Police Grant Report

Debate between Nick Hurd and Jack Dromey

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

As I have said, I am more than happy to meet the Merseyside MPs, but this settlement is set up to increase public investment in our police service by up to £970 million. If it is voted through tonight, it means that we will invest more than £2 billion more next year than we did three years ago. How that can be presented as a cut is beyond me. What the public will note is that the Labour party has fought us every step of the way—it voted against the settlement last year and it intends to vote against it tonight. Labour is apparently blind to the fact that while we are committing to almost £2 billion of investment in the police service next year, its commitment is for £780 million over the life of this Parliament.

[Jack Dromey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hurd]

I am not going to give way.

I am delighted that police and crime commissioners up and down the country intend to use the settlement to do what the public want, which is to recruit additional police officers—300 more in London, 320 more in Manchester, 160 more in Bedfordshire, 58 more in Derbyshire, 270 more in Sussex, and 132 more in Yorkshire. Across the system, more than 2,500 more police officers are planned, plus 479 staff. That is the result of the police settlement that the Labour party intends to vote against.

Police Funding Settlement

Debate between Nick Hurd and Jack Dromey

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[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.

Police: Financial Sustainability

Debate between Nick Hurd and Jack Dromey

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

We do; I agree and totally accept the argument that we need more resources for the police, which is exactly what we have delivered. That includes an additional £9.7 million for Hampshire police, whom I meet regularly. Across the country forces are using that money to recruit additional officers: 500 more here in London, 200-odd in Kent, 150-odd in Essex, 150-odd in Nottingham, and 100 in West Mercia. Across the country police forces are using the additional resources we are able to deliver, as a result of our successful stewardship of the economy since 2010, to deliver what the public want, which is more policing. We would not be able to do that under the Labour party’s policies.

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

With 2,000 police officers cut in West Midlands police, crime is soaring, violent crime by 59%. Communities increasingly live in fear, as Ministers are in denial as to the consequences of their actions. Does the Minister not accept that the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, and that it is absolutely wrong that under the existing formula the West Midlands cut is in excess of twice that of Surrey?

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman and I have had many exchanges over the year about West Midlands police and I hope he welcomes—although he voted against it—the funding settlement that will see an additional £9.9 million go into West Midlands policing. David Thompson, the chief, has made many representations to me about fair funding and I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier remarks: substantive work needs to be done around fairer funding of the police system and the CSR is the right place to do that.

Police Station Closures: Solihull and West Midlands

Debate between Nick Hurd and Jack Dromey

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) on securing the debate. In my experience, few Members pressed me harder on the case for more support for the police in the run-in to the funding settlement. He is a tireless advocate on that point.

I also associate myself with the remarks from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), in praising the work of West Midlands police, which is recognised to be one of the most effective, innovative and important police forces in the country. My right hon. Friend asked for verification, and he is right that its efficiency rating was downgraded from outstanding to good. However, it is generally recognised that West Midlands police does an extremely good job under very difficult circumstances indeed.

What is the debate about? Labour Members have tried to make it a tribal debate about police funding. Listening carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull actually said, the debate is about accountability and respect to the public whom we serve as elected representatives. The point made to the House is that there has been a deficit and a failing in that respect, which I will address in my remarks. The reality is that—again, Labour Members have tried to shift around on this—we operate in a system of accountability, in which Ministers are thankfully not responsible for decisions on police stations in Solihull or anywhere else.

The accountability to the public that we serve is through the directly elected police and crime commissioners. Whether Conservative or Labour, PCCs are accountable to the public for these kind of operating decisions, which matter because the public care about them. People are sensitive about police stations, as I know from my own area. We need to be clear about where accountability lies. The attempt to blame others is disingenuous. Accountability needs to be clear: the directly elected PCCs, whether Labour or Conservative, are accountable to the public for those decisions. We do these issues a disservice if we try to fog that.

In this context, let us be clear: the PCC in this case—I would say the same whether he was Labour or Conservative —has a very difficult job to do, because resources are constrained. However, the reality is that any PCC has active choices. When they have active choices, they have to make an argument to the public about why they are taking the decisions that they are. In this case, he has active choices because there is more money in the West Midlands police system.

Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield is absolutely right: as a result of the funding settlement, which Labour voted against, there will be an additional £9.5 million for West Midlands police, which is a 1.8% increase. As has also been pointed out, West Midlands police has significant levels of reserves—more than £100 million as of March 2017, which is 20.2% of its total cash funding and five percentage points above the national average.

Here is the critical point, which has not yet been made: those reserves have increased by £26.9 million since 2011. That is the context for all this doom and gloom about savage cuts to West Midlands policing: the police and crime commissioner has increased his reserves by £26.9 million. One can do that only by not spending the money that one has been given by the taxpayer. The police and crime commissioner has active choices at this moment in time; it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

[Jack Dromey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hurd]

In that context, I would suggest to the police and crime commissioner that instead of blaming the Government and everyone else, he has to make an argument to the people whom he serves, and there is an argument to be made. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) were actually almost thoughtful on the point about the debate that can be had about the role of police stations in 21st-century, modern policing. I am talking about looking at the data about how the public actually use them and at the potential for mobile working. There is a debate and an argument to be had. It is not good enough to fog that out by simply blaming the Government.

[Mr Hurd]

It is an active choice made by the police and crime commissioner. The irony of the situation is that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who speaks from the Front Bench for the Labour party on the police, has more information about the police and crime commissioner’s plans for the use of reserves than the elected Member of Parliament for Solihull does. What does that say about the flows of information between the elected police and crime commissioner and the elected representatives for the west midlands? That is why I am pressing police forces across the country to be more transparent about their use of reserves—because they are sitting on £1.6 billion, and the figure has increased since 2011 by more than a quarter of a billion pounds. It is the public’s money, and they have a right to better information about how it will be used, particularly when they are being confronted with hard choices and decisions.

My final point is about the consultation. I am arguing that the PCC has to take an argument to the public. There is an argument to be made about rationalising the police estate and about the role of police stations. It is not good enough to blame others. The PCC should make the argument and—I do not want to be accused of being tribalist, because that would be unfair—he might want to take a lesson from the Labour Mayor of London, who also went out to consultation on closing police stations. He made a complete hash of it, I would say, but to his credit and that of his office, when confronted with evidence of the hash they were making, he changed his mind. He planned, in my constituency, to close all police stations apart from one.

Faced with the evidence that we presented about the folly and the lack of preparation, the Mayor has actually changed his mind and is re-consulting on Pinner, is keeping Ruislip station open and is working with Hillingdon on its plans to buy Uxbridge police station. He has been open-minded. That is a Labour Mayor of London—I do not want to be accused of being tribal—showing some genuine flexibility in the face of public opinion.

I have heard from my colleagues about the consultation. If the PCC has gone into the consultation in the way described—I have heard about Members of Parliament hearing things at second hand, from other people; I am hearing the words “zero engagement with people”; and I am hearing about a short consultation period—I suspect that he is going to fail on this, and therefore I would urge him to listen quite carefully to the people who represent the people whom he serves and to recognise that on the issue of people’s police stations, which is one of great sensitivity, he has not taken people with him. I therefore urge him to think again.

[Jack Dromey]

rose—

[Mr Hurd]

I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been patient.

[Jack Dromey]

On accountability, which is very important, does the Minister accept responsibility for £145 million-worth of cuts to the West Midlands police service budget, the loss of 2,000 police officers and, more recently, a real-terms cut in funding for the police service? That is surely a matter for the Government, because the Government have made the decisions. Does the Minister accept responsibility for those decisions?

[Mr Hurd]

I accept responsibility for a funding settlement that will increase police funding by £450 million next year. That means that we will be spending £1 billion more next year on our police system than we were in 2015-16. It is a settlement that the hon. Gentleman and others voted against.

However, the point that I am trying to make in this debate is that I do not think that this is an issue about funding in the west midlands, because we are talking about relatively small sums of money in the context of an organisation with a budget of over half a billion pounds a year. I think that this is an issue of accountability and a flawed process of consultation with the people whom we serve and the police and crime commissioner serves. Therefore, I urge him to listen very carefully to the representations made by Conservative Members of Parliament: my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). Clearly, something has gone wrong in the process of consulting and engaging with the people whom the PCC represents.

This matter should not be shrouded in tribal rhetoric about funding the police. Funding for West Midlands police has gone up. They are sitting on large reserves that have grown since 2011. There are active choices. In that context, the police and crime commissioner should show some respect to the people whom he serves and engage in a meaningful dialogue and engagement with the people on an issue on which they are clearly very sensitive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Hurd and Jack Dromey

Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Crime is rising sharply in the west midlands, yet police numbers are falling—2,000 have gone and yet more are to go in the next stages. How can it be right or fair that Hampshire, which has nowhere near the same problems or challenges, gets treated more favourably than the west midlands?

[Mr Hurd]

I do not recognise that depiction. West Midlands police is set to get an additional £9.5 million and will be able to keep increases in council tax. Let us remember that this force has increased its reserves by £26.9 million since 2011.

Policing

Debate between Nick Hurd and Jack Dromey

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I agree. Labour MPs are chuntering about tax increases, but when they call for more investment, where do they think it will come from? I was accused earlier of passing the buck. The reality—I know that the Labour party does not like it—is that we have changed the model so that the public can see clearer lines of responsibility and accountability for the performance of their police service, and in London that means the Mayor. Instead of sitting in his bunker writing letters asking for more money, the Mayor should get out there and tell us what he is doing to implement his crime plan.

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

Two thousand West Midlands police officers have gone. Crime is up by 15%. There have been nine stabbings and shootings in Erdington in recent months. Pensioners are afraid to go out at night. Shopkeepers are saying that people are increasingly afraid to come out and shop at night. They all had hoped that their voice would be heard by the Government. A flat-cash settlement delivering £9.5 million will come nowhere near the £22 million that West Midlands police needs in order to stand still. That will mean further reductions in police numbers and betraying the first duty of any Government, which is the safety and security of their citizens.

[Mr Hurd]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is welcoming the additional £9.5 million of investment or not. We had a very sensible and constructive conversation with the rest of the west midlands MPs, and I think that he knows in his heart of hearts that when he goes back to speak with his chief and his police and crime commissioner, they will tell him that it is a better settlement than they expected.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Hurd and Jack Dromey

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

The Department is and will continue to be rigorous in engaging with sectors across the economy to understand the issues of competitiveness and to understand where playing fields can be levelled, so that that can inform the negotiating strategy and the industrial strategy.

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

An end to uncertainty for Nissan workers is deeply welcome, but there are millions of workers who want to know if they, too, have a future, and there are thousands of employers who are holding back from investment decisions, as the Engineering Employers Federation’s survey has demonstrated, until they, too, know the future. Will the Government act to end uncertainty, spelling out precisely how they will defend British manufacturing interests, otherwise it will be workers and their companies who will pay the price in Brexit Britain?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Of course, as a west midlands MP, he sits at the heart of a region that is being very dynamic and organised in expressing its determination to compete aggressively. Let me reassure him. I recognise the uncertainty—Brexit does create tremendous uncertainty and we need to recognise that—but it is the responsibility of the Government, and my Department in particular, to liaise closely with sectors across the economy and the regions to understand their priorities and inform the negotiating strategy.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nick Hurd and Jack Dromey

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

My hon. Friend is right that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is not about driving down wages and conditions for agricultural workers, but about removing regulatory burdens on farm businesses and allowing them to focus on the business of farming.

[Jack Dromey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hurd]

I will not, with great respect, because I have given way a great deal and have limited time in which to draw my remarks to a close.

I would like to return to the core issue of why we believe the Bill is needed and deserves a Second Reading: the benefits it will deliver for good government in this country. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office announced the results of a radical review programme, as a result of which we proposed that almost 500 bodies should be reformed, and in many instances those reforms are already complete or in progress. However, a large number of those bodies have a statutory basis, so legislation is required to turn the Government’s proposals into reality. In some cases departmental Bills provide an appropriate vehicle for the changes, but where that is not the case the Public Bodies Bill represents a sensible legislative solution. It gives the Government the necessary powers to take forward these much-needed reforms without Departments having to wait for primary legislation, preventing unnecessary delay where the case for change is clear.

The Bill achieves that by giving Ministers a series of powers, outlined in clauses 1 to 5, to make changes to public bodies through secondary legislation, subject to a number of safeguards, the completion of a consultation process and the approval of Parliament. I emphasise that those powers are strictly limited in scope. The powers to make orders apply only to the bodies and offices listed in the corresponding schedule to the Bill, to which bodies can be added only through primary legislation, meaning that Parliament will remain the ultimate arbiter over when the use of those powers is appropriate.

Following a review by the other place, important changes have been made to the Bill. Specifically, we have arrived at mechanisms to include a number of proportionate restrictions on the use of the powers set out in the Bill. On independence, we have introduced provision in clause 7 to prevent the Bill from being used in a way that prevents important public functions, such as those of a judicial nature, from being amended in a way that stops them being exercised independently of Ministers. On consultation, we have required that Ministers consult on their proposals before laying a draft order before Parliament. The Bill now provides the option of selecting an enhanced scrutiny procedure for any draft order, giving Parliament and its Committees 60 days to consider a proposal and make representations to Ministers. Clause 12 sunsets the contents of the schedules after five years.

In summary, the reforms we have proposed and that have been debated again today will produce a leaner and more effective system of public bodies centred on the principle of ministerial accountability. We have listened intently to the comments and concerns expressed during the debate and recognise that there are areas where the Government can helpfully produce further clarity and assurance, and the Deputy Leader of the House and I look forward to continuing to engage with hon. Members in Committee and elsewhere.

However, I reiterate my hope that the House can come together in support of the belief that ministerial accountability for public functions and the use of public money should be at the heart of how we conduct ourselves. The Government believe that the proposals embodied in the Bill and in our plans for a regular comprehensive review of all public bodies will set a new standard for the management and review of public bodies, and on that basis I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.