are still not at the end of the journey of making sure that our public services are efficient. Where the police lead, the fire service will undoubtedly follow, not least as they are both under the guidance of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services.

[Gerald Jones]

We have had eight years of austerity. I come from a local authority background myself, and identifying efficiencies at first is relatively straightforward, but it gets more difficult over time. The Minister mentions reserves, and I know that some areas have reserves. However, there is a big difference between reserves earmarked for certain projects, which all local authorities, police authorities and others have, and undisclosed reserves, which are much lower for many organisations. The point about reserves is that, once they are spent, they are gone. They are there for a rainy day; they cannot be used as part of a recurring budget. It is unfair for recurring expenditure to fall on council tax payers to an even greater level than it does already.

[Mr Hurd]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and I absolutely respect his local authority experience. I am certainly not in denial about the financial pressures, particularly on our police system but also on certain fire services as well. He is right that, in the early years of needing to get back to living within our means and controlling public expenditure, some fruit was easier to pick than others, and it gets harder. However, I was making the point that we are talking about £120 million of savings agreed by the police—this is not a Home Office number—over the next two years through collective procurement. That is just smart buying.

The hon. Gentleman will know very well, and it is the same for the fire service, that a fragmented system of more than 40 different forces each doing their own thing —buying helmets, uniforms and equipment independently—is not necessarily the most efficient route to getting the best value for our constituents. All I am saying is that, even after eight years of tightening and reducing budgets, we can still find £120 million left on the table because of inefficient procurement practices. I hope he welcomes that. That money was effectively being wasted and can be better used for frontline service delivery. I hope he agrees.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hurd]

I will be delighted to give way to the hon. Lady. I have very happy memories of her shadowing me very effectively many years back.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I thank the Minister for those comments. I accept his point about efficiencies. However, we are really talking about the overall size of the cake. The police force and the fire authority in Durham have already significantly reduced in size since 2010, to the point that they struggle to run an effective service. We can talk about procurement and efficiencies, but the pressure on our public services is enormous. That has to be the starting point of these discussions.

[Mr Hurd]

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Lady and I absolutely understand the point she makes. She will not have followed all my public utterances over the last two years or for however long I have been in this role, but I acknowledged right from the start, after listening to the police and fire services, that the frontlines of our emergency services are stretched. I have said so publicly. The actions I have taken through the police funding settlements last year and this year demonstrate, frankly, a move from cuts to increased investment, in direct response to conversations I have had, not least those with frontline officers expressing their frustration about how stretched they are. I absolutely accept that point.

Of course, £120 million, in the context of the £970 million funding settlement, is still at the margin, but the central point is that we cannot give up pushing those who spend public money to demonstrate that they spend it in the most effective way. It is not Government money; it is our constituents’ money. They pay it in taxes and expect it to be used properly. We will not let up on that, because £1 saved through smarter procurement is £1 that can be used for more effective frontline delivery.

I will talk about the implications for the fire service, because that was the main thrust of the shadow Minister’s points. I reassure her that, as we work towards the next comprehensive spending review, the Home Office will do a similar exercise to that which we have done with the police—I will be leading this—to genuinely try to understand the demand on the system, both in terms of the demand on the core statutory duty and also the financial pressures that the system is under. We will ask tough questions on efficiency, the use of reserves and all the things that we debate, but we only do so because we are ultimately stewards of public money—it is not Government money, it is taxpayers’ money—and that is our job. I am absolutely determined, through the CSR, to make sure that both the police and the fire service have the resources they need. I have shown through my words, and more importantly through my actions, that we have responded to those messages about genuine stretch and pressure on the frontline.

In 2019-20, single-purpose fire and rescue authorities will see an increase in core spending power of 2.3% in cash terms. The additional employer pension costs for the fire service will be an additional £10 million in 2019-20. The Government will cover the rest of the increase by providing an additional pension grant of £98 million. Standalone fire and rescue authorities, excluding Manchester, will be able to raise an additional £38 million in 2019-20 if all fire and rescue authorities increase the precept by 3%. We believe that will allow fire authorities to meet their financial pressures and continue to invest in key capabilities.

In addition, fire and rescue authorities hold significant financial reserves, which have increased—this is the point—by over 80% to £545 million between the end of March 2011 and the end of March 2018, which is equivalent to 42% of their core spending power. I will always refer to that, because there needs to be proper transparency and accountability.

The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who is no longer in her place, talked about the pressures on South Yorkshire. Again, its core spending power increased by 1.7%. It sits on reserves worth almost 50% of its core spending power, and those reserves have increased by £9.5 million since March 2011. Like most fire authorities, it is starting out on the road to independent inspection and it is, I understand, in tranche 3 and will be inspected in summer 2019. One of the things it will be inspected on is efficiency. It will be interesting to see how it comes out of that inspection.

In relation to the police, I genuinely believe that the combination of the specific pension grant, the increase in the Home Office grant, the efficiency savings that we have agreed to realise, the high level of reserves that still remain in the system and a financial settlement that enables increased investment of up to £970 million in 2019-20, if fully realised—it does depend on the actions of police and crime commissioners—will mean that as a country we will invest over £2 billion more in 2019-20 than we did in 2015-16. While Labour MPs continue to make comparisons to 2010, the reality is that since 2015, the Government have recognised that the demand on the police system has risen and become more complex, and we have responded with additional public investment.

Finally, I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that the Government are working closely with both the policing and fire sectors, to ensure that they have the resources to enable them to do their challenging work efficiently and effectively. Alongside that, we are taking steps to ensure that the future funding of public pensions is affordable, sustainable and well balanced.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the reduction in Government contributions to public service pensions.

Firefighters: Mental Health Support

Nick Hurd Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and may I say to the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) how sorry I am to hear about the recent death of her constituent?

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing an extremely important debate. As she made clear—this was corroborated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess)—her long-standing interest in the fire service predates her arrival in this place, although it has continued here, and I know from our conversations that she has a genuine interest in issues of mental health. This debate has highlighted an important and growing issue, which, as she rightly said, is not restricted to firefighters. All our emergency services face similar challenges as a result of increasing pressure on wellbeing, and there is a greater recognition across those services about the need for the Government to step up and fulfil, in the words of the hon. Lady, their duty of care. She is right: we do have a duty of care, which I will now speak about.

I also pay tribute to the firefighter of yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). He entered the fire service on the same day that my dad entered Parliament, and his contribution was extraordinarily valuable. Many contributors to this debate spoke not from notes but from personal experience, whether as a nurse or someone with a father-in-law in the service. This was a particularly good debate, despite the terrible experiences behind it, and my hon. Friend’s contribution was extraordinarily valuable since he provided insights into the strain on body and mind that comes from seeing and hearing things that no one wants to see or hear. He also mentioned the surges and changes in emotional state that firefighters have to cope with, and he made the point—as did others—that the trauma remains and comes back.

Anyone listening to the testimony from firefighters at the Grenfell public inquiry will have heard not just about those who performed so admirably under the most unbelievable conditions when going up and down those stairs, but about those who sat in the call room taking terrible calls under unimaginably difficult circumstances. Anyone who has spoken to some of those firefighters will know that that experience will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Some of them will need support, and some will need to be told they need support—many Members mentioned the continued stigma that is attached to our emergency services, where the tradition can still be one of taking pride in coping and being fine, with the best therapy being more work. I think we recognise as a society, and certainly as a Government, that our heroic emergency service workers need more practical support that is relevant to their state.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) made an important point about the need not only to make services available, but to make available services that are right for each individual, and I am sure the hon. Member for Kensington will agree. Certainly, in my work with Grenfell victims, I have been disappointed at times to discover cases of individuals receiving treatment that is not right for them in that situation. That point was well made, as was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock about the landscape and nature of the workforce in the fire service, which is changing slowly and becoming increasingly diverse, and we must think hard about those changing needs.

My hon. Friend, and others, welcomed the Prime Minister’s statement of ambition and resource regarding more money for local mental health issues, which I think has cross-party support. I observe from my time in this place since 2005 that one of the great sea changes in this House has been a growing acceptance of the need for mental health to have parity with physical health, and decisive steps have been taken on that journey. Those steps have not gone as far as many of us would like, but they are decisive none the less. Again, that is part of a greater national societal awareness about the importance of mental health and the growing risk, and the demand for mental health support, not least for our emergency service workers.

Let me try to provide reassurance that the Government recognise the importance of this issue and stand ready to support and challenge the leadership in the fire service regarding the exercise of its duty of care. First, I confirm the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, because there is now a requirement in the recently revised fire and rescue national framework for England, which sets out the Government’s expectations for a fire and rescue authority. It contains a new section on what should be considered part of the workforce strategy, and it states explicitly that each fire authority should have in place a people’s strategy that includes information on the availability of wellbeing and support services. I understand that most fire and rescue authorities, including the LFB, have workforce strategies in place, which is a good step forward.

My second observation is that although our fire service is widely recognised around the world as being among the best, we have an insufficient understanding of what good looks like. The creation of the Fire Standards Board, and the intention to create a more comprehensive and coherent set of professional standards—including in the area under discussion—is an important development. As the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow said, we need to know what good looks like in this context.

The third element is extremely important. Indeed, arguably the most important reform that we are introducing in our desire to seek continuous improvement in the performance of our fire service is independent inspection. That is similar to what we have introduced and strengthened for the police service, and with independent inspection and an increasingly clear framework of agreed standards, we will get a better picture of what is going on out there, and we will be able to compare and contrast the performance of fire services. With independent inspection comes greater transparency and greater accountability to the inspectorate, to the local fire authority, to the police and crime commissioner—where appropriate—to the Home Office and to Parliament. In our experience with the police, that framework of transparency and accountability is what really drives change. That is exactly the framework that we are setting up.

Various contributors to the debate talked about Mind’s blue light programme, and they were right to do so. I pay tribute to those who are working to deliver it. Since 2014 we have provided £7 million to pay for mental health support through the blue light programme, which was topped up after Grenfell. It provides advice through a network on mental wellbeing, stress and anxiety, seeking help for a mental health problem, supporting a colleague with a mental health problem, post-traumatic stress disorder and supporting someone as a friend or family member.

In addition—to speak to the point on the need for proper information about what works—every fire and rescue service in England now has access to a toolkit or framework called Oscar Kilo, which is also available to the police. It provides support and guidance for those who are responsible for wellbeing in each service, to assist them in developing and building robust, efficient and effective wellbeing support. As well as a framework of accountability and transparency, there is one of specific tailored support through the blue light programme and the Oscar Kilo toolkit. Those who are responsible for wellbeing and the local strategies have access to good information about what works, and that will grow.

Another entirely valid point was made about the need to ensure that the fire service has adequate resources to do its job. If we have insufficient capacity, or that capacity is too stretched, that will have an impact on wellbeing and people’s sense of confidence and professionalism in the job that they do.

I therefore confirm that fire and rescue authorities overall will receive around £2.3 billion in 2019-20. Single-purpose fire and rescue authorities will see an increase in core spending power of 2.3%, in cash terms, and an overall increase of 0.3% since 2015-16. Bearing in mind that the debate is sponsored by the hon. Member for Kensington, in the Greater London Authority core spending power increased by 6.3% in 2019-20 compared with 2018-19, with an overall increase of 11% between 2015-16 and 2019-20. Reserves stood at £57.8 million in March 2018.

Although we have a healthy disagreement with the Labour Front-Bench team, we maintain that our fire services are adequately resourced for the demand that is placed on them. However, I have always made it very clear, and I continue to do so today, that as we move towards the next stage of fire funding—the comprehensive spending review next year—we are updating our understanding of demand, because the past is not necessarily a guide to the future. We will approach the Treasury with our bid for police and fire funding on an informed basis, to be absolutely sure that over the next three or five years—whatever the time of the CSR—our fire services have the resources they need to do the incredibly difficult job that they do, which includes ensuring provision for adequate support of wellbeing and the welfare of the most important assets in the system, which are our people.

On that note, I will close. I put on record the Government’s thanks to our firefighters for their work. At this time of year, when most of us are out there eating, drinking and making merry, our emergency services are working extremely hard to keep us safe. Our firefighters and police are the ones who run towards danger when most of us run away from it. As we have seen at Grenfell, at the terrible fire recently in Nottingham and on motorways up and down the country, they are often called to events that are absolutely terrible—in particular when they involve children—and will probably stay with them for all their lives. It is right that we as a Government are challenged to answer for what we are doing about our duty of care, but it is also right for us to take the opportunity to place on record our thanks.

Points of Order

Nick Hurd Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Hurd)]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I take it from that nod that the Minister has listened carefully to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I will also ensure that the Serjeant at Arms knows about what the hon. Gentleman has said, as I am sure Mr Speaker would wish me to ensure.

Police Funding Settlement

Nick Hurd Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to propose to the House a provisional police funding settlement for 2019-20. I do so at a time of real pressure on our police system, with demand rising and becoming increasingly complex and resource intensive. Across the country, police officers and staff are working exceptionally hard in demanding and often risky conditions. They have the respect and thanks of this House, but they need more than that—they need additional support to help them do their job.

Last year, Parliament approved a funding settlement that resulted in £460 million of additional public investment in policing, including £50 million more for counter-terrorism and £280 million more for local forces from the precept. That meant that every force’s funding was protected in real terms this year, and overall public investment in policing this year is more than £1 billion higher than three years ago. As a result of last year’s settlement, most police and crime commissioners set out plans to either protect or enhance frontline policing. I also indicated last year that our intention was to provide a similar settlement in 2019-20, subject to improved efficiency, productivity and financial transparency. I am pleased to confirm that the police have met those conditions, and there is an agreed plan to deliver £120 million in commercial and back-office savings by 2020-21. Forces are developing digital plans, including deploying mobile technology more ambitiously to use police time more productively, and every police and crime commissioner has published a financial reserves strategy.

However, the Government recognise that two things have changed since I stood at the Dispatch Box one year ago. First, cost pressures have risen, public sector inflation has increased and the police are facing challenges in meeting new costs such as in forensics and increased employer contributions to safeguard public pensions. More significantly, demand pressures have risen. There has been a major increase in the reporting of high-harm, previously hidden crimes such as child sexual exploitation. The challenge from serious and organised crime networks is growing. Through the serious violence strategy we are bearing down on the worst spike in serious violence and knife crime that we have seen in this country in a decade. Digitally enabled and online crime remains a major challenge for our police, and meanwhile, as we are all aware, the threat from terrorism has escalated and evolved.

The first role of Government is to protect the public, and as crime changes, so must the police. We are determined to ensure that the police have the powers and resources they need to respond to changing demand. Therefore, the Home Secretary and I would like to go further than I indicated last year. As the Home Secretary has signalled over the course of the year, police funding is his No. 1 priority, and he and I have been working closely with our colleagues across Government to agree a comprehensive settlement. Today we are proposing a settlement that could see public investment in policing rise by up to £970 million in 2019-20, depending on the actions of police and crime commissioners.

Let me break that very large number down for the House. First, instead of the flat cash grant that I indicated last year, we want to increase Government grants to police and crime commissioners by £161 million. Every police and crime commissioner will have their Government grant funding protected in real terms, and the package includes £14 million to recognise the specific extra costs and financial challenges of policing London. On top of that, we will allocate additional grant funding of more than £150 million specifically to help the police manage what, since the 2016 Budget, have been unexpected increases in their contribution to public sector pensions.

We have also listened to requests from police and crime commissioners for more flexibility around levels of police precept. This settlement empowers police and crime commissioners to raise council tax contributions for local policing by £2 a month for a typical household, which is £24 a year. If that flexibility is fully utilised, the result will be just over £500 million of additional local investment in local policing. We do not take that decision lightly, because we know money is tight for many people. The decision to raise local tax will be up to locally elected police and crime commissioners, and they will have to make a case to their electorate and be accountable for delivery of a return on that public investment.

On top of the proposed increase in core grant and a doubling of local precept flexibility, we propose investing more in the fight to protect our constituents against terrorism and serious organised crime. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced at the Budget, funding for counter-terrorism policing will increase by £59 million next year to £816 million, which is £160 million more than we planned at the last spending review. We also intend to match the new serious and organised crime strategy with £90 million of much-needed resources to tackle threats including economic crime, child sexual exploitation, fraud and cyber-crime.

This settlement combines increased central funding with increased local contributions to local policing. It enables the biggest investment in frontline policing since 2010, and the start of the journey to get this country back to living within our means. It will allow PCCs to manage their costs while maintaining their plans to recruit and fill capability gaps, not least when it comes to detectives. It will strengthen our capabilities in the fight against serious and organised crime and terrorism.

Alongside that increased investment in the frontline against crime, we will also maintain our existing level of public investment in building national police capabilities and upgrading police technology for the benefit of local forces. We will invest £175 million in the police transformation fund next year. A major priority for us is supporting the police to make the most of the digital opportunity to improve contact with the public and manage police time more effectively. We are also developing the first national programme to support the wellbeing of stretched frontline officers. We support Police Now, which is attracting fresh talent into neighbourhood policing and supporting the role of detectives.

Alongside the police transformation fund we will invest £495 million in technology programmes that will upgrade critical infrastructure such as police databases and the emergency service communications network. Taking everything together, the settlement means that as a country we will be investing up to £14 billion in our police system next year, if all police and crime commissioners use full precept flexibility. That would represent increased public investment of £2 billion compared with 2015-16.

With increased public investment comes an increased responsibility to improve efficiency and effectiveness, and to show the public what difference their investment is making in terms of greater deterrence for criminals, better outcomes for victims and safer communities. To make the most of the new investment we are announcing today, we will work with the police on ensuring the delivery of the efficiency savings we have identified. We want greater ambition in the use of digital mobile working to improve productivity. We also want to ensure that the major capability gaps that the independent inspectorate identified, on detectives and investigations, are filled, and that there is greater co-ordination of important work to tackle serious and organised crime.

Of course, support for our police is not all about spending taxpayers’ money, and we are also supporting them through new powers. We are working on a cross-party basis to strengthen legislation on offensive weapons, just as we worked on a cross-party basis to strengthen protections for emergency services workers. Let me be clear: our commitment to supporting the police to deliver for the public is for the long term. Come the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, the Government will be prepared to invest appropriately in police capacity, capability and professional confidence, but that must come with greater local accountability of directly elected police and crime commissioners, and a commitment to accelerate the pace of change to ensure that British policing remains the best in the world.

As we have indicated, this settlement is the last before the next spending review, which will set long-term police budgets and address how resources are allocated fairly across police forces—I know that is of great interest to many Members across the House. This Government’s priority is the safety of the public. We understand that our police face increased demands, and we are determined to respond to the threats from terrorism, organised crime and serious violence. We are today announcing a major investment in the capabilities that the police need to respond, and we are rightly challenging them to spend that money well and continue on the path of reform and modernisation. I conclude by expressing my gratitude and that of the Government to police forces around the country for their exceptional attitude, hard work and bravery, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance notice of his statement and for his recognition of the demand facing our police forces. Once again, however, we are faced with the Government’s complete refusal to acknowledge their own part in creating that demand.

It is important that we set today’s statement in the context it deserves. The Conservative party has created a crisis in public safety. There is simply no precedent in post-war history for a Government to have undermined the police in the way that this Government have. No Government in post-war history have ever slashed the resources available to the police by as much as 30% and cut officers in every year they have been in office. Never, since records began, has violent crime been as high as it is today. Never has knife crime been as high as it is today. Arrests have halved in a decade. Unsolved crimes stand at over 2 million cases, and 93% of domestic violence offences go unprosecuted. Today’s settlement has to stand in that context.

If we are honest—if we are not to mislead the public, as the Office for National Statistics has asked the Government not to do on police funding—today’s settlement represents a ninth consecutive year of real-terms central Government cuts to the police. In September, the Government announced that changes to the police pension valuation would mean an additional £165 million cost to forces in 2019-20, increasing to £417 million in 2021. Why, then, does today’s settlement cover only £150 million of that cost, and why does it provide no certainty for the following year? That cost was dropped on forces at the last minute. Some police and crime commissioners had already started drafting emergency budgets. It was a completely inappropriate way to handle an event that must take place every four years. The Government need to get real. They cannot keep expecting forces to wait until the last minute, with disaster at the door, for the Government to get their act together. Will the Minister commit today to funding the complete pension bill for 2019-20 and 2020-21?

Funding for counter-terrorism and serious organised crime, although welcome, is not seen by local forces, and the funding to tackle fraud and cyber-crime is significantly below the amount requested by police last year.

The Government are once again confirming today their intention to pass the vast majority of the increase in the police funding settlement on to local ratepayers. That is perverse. It will not meet need and is fundamentally unfair. Despite the fact that every band D household or above will be asked to pay the exact same amount in additional tax, different force areas will be able to raise hugely different amounts. The forces that have already been cut the most will be able to raise the least. Can the Minister confirm that today’s settlement will mean that Surrey can raise 44% of the cash it has lost since 2010, whereas the west midlands will be able to raise just 11% of what it has lost; and that Suffolk can raise 30% while Northumbria can raise only 12%? How can the Minister possibly justify a postcode lottery that means the communities that are already seeing higher crime, to which reserves have been allocated, will receive so much less funding?

Can the Minister further confirm that the National Police Chiefs’ Council has calculated the cost of inflation at £435 million this year, wiping out the grant from central Government and almost wiping out the amount the precept will raise, forcing council tax payers to pay the price for their local service to stand still? The simple truth is that because the Home Secretary cannot make the case within the Government for extra resources for the police, he is passing his own political failure on to local ratepayers. He knows that this perverse way of raising income for the police will not and cannot meet the needs of local communities. Instead of a calculation based on demand, rising crime, population and vulnerability, the only determination this is based on is local house prices. Once again, the Minister is at the Dispatch Box announcing cuts from central Government funding and trying to dress them up as good news. I am afraid no one is falling for it.

[Mr Hurd]

I have been a shadow Minister and I know that that sometimes requires one to push the boundaries of reasonableness, but I am afraid the hon. Lady has lost all sense of proportion. She talks about the Government creating demand on the police system. I do not know what she means by that. Perhaps she means the pressure we put on the police to improve their recording of crime. Perhaps she means the pressure the current Prime Minister put on the police to improve their support for the most vulnerable people in our communities, which means that more victims of domestic violence and rape are coming forward to the police. If that is what she means, I can see her point.

The hon. Lady tries to claim that the Government are cutting funding to the police in real terms, but I stated very clearly that in this settlement we have moved from flat-cash Home Office grant to police forces to the first real increase in the grant since 2010. That is the reality.

The hon. Lady talks about pension costs, which have been a very real issue. The Treasury has done exactly what it said it would do. I am very clear that through a combination of the special pension grant, the increase in the Home Office grant, the room for efficiencies and the levels of reserves, every single police and crime commissioner should be able to go to their public and talk about local taxes for their local police service.

Finally, for the Labour party to present itself as the champion of the council tax payer, when it doubled council tax when it was in power, is hypocrisy of the worst order. The hon. Lady talks about the council tax payer being weighed down by this, but in reality the average amount of funding that comes from the precept has moved from 32% to 34% across the police system. The reality is that most of the funding for our police system comes from the taxpayer through central funding.

My challenge to the shadow Minister is this. She and her boss led their colleagues through the No Lobby this time last year, so the Labour party effectively voted against a police settlement that put an additional £460 million into our police. This settlement has the potential to put an additional £970 million into our police system so that we as taxpayers are investing over £2 billion more than we were in 2015-16. This might, therefore, be the moment to put tribal politics and games aside and recognise the fundamental truth that Members on both sides of the House recognise the pressure on the police and want to see increased resources for policing. That is exactly what this settlement delivers.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly his recognition of the pressures that the police are under both in demand and in the resources they have to do their job. I pay tribute to the Wandsworth police, who work tirelessly to keep our local community safe.

In my area we have significant extra housing and population arriving, both in the form of the Battersea power station development and because of demand related to the new US and Dutch embassies. Will the Minister set out briefly how we can ensure that additional demands do not squeeze funding for the broader community in Wandsworth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my right hon. Friend and former boss for that question. As a fellow London MP, I am delighted that the Met could receive an additional £172 million next year if the Mayor raises precept flexibility by the full £24. He has indicated that he will. That comes on to top of an additional £100 million of public investment in the Met this year. The challenge for the commissioner and the Mayor, who is accountable to the people of Wandsworth for how resources are allocated, is to make sure that police resources are not just allocated to existing demand but used to better anticipate future demand, reflecting factors such as those she talks about. It is a challenge, but it is one that police leadership should be up to. We are determined to make sure they have the resources they need to do their job. I am sure she would agree that this settlement enables just that.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Minister has rightly talked about the increasing pressures on policing, as the Home Affairs Committee set out in our report, and we look forward to scrutinising the detail of the figures that he set out. Will he confirm what I think he just said—that once we take account of inflation, the increased pension costs and funding, there is not a real increase in Government funding for police forces? Will he also say what he thinks the impact of the funding will be, given that arrests have halved in the last 10 years, and even in the last three years we have seen an increase of about one third in the level of recorded crime, but a drop of one quarter in the number of charges and summons? Does he think that arrests, charges and summons will go up as a result of these figures?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that question and for her challenging, but extremely good, report on future policing. This settlement enables additional investment of up to £970 million in our police system, of which £509 million could come from PCCs, if all of them use their flexibility. Within that, as I said in my statement, we have moved from a situation where the Home Office grant is flat cash to one in which every single PCC will see flat real in relation to the first increase in the grant from the Home Office since 2010. She is right to point to a worrying trend in some of the outcomes of policing. The right hon. Lady and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), identified that and were right to do so. For me, the critical thing now is to increase the capacity of the police and to fill some key capability gaps. She knows that one of the most important of those is the lack of detectives. Therefore, one thing that I and the Home Secretary will be following very closely next year, as I am sure her Committee will, is an improvement in exactly the outcomes that she identified.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I very much welcome the additional resources for policing—something that I and Government Members have raised with the Prime Minister, as the Minister will be aware. Does he agree, though, that we need to urge the Mayor of London to start using some of his £500 million of reserves to strengthen policing and to keep Barnet police station open?

[Mr Hurd]

I speak not just as the Minister for Policing, but as the Minister for London and a London MP. Certainly, a large part of my ongoing conversations with the Mayor will be on the question, “What are you doing with the money?” The taxpayer has put in an additional £100 million this year. As I have said, there is the potential from this settlement for an additional £172 million of public investment in the Met. It is already a force that has over one and a half times the national average in terms of police officers per head, so the voice from Londoners will get increasingly loud in asking, “What are we getting for the money?”

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Yet another tragic case of knife crime in my constituency led to a death within the last 48 hours. Ten years ago, there were 31,000 police officers in London, and the Mayor of London is now warning that that is going to drop to below 27,000. Back then, I had six police officers per ward in my constituency, and I am now struggling to get two. The Government were warned about the dangers of cutting the police so severely and now we are suffering the consequences. What will this announcement do to address the severe cuts that we have seen over the last eight years?

[Mr Hurd]

As a fellow Londoner, I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely cross-party consensus on the absolute determination that we need to bear down on this horrific spike in serious violence and knife crime. I am sure that the whole House will want to pass on through him their condolences to the family and friends of the victim of that tragedy. Through the serious violence strategy and the serious violence taskforce, on which the Mayor sits, as do other London Labour MPs, there is an absolute determination to combine robust policing with a big investment in prevention and early intervention to do just that. The Met needs more resources, as I said. An additional £100 million of taxpayers’ money is going into that system this year. This settlement enables additional investment of £172 million, if Sadiq Khan increases precept flexibility. The hon. Gentleman talks about police officer numbers. I am sure that he is aware—and will welcome the fact—that the commissioner is actively recruiting an additional 1,000 officers. We all wait to see what the result of this settlement will be in terms of updating those plans.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I very much welcome the statement, and I thank the Minister for providing extra resources to deal with the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents. The fact remains, however, that Wiltshire gets £151 per person from the Government to deal with policing. Nationally, the figure is £171 per person. I am sure that he wants to close that gap. Does he propose that that is done through the £161 million that he has announced today, or does he think that Angus Macpherson, our police and crime commissioner, should be raising money locally through the precept using the powers announced today?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Through him, again, I congratulate and place on record our appreciation of the work of Wiltshire police in response to the Salisbury incident. I hope he will welcome the fact that this year, public funding in Wiltshire policing increased by £4 million and that this settlement enables further investment of up to £9 million, of which £2 million will come from additional grant funding. It is for the local police and crime commissioner to consult colleagues and weigh up his options on using the full precept flexibly. I cannot take that decision for him—he must consult local MPs and people who understand the public pulse in Wiltshire—but if he does so, he has the ability to raise an additional £7 million for local policing in Wiltshire.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Last year, West Midlands police took 40,000 extra 999 calls and recorded 27,000 more crimes and 3,000 more violent crimes, yet it has 2,000 fewer officers. Law and order in our city is now resting on the heroism of officers such as Matt Crowley, who led a major operation against the dealers of violence this week. The Minister knows that we needed £25.5 million extra for 500 extra officers to keep our city safe. At best, can he confirm that we have only half that money and that once more, West Midlands police will be sent forward with one arm tied behind its back?

[Mr Hurd]

I do not accept that last statement, because that is a grotesque exaggeration of the situation. The West Midlands police force is an extremely important police force in the system, with a proud history of innovation. Funding—public investment—in that system increased by £10 million this year. This settlement enables the police and crime commissioner to increase public investment by up to £34 million, of which £16 million will come from central Government grants. The west midlands has, I think, an above average number of police officers per head of population, compared with the national average, and broadly the national average in terms of crime recorded by police officers, but it is a stretched police force. I absolutely understand that and I see this settlement as another important milestone on the journey towards the next comprehensive spending review, which is the most important event in shaping police funding for the next few years.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

As someone who has campaigned vociferously on behalf of Bedfordshire police, I say thank you for enabling Bedfordshire to raise an extra £8 million next year, which is very welcome indeed. Does the Policing Minister share my outrage at the escalation in the theft of tools from vans? We have just had Small Business Saturday. Someone who steals tools from a work person’s van takes their livelihood. I am concerned that the police might not take that crime as seriously as I think they should. Does he share my concern about that particular issue?

[Mr Hurd]

I do share that concern, because I absolutely understand the economic impact on that small business trade, and I would expect the police to take that crime seriously. This is an opportunity for me to place on record again my admiration for and thanks to my hon. Friend for his tenacity in advocating for increased funding for Bedfordshire police. I hope that he is pleased about the exceptional grant that I announced a few months ago and that he will welcome a settlement that has the potential to increase funding into Bedfordshire police by up to £8 million next year.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Merseyside, we have seen a cut of more than 1,000 police officers since 2010, which is a 24% decrease. Despite the very best efforts of our police, they simply cannot provide the same level of service. Levels of certain crimes are going up and our police are under incredible pressure, as we have seen in the increase in the number of 999 calls.

I listened closely to the Minister. Will he categorically confirm that, of the £161 million increase in grants to the police, almost all—£152 million—will be eaten up by higher pensions? That will mean that inflation and pay increase costs will have to be met by council tax payers—it is about £24 a year, which we are not guaranteed to raise. That means that Merseyside police will just stand still. How on earth is that an acceptable state of affairs?

[Mr Hurd]

The settlement allows police and crime commissioners to absorb the increase in costs that they face while hopefully enabling them to continue their plans for recruitment and for filling in capability gaps. Like many other police forces, Merseyside police is stretched and does incredibly important and difficult work. Although the hon. Lady voted against it, I hope she welcomes the additional public investment of £5 million in Merseyside police, and that she will support a funding settlement that could increase funding into Merseyside police by up to £18 million this year, of which £8.6 million will come from central Government grant.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Policemen and women in Northamptonshire do a wonderful job in very challenging circumstances and deserve the thanks of hon. Members and of the public. Will the Policing Minister confirm that the funding settlement could mean up to an extra £9 million into Northamptonshire police, and does he share my hope that the police and crime commissioner will use the money to continue to increase police numbers?

[Mr Hurd]

I place on record my admiration for the work of Northamptonshire police and the police and crime commissioner. They are a good force in relation to efficiency, and benefited from increased funding of £4 million this year, which my hon. Friend voted for. I hope he will support this settlement, which I can confirm has the capacity to increase funding by a further £9 million this year. Of course, it is up to Stephen and the local chief to decide how those resources are best allocated. I am sure my hon. Friend will express a strong view on behalf of the good people of Kettering.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Where in this statement is there money for a public health model to cut youth violence? Where in this statement is there money for a police partnership with the NHS, so that they can work together to support each other and reduce the police work related to people with mental health problems?

[Mr Hurd]

The right hon. Gentleman raises two extremely important points. Our whole approach to bearing down on the worst spike in serious violence and knife crime in a decade is entirely based on a public health model, as the Home Secretary has made extremely clear. That is the basis of the serious violence taskforce, which brings together all the agencies, including health and education, to discuss what needs to be done to combine robust policing with effective prevention and intervention work, and support for young people. That strategy is properly funded, not least through the £200 million youth endowment fund. That is long-term money to support that work and to support young people up and down the country.

The right hon. Gentleman’s second point on the demands placed on the police system by the need to support people in crisis or who are suffering from mental health issues is an extremely important one. The recommendations of the review of the Mental Health Act 1983 were extremely valuable not only on what needs to change to reduce the demand on the police system, but on ensuring that people in crisis who are suffering from mental health issues are supported by the right people—the people qualified to help them, which in many cases is not the police. One dividend I want from the additional investment in local mental health services announced in the Budget is a reduction in the demand on policing. I hope he will support me in that.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The murder rate in London is at its highest since 2008. My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that, in Harrow, we face a spike in aggravated burglaries—burglars burst into people’s homes knowing that they are there to intimidate them and beat them up. That clearly needs extra policing resources, but not ordinary policing resources—it needs detectives with experience and capability. What in the settlement will encourage people to remain in the police force and encourage new recruits?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour. He is entirely right, and I will be sitting down with Pinner residents tomorrow to discuss exactly their concerns about the spike in aggravated burglary. The police response, to their credit, has been good, including enhanced neighbourhood team working and enhanced advice on crime prevention. One of the gangs in the case has been disrupted. There has been a good policing response, but the situation requires additional resources going into the Metropolitan police, in part to support increased investment in frontline officers but, critically, to support increased investment in detectives, who follow up crime and give a better service to victims. I hope he supports the settlement for that reason.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that the proposed increase in the precept in the Merseyside police force area will mean that people in all council tax bands will experience a 13% increase? Jane Kennedy, the police and crime commissioner, says that that will allow only for a stand-still budget on Merseyside. At the same time, we have seen a worrying increase in knife and gun crime, and the needless and tragic loss of so many young lives, yet the Minister has been unprepared to meet the police and crime commissioner and local MPs to discuss it. Will he undertake to meet the commissioner, the chief constable and local MPs to discuss how we can tackle that appalling problem?

[Mr Hurd]

With genuine respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I have met Jane on a number of occasions, and once specifically with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who has responsibility for crime and safeguarding, to discuss serious violence.

[Mr Howarth]

We have asked four times and had no answer.

[Mr Hurd]

I am not aware of that. I see Jane quite regularly, as I do the chief. Given the seriousness of the matter, I am more than happy to sit down with Merseyside MPs—I give that undertaking, and was unaware of those unanswered requests. We have an open and regular dialogue with the police leadership.

The settlement helps police and crime commissioners to manage cost pressures—the pension issue was a serious concern—in a way that will allow Jane to go to the people of Merseyside and say clearly that any increase in the local precept will go into local policing. That is one objective of the settlement.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Despite the exceptional efforts of the Humberside force, there is growing concern among my constituents that too many serious crimes such as burglary and attacks on retail staff go without investigation. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the additional resources going to the force will allow for more investigations into those crimes?

[Mr Hurd]

Through my hon. Friend, I pass on my congratulations to the Humberside force for some very impressive performance improvements within existing resources, which has been noticed by the independent inspectorate.

I hope my hon. Friend welcomes the settlement, which builds on last year’s, which resulted in an additional £4 million-worth of investment in Humberside policing this year. This year’s settlement enables an increase of up to £11 million of further investment. It is obviously up to the local police and crime commissioner, operating and working with local MPs and colleagues, to decide how those resources are allocated, but I am sure my hon. Friend will be a powerful advocate for exactly what he describes.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Under this Government, since 2010, we have seen the lowest number of police officers in Humberside since the 1970s. It is welcome that under the current chief constable and the police and crime commissioner, Keith Hunter, recruitment is starting to take off again, but what I think worries all Humberside Members is what we were told by the chief constable. He said that if the funds were not found for the additional payments into the police pension scheme, up to 120 officers could lose their jobs and all police community support officers could go. I know that the Minister has just talked about the money that is available for this financial year, but—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) made this point—what about 2019-20 and 2020-21?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the increased recruitment of police officers in Humberside, which, I should add, was made possible by a police settlement that she voted against. This settlement enables the police and crime commissioner and the new chief constable to continue that process, not least as the increased costs and the pension costs are absorbed.

The hon. Lady made an important point about what will happen beyond 2019-20. We have made it very clear that the conversation about ongoing management of the need for increased employer contributions to public pensions is wrapped up in the conversations about the comprehensive spending review that is expected next year, which are now live.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Tomorrow afternoon I will host a meeting in the village of Lavenham, together with the police and crime commissioner, Tim Passmore, and the chief constable. It is likely to be attended by about 100 farmers, and will deal specifically with the issue of rural crime following a wave of significant incidents on the Suffolk-Essex borders in recent months. While I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, what message will he give me to take to that meeting about the resources to which we may look forward in Suffolk as a result of his statement?

[Mr Hurd]

Like many colleagues, my hon. Friend has been a tireless advocate of increased resources for policing, and specifically for Suffolk policing. This settlement builds on the settlement for 2018-19, which provided an additional £3 million for Suffolk: it will allow a further investment of up to £9 million. What my hon. Friend can communicate to that meeting is the Government’s determination to ensure that Suffolk and other police forces have the resources that they need to meet the increasing demands caused by the change in and variety of crime in his area. I do, of course, understand the significance of rural crime, and the determination of farmers to ensure that the police and crime commissioner is attributing the right level of importance to it.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Over the last few years, the West Midlands police force has lost £175 million and 2,000 officers as a result of Government cuts. Violent crime and murders are up, and in the past 10 years the number of arrests has fallen by 50%. I am being lobbied by the public because of their frustration about the lack of action when they report crimes, and I am being lobbied by the police because, as good public servants, they are deeply demoralised by their inability to meet the legitimate demands placed on them by the public.

The Minister said that Opposition Members who raised this issue were doing so for tribal reasons. Will he withdraw that comment, and recognise that Opposition Members are exercising their democratic duty in reporting the legitimate fears of the people whom they represent? Will he also tell me whether, in one year’s time, any of the negative statistics that we have seen in the West Midlands will be reversed as a result of this settlement?

[Mr Hurd]

I fully recognise the pressures on West Midlands police. Both the hon. Gentleman’s concern and the concern expressed to him by his constituents are clearly genuine. My straight answer to him, however, is that, given that concern, he should support a police funding settlement that has the capacity to increase funding for West Midlands police by up to £34 million. In doing so, he also might correct a wrong, namely, his action in voting against a settlement that increased funding for that force by £10 million in the current year.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I do not think that members of the public would appreciate any reduction in resources for the police force because of an actuarial calculation. I thank my right hon. Friend, and the Prime Minister, for responding so well to representations from me, from London Tory MPs, and from Shaun Bailey. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is now important for the Mayor of London to put the whole £172 million of extra funding into the hands of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner as soon as possible, so that she can plan effectively for recruitment, tackling knife crime, and delivering to keep Londoners safe?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend, and other London colleagues, for their persistence in lobbying to ensure that the Metropolitan police have the resources that they need, and that the additional cost pressures, which have been a genuine problem, are cushioned by this settlement. I thank him for his support for it.

If the Mayor uses his maximum flexibility, which he has indicated that he will, there will be an additional £172 million of public investment in the Met, on top of the extra £100 million this year. That is a serious amount of money. My hon. Friend and I, together with other colleagues, will be holding the Mayor and the Commissioner to account for the way in which that money is spent, and, in particular, for ensuring that we see continued progress in driving down the serious violence that is so deeply unsettling for Londoners.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Last week I saw at first hand just how stretched our local police are when I joined officers patrolling Bradford. Areas such as mine, which have seen a surge in violent and sexual crimes, have also seen some of the biggest cuts. When will central Government stop passing the buck to local ratepayers, and take responsibility for funding our police properly?

[Mr Hurd]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her support for her local police force in West Yorkshire. I am sure that, given her desire to see them supported properly, she will welcome a settlement that has the capacity to increase their funding by £28.5 million this year. I look forward to her support in the Lobby.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

The Minister knows from our meetings that I wanted to see a strong settlement for the police. I am delighted that there will be an extra £13 million for Leicestershire police, and I am very pleased about the money to protect police pensions.

Does the Minister agree with me on two points? First, does he agree that this must be a first step towards a strong settlement in next year’s spending review, with a fair funding formula attached to it? Secondly, will he confirm that the new programme to look after officers’ welfare will especially help officers who have been victims of violence in the course of their duty? All of us in the House want to see stiffer sentences for those who attack police officers, and we are all very proud of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to do just that, but must we not also look after the welfare of those poor officers who have been attacked while protecting all the rest of us?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I could not agree more, and I think my hon. Friend senses the House’s full approval of what he has said. I congratulate him personally on his tenacity in advocating more resources and support for Leicestershire police.

My hon. Friend has also raised a very important point. One of the unacceptable features of the modern landscape and the circumstances that the police have to manage is the increased number of assaults and abuse of members of the police and emergency services. It was entirely right that, on a cross-party basis, led by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the House came together to take that Bill through Parliament to send the strongest possible signal that we find such actions absolutely unacceptable.

Yes, I can confirm that as part of the settlement and part of the investment through the police transformation fund, we are working with the police to build the first national welfare programme to support the wellbeing of officers who are having to work in very challenging circumstances, often feeling very stretched. Their welfare and wellbeing is of huge importance to us, and we are investing public money to support it.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The West Midlands police service has suffered a £175 million cut and the loss of 2,000 police officers. With violent crime up, gun crime up, knife crime up and burglaries up, fear stalks the streets in too many communities in the west midlands. Today’s settlement is a cut in real terms. It passes the buck to hard-pressed council tax payers, and it simply does not go far enough to put back on the beat the 500 officers whom we badly need in Birmingham and the west midlands. I pay tribute to the members of our police service, who have been nothing short of heroic, but as the thin blue line is drawn ever thinner, is it not the case that the Government are failing in the first duty of any Government, which is to ensure the safety and security of their citizens?

[Mr Hurd]

No, I deny that completely. Like last year’s settlement, this settlement is entirely designed to make sure we increase the resources available to policing. The hon. Gentleman is tenacious in this regard, but he and other Labour Members consistently fail to make any connection between the need to reduce police budgets and the imperative to get serious about reducing the largest peacetime budget deficit in this country’s history. The cuts were the consequence of Labour action, which he supported, and it was our job to try to clear up that mess. As we make progress on that journey, we are now able as a country to do more in terms of public investment in our public services. The police are a priority for the Home Secretary, as we have made clear, and this settlement could not be clearer about the ambition we have, within the resources we have got, to prioritise public safety and make sure that the police have the support they need—for West Midlands police the potential for an increase of up to £34 million of additional investment, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support that.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

This is a positive announcement for Greater Manchester police, who serve my constituency so well. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it will allow them to increase frontline officer numbers and that more can be done in the forthcoming spending review so that they can properly respond to the victims of crime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

Yes, I can certainly confirm that this settlement has the potential to increase funding to GMP by up to £35 million, of which almost £15 million comes from central Government grants. Again that is an enormously important police force that is stretched and is facing challenging circumstances, which is why we are determined to come to this House with an ambitious settlement to increase resources for policing and capacity for policing, and I look forward to my hon. Friend’s support.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

My constituents in Battersea are seeing an alarming rise in crime, with violent crime having increased by more than 15% in just six months this year. Following over £2 billion of cuts by this Tory Government to our local forces, can the Minister now confirm that the funding settlement today is only a tiny fraction of what has already been cut from our forces since 2010, and this will leave our police forces unable to meet the surge in violent crime?

[Mr Hurd]

I do not think my constituents would consider £172 million of increased investment in London policing, if that is what the Mayor enables, to be a small, tiny step; I think most people would recognise that to be a large amount of money. They want the police to have more support and welcome the fact that the Met are recruiting additional officers, yet the hon. Lady joins other Labour MPs in punching the same old tune on the jukebox, which completely ignores the economic reality that the last Labour Government ran out of money and ran up the biggest budget deficit in the history of this country, and it was our responsibility to sort that out.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

I thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for listening to the points raised on the Conservative Benches about the need to increase funding for our police and help to tackle crime. I also hope he agrees with me about supporting forces like Staffordshire police. We are led by a fantastic Conservative PCC, who is doing fantastic work to lead that police force. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that Staffordshire police will receive an additional £13 million due to this funding settlement to help tackle crime in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his representations on behalf of Staffordshire police. He knows how important it is for his constituents that the police are well supported. This is indeed a settlement that has the capacity to increase investment into Staffordshire policing by up to £13 million. The excellent PCC Matthew Ellis has got some choices to make, but he will be supported by an increased grant from central Government. I thank my hon. Friend for his support for this settlement.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The police Minister knows that I have seen for myself the pressures facing South Wales police, particularly in Cardiff, not just from the increasing demand from everything from county lines to spice to missing persons, but from the specific demands on it as a capital city hosting major events and as a seat of Government. The Minister met me, the chief constable and the PCC, and we made a very reasonable request to him; I wonder if he has had a chance to consider it further and has anything hopeful to say to us. On the police pensions gap, I appreciate what he said about next year, but beyond that the gap is projected to be £417 million a year, £10 million of which would fall as a burden on South Wales police. Where is that money going to come from in the future?

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman made a powerful representation on behalf of Cardiff, which I am genuinely and seriously looking at. The more specific answer to that and his broader question around pension costs is rooted in the strategy for the CSR, which is active work under way in anticipation of a spending review next year. He talks about a pensions gap; there is not a pensions gap in 2019-20 as a result of this settlement, and I am determined that through the CSR, with the full support of the Home Secretary, we will get a robust settlement for the police that allows them to increase their capacity and improve their response to changing demand.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

During the last hour or so Members have quite rightly been standing up for their own areas, but nobody can say what I am going to say. As the Minister knows from his frequent meetings with Lincolnshire MPs, Lincolnshire is the lowest funded police authority per head in the country—just £88 compared with £99 for Norfolk, a comparable authority. The Minister knows that from our meetings, and he knows that Marc Jones, our excellent commissioner, is now warning that we might lose all our PCSOs and see the complete end of community policing in Lincolnshire. He knows that Bill Skelly, our excellent chief constable, has warned that he might lose up to 60 police officers. He knows, too, that after years of belt-tightening going back over the 35 years that I have been in this House we cannot save £16 million over the next three years. So I beg the police Minister to raise his eyes from his excellent brief and convince us in Lincolnshire that we are going to get a fair funding formula. This is about justice. This is a county that has loyally supported the Conservatives in all my lifetime; where is the justice?

[Mr Hurd]

My hon. Friend is, along with other Lincolnshire MPs—I am sitting on the Front Bench next to one now, my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins)—assiduous, as are Marc and Bill, in making this point on behalf of Lincolnshire. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome and support a funding settlement that has the potential to see an additional £9 million of funding going into Lincolnshire Police in 2019-20 on top of the £3 million that the settlement for 2018-19 enabled, and on top of consideration of exceptional grant funding as well. But I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s main point that there is a serious set of decisions to be taken about how funding is allocated across police forces; there is a very serious issue around the fairness of that allocation, and I have indicated very clearly that this settlement is the final stepping stone on the journey towards that work in the CSR, which is the appropriate strategic framework in which to settle police funding for the next five years. He and others have a powerful case to make on behalf of Lincolnshire, a force that does excellent work under extremely difficult circumstances and is extremely well led, not least by Marc Jones.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The Minister and his London cronies really have got some brass neck, in one breath asking what the Mayor of London has done to tackle crime, and in the next breath trying to take credit for the 1,000 police officers being put on London’s streets thanks to action by London’s Mayor. Is it not the case that, even after this funding settlement announced today and the huge increases in charges for council tax payers that will follow, the funding announcement made by the Minister will barely dent the loss of 3,000 police officers, more than 3,000 PCSOs and 5,000 police staff across London, and that is the tragedy that is fuelling rising crime on the streets of my constituency?

[Mr Hurd]

Well, to be accused by the hon. Gentleman of brass neck is something. I hope that he welcomes the fact that the commissioner is now in a position to recruit an additional 1,000 officers as a result of the actions taken in the police settlement last year—

[Wes Streeting]

And by the Mayor.

[Mr Hurd]

And the actions by the Mayor of London. We now have an opportunity to increase funding to the Metropolitan police by up to £172 million, which will seem—and is—a large amount of money to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, as it does to mine. I sincerely hope that, rather than grandstanding, he will support the Government on this.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Minister repeatedly claims to recognise that the first duty of his Government is to protect UK citizens, including my constituents, but he is moving funding for the police on to town council tax payers when wages are still flatlining and in-work poverty is at an all-time high. Northumbria has lost a third of its officers while demand is rising as a result of crimes ranging from burglary to historical sexual abuse to terrorism, as we have seen this week. Will he tell me whether this settlement will get us back our lost bobbies and give Northumbria police the funding they need so that hard-pressed police officers can do the jobs they love to do?

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Lady tries to make a point about loading police funding on to council tax payers, when precept funding for Northumbria police represents 19% of total funding. The issue for Northumbria police is a low tax base and an historical decision not to raise council tax. This means that the precept level is low. Vera Baird now has an option to increase council tax by up to £2 a month, and the hon. Lady will have her own view on whether that is acceptable to her constituents. To her point, this is a settlement that builds on a settlement that put £5 million more into Northumbria policing this year, and has the potential to put in a further £18 million next year, to deliver exactly the things she is talking about, so I would be very surprised if she did not support the Government in the voting Lobby.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I have heard what the Minister has had to say about London, but the reality is that since 2010 the Met has faced cuts of £1 billion from central Government. The Government are to blame for the funding crisis in policing. Raising the council tax precept will mean that hard-working families will have to foot the bill and that police budgets will still be significantly underfunded compared with 2010. When will the Government stop abdicating responsibility and undo the damage caused by years of austerity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

My question is: when will Labour MPs grasp economic reality and understand the reason why budgets had to be cut in the first place? It is also recognised by almost everyone that there was enormous scope to improve the efficiency of the Metropolitan police, and I congratulate the police leadership on the work they have done to do exactly that. The reality is that this settlement has the ability to put another £172 million into Metropolitan police funding, on top of £100 million in 2018-19. For all those reasons, I would expect the hon. Lady to support this.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister has repeatedly referred to a “spike” in serious violence. May I urge him to stop using that word? It is not a spike unless and until we actually get these numbers down. The truth is that it is a rising surge. In particular, the horrific assaults on emergency workers that are preventing them from saving people’s lives really have to be tackled. If the police on my patch in South Wales are to be able to do that, they will need additional resources. We need to see the law implemented fully. My biggest fear is that, if South Wales police has a £10 million shortfall in its pension fund, it will be areas such as the Rhondda and the small towns and villages on my patch that will lose out on any kind of policing whatsoever. We really need additional resources in South Wales police.

[Mr Hurd]

I actually understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I use the word “spike” because I am determined, as are my colleagues, that it is a spike and not a shift. We have been here before, in London 10 years ago, when there was a spike and we succeeded in bearing down on it—

[Louise Haigh]

We did that.

[Mr Hurd]

The Labour party is claiming some credit for that, but I do not think that the Mayor at the time was Labour. I seem to remember that he was called Boris. Leaving that aside, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) makes a serious point about the need for additional resourcing for policing. We on the Government Benches absolutely accept that argument, because we absolutely accept the pressures on the police. I happen to think that we are as one with Labour Front Benchers on this, because we all recognise the pressure on the police. We all recognise that the police need additional resources. We are pragmatic, and we know that the public finances remain constrained, but this is an ambitious settlement that—if the police and crime commissioner uses the full power—will see up to £19 million more going into South Wales police on top of the £8 million increase that went in this year. I sincerely hope that I can count on the hon. Gentleman’s support when this measure comes to a vote.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

The Minister repeatedly mentioned the need to tackle debt. He will know that the debt-to-GDP ratio, which is the only measure that counts, remains stagnant under this Government and that the cuts to public services simply funded cuts to things like corporation tax, which made little or no difference to a slow-growing economy that has been hampered by this Government’s failed Brexit agenda. Can the Minister look me in the eye and tell me that the massive increase in knife crime and the 130 murders in London this year have nothing to do with the £850 million cuts that the Met police has already had to implement since 2010? Can he also explain how the £33 million of Government core funding that he has announced today for the Met will in any way fill that gap?

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Lady and I share an absolute determination to bear down on this terrible violence in London, and I salute the work that she has been doing for some time on that issue. Where she is wrong is on the economics. She talks about tax cuts, but she is talking to a party that has cut income tax for 32 million people and that has reduced the amount of tax paid by a basic-rate payer by £1,205 since it has been in power. She is talking to a party that, despite what it had to do to get public finances under control, has managed to keep council tax as low as possible. That is in stark contrast to her party, which doubled council tax when it was in power.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the extra moneys to address terrorism and organised crime. Hailing from Northern Ireland, and from my constituency, I believe that security measures are as essential as the NHS. Funding has to be set aside for policing and communities, but funding for additional staffing must also be met. Will the Minister meet the cost of those duties and demands, and not rely on further tax hikes at council level, which would fall on the shoulders and the backs of the middle class, who are already squeezed?

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman will know that this is a settlement for England and Wales. To his point, it is designed to help police and crime commissioners to manage the very real cost pressures that they face while giving them the space to continue their plans to recruit additional officers and fill key capability gaps. Our priority is to help the police to increase their capacity and to do an even better job in responding to increases in demand. That is the full intention of this settlement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

And the prize for patience and perseverance goes to Kerry McCarthy.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is one advantage to being called last, in that I have now heard the Minister respond over and over again to my many colleagues who have raised the increase in violent crime, the impact of the cuts and the loss of frontline police officers in their constituencies. He has not answered anyone who has questioned him on whether the extra money he has announced today will do any more than just fill the pensions funding gap. We have lost 700 frontline police officers in the Avon and Somerset force. Will today’s announcement mean that we can replace them?

[Mr Hurd]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady felt that she did not hear an answer to that question. The reality is that the additional pension costs for 2019-20 are £330 million, and this settlement is designed so that, if all police and crime commissioners use their precept flexibility, there will be an additional investment of £970 million in our police system. Within that, there is plenty of scope to go beyond standing still. Our intention is to support excellent forces such as Avon and Somerset to increase their capacity to deliver a better service to the hon. Lady’s constituents. This year, she voted against a settlement that put an additional £8 million into Avon and Somerset police, but I hope she will not vote against a settlement that has the potential to increase funding by up to £21 million for that police force in 2019-20.

EU Internal Security Fund: Opt-in Decision

Nick Hurd Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The Government have decided not to opt in (under the UK’s JHA opt-in protocol) to a proposal establishing an internal security fund (2021-27). The intended fund would not come into operation until the start of the next multiannual financial framework (2021), after the UK has exited the European Union and after the currently envisaged end of the proposed implementation period. As such, the UK would not be able to benefit from the fund as a member state.

In addition, the UK did not opt in to the previous iteration of the ISF as it provided no benefits to the UK beyond our own domestic capabilities. There is no evidence that this situation has changed, and that the ISF would remain a poor fit for UK policing needs. The benefits are unlikely to outweigh the cost of UK participation, and there was therefore no practical reason to opt in.

Until the UK leaves the EU it remains a full member, and the Government will continue to consider the application of the UK’s opt-in to EU legislation in the area of Justice and Home Affairs on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting our civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration.

[HCWS1173]