Sentencing (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Bill

Tom Hunt Excerpts

3rd reading & Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I welcome this Bill, which has my support on its Third Reading today. The Bill makes important steps to simplify criminal sentencing guidelines and, crucially, it improves the clarity of sentencing law to my constituents and the public at large. Currently, the sentencing law is over 1,300 pages long and even the most experienced judges and lawyers often find it complex to understand. In practice, this often leads to sentencing taking longer, dragging out the process of justice. This is not just significant in terms of limiting the efficiency of our courts and delivering justice: we also must remember that the longer the justice process is protracted, the more difficult and painful it is for victims, their families and their communities.

On top of this, the complex nature of our sentencing law leads to more errors being made in sentencing and more unlawful sentences being imposed. This in turn leads to more sentence appeals, further increasing the anguish of victims who must relive the ordeal. This Bill will certainly go some way to building public confidence in our justice system, but we still have great strides we need to take to fully win the public’s trust on the issue of sentencing. And we must build on this Bill today by making sentencing more honest, clearer and tougher.

As I have said, the Bill will make sentencing law more understandable, but more broadly, we currently have a sentencing regime that all too often does not do what it says on the tin. In many cases, when prison sentences are handed down by the courts, the full length of the sentence will never be served. These sentences are not honest either to the victims or to the public, who demand justice. The moves that the Government have made on this so far are to be welcomed, particularly the end of automatic halfway release for the most serious offenders, like those found guilty of rape and manslaughter. However, many other prisoners convicted of less serious crimes are still being let out at the halfway point. This is the case for those serving sentences of less than a year, but nearly two thirds of these petty offenders go on to reoffend.

Such is the expectation now that prisoners will be let out early that some judges have reportedly resorted to factoring this in when sentencing, awarding longer sentences than would otherwise be the case just to ensure that criminals spend the appropriate amount of time in jail. While this Bill will bring more transparency, we will not have full transparency until we have an honest sentencing regime where two years in prison means two years in prison, four years in prison means four years in prison and so on and so forth. The early release of prisoners underpins a sense among a large part of the public that the current law does not stand fully behind victims and the law-abiding people of this country.

Madam Deputy Speaker, when we are talking about making justice quicker and sparing the anguish of victims from drawn-out proceedings, as we are today, a discussion about the lenient tendencies of some judges and the often opaque sentencing appeals process also cannot be avoided. In April, the Court of Appeal overturned the sentence of Kyreis Davies, one of the men convicted of the brutal murder of Tavis Spencer-Aitkens in Ipswich in 2018. This act of evil shook the foundations of our town. And it has been a tragedy that has been extremely difficult to move on from, not least for Tavis’s family, who have been through hell. This has only been made harder by the Court of Appeal’s decision to reduce Davies’s sentence from a minimum of 21 years to just 16 years on the basis of his age at the time of this crime. Tavis’s family were not able to participate in this appeal, and Davies is now set to be let out in his early 30s, when he took the life of a 17-year-old who had his whole life ahead of him and lay on the ground bleeding outside his father’s house.

The leniency being displayed by some judges through legal processes that are often confusing and inaccessible to victims is completely out of touch with what the vast majority of the public consider to be appropriate and constitute justice. While, of course, we must respect the independence of the judiciary, it is fundamentally the public confidence in the judiciary which is at stake here and as representatives of the public, we must consider the ways we can ensure that the sentencing decisions of our courts reflect the values of the people we all serve here.

I had correspondence with the Ministry of Justice about the Davies case, and I have been over it with Tavis’s family. While I understand that Ministers may not be able to pass comment on the specific case, the family and I are still confused about why the sentence was reduced. I would be very grateful if Ministers could re-examine what has taken place in this case and provide further information, to shed more light on the appeals process.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do very much welcome this Bill. It is a step in the right direction, but for the public and for our constituents to have complete confidence in the sentencing regime, three things need to be ticked. First, it needs to be easy to understand; and that is why the Bill is to be welcomed. But also it needs to be honest—honest to the values of the people of our country. And I would also say, it needs to be tough, firm and fair. For those reasons, I welcome the Bill, but it is just the start of delivering on the promises that we stood on a manifesto to deliver.

Covid-19: UK Border Health Measures

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

Discussions have taken place through the usual channels across Government. In fact, up until recently, there was a series of committees including the Treasury and every involved Government Department to discuss the economic and health impacts of the public health measures and how they would be brought together, enforced and applied across the four nations.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

A couple of months ago, my constituents were overwhelmingly of the view that an international quarantine should have been introduced then. I believe that, right now, they are finely balanced but still just of a view that one is necessary, so I will be supporting the Government on this. However, at the same time I am getting more and more emails from constituents who have loved ones in other countries. Will the Home Secretary please commit to a flexible approach, and at the nearest opportunity will she please relax it?

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Tom Hunt Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 18th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

Is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber to speak on Second Reading of this Bill, which will end the EU freedom of movement and pave the way for a new points-based immigration system that treats everyone equally. Let me say at the outside that the Bill has my full support. Taking back control of our borders was one of the central reasons, if not the main reason, why millions of people up and down the country voted to leave the European Union almost four years ago. The Bill brings us one step closer to finally delivering on that historic verdict.

The desire to take back control of our borders is not to deny the immense contribution made by many people who have come here from overseas and will continue to do so in future; in fact, ending freedom of movement and building a points-based immigration system based on equality and individual merit will allow us to welcome more people from around the world who have so much to offer this country, On the contrary, taking back control is about ending the uncontrolled mass immigration that has disproportionately affected our working-class communities in recent decades. These communities have seen the increased pressure on their schools and hospitals, their wages have remained low, and there have been rapid cultural changes in the towns in which they live.

Although it is undoubtedly clear that the vast majority of those who have moved to our country under EU freedom of movement rules have made a positive contribution and integrated fully, the simple truth is that that has not been the case for everyone who has taken advantage of those rules, and many of our communities have been adversely affected because of that.

Today’s Bill gives us a power to continue to welcome into our country all those who wish to make a positive contribution to not just our economy but our society, while allowing us to say, “No,” to those whose impact is likely to be more dubious. That is the reality of the Bill, and it is a reality to be welcomed. For too long, those issues were known but locked inside the EU treaties. There was no way to address them through our traditional democratic process. Immigration was an issue snatched out of people’s democratic control, undermining their confidence in our political system, as well as in our ability to execute our fundamental responsibility as a nation to decide who enters our country.

We have an unmissable opportunity to restore the public’s confidence by building an immigration system that welcomes the best and the brightest from around the world while retaining democratic control and the consent of the people. Despite the clear support in the country for such reforms, the Labour party of today remains wedded to open borders and uncontrolled, mass immigration. During his leadership campaign, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) set out his full support for bringing back freedom of movement in the future, clearly disappointed that his attempts to reverse the decision of the 2016 referendum were not successful. If given the chance, it appears that he would do everything in his power to dilute and frustrate the decision instead. In other words, why set yourself against many of your party’s traditional supporters once when you can do it twice? By voting against the Bill tonight, the Labour party takes yet another step in its long march away from the people it once faithfully represented.

When we debate the future of our immigration system, we need to touch on illegal immigration, although I appreciate that that will be dealt with in a separate Bill. For public confidence in the system today, tackling illegal immigration must be one of the key issues that we confront. While thousands of people continue to break our laws by operating outside of our legal immigration system, the public will not have full faith that we have control of our borders. I urge the Government to build on the important work in this Bill by giving further consideration to how we tackle illegal immigration over the coming weeks and months.

As I said at the start of my speech, the Bill has my full support because it ends freedom of movement, gets us ready for a new global immigration system and helps to restore public confidence in the integrity of our borders. There is still more work to be done, and we cannot count on the Labour party’s support in doing it, but the era of uncontrolled and undemocratic mass immigration is certainly coming to an end, and that should be welcomed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that, as I said previously, the scientific advice is at the forefront of the Government’s thinking and there is no question at all of allowing any unsafe operating practice—by cruise ship operators or anyone else. The Government will not contemplate allowing this business to happen until the scientific advice categorically states that it is safe.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

13. What steps her Department is taking to reduce burglary and theft in crime hotspots.

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

Burglary and theft are a blight on all members of our community, which is why this Government are committed to reducing burglary and other neighbourhood crimes. We recently launched the £25 million safer streets fund to protect areas that are disproportionately affected by burglary and theft and to invest in well-evidenced crime prevention measures. A reduction in burglary, along with other neighbourhood crimes, will form one of the many outcomes we will be putting forward to the police that we expect to see as part of the recruitment of 20,000 police officers.

[Tom Hunt]

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will know following her recent visit to Ipswich, it has seen a number of burglaries in our town centre recently. These break-ins have been targeted at stores in specific parts of the town, including important local businesses like Willy’s & Milly’s café and Emilia Hair & Beauty Studio. Given that Suffolk constabulary’s resources are stretched and Suffolk urgently needs a review of the police funding formula, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the police in Ipswich have every resource they need to thoroughly investigate each burglary, bring the perpetrators to justice and prevent more such serious crimes from happening in the future, especially in the light of the additional pressures that tackling covid-19 will place upon the local force in Suffolk?

[Kit Malthouse]

Ipswich has rarely had a champion quite as robust as my hon. Friend, and he is right to be as persistent as he is in the defence of his town. I urge Suffolk constabulary, or the police and crime commissioner who represents Ipswich, to make a bid to the safer streets fund. Lots of things can be done to target-harden in particular areas where there are burglary hotspots. My hon. Friend is aware that we have given Suffolk constabulary another £9.2 million this year to start the recruitment of police officers, and of course there will be more to come in the years that follow, but he is right to keep up the pressure and I hope he will see results soon.

Climate Protests in Cambridge: Police Response

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I would not have asked for this Adjournment debate if I thought the issues arising from policing in Cambridge during the recent climate protests were of merely local interest, or related only to events in the past, but they are issues of national importance. Police forces across the country will have to grapple with them as the protests spread to other towns and cities, as they inevitably will. We have had London and Cambridge—where next? Far from being confined to the past, it seems to me that we are at the start of protests that are likely to escalate in frequency, duration and severity. There is widespread public anger about the events in Cambridge and deep concern among many of my fellow MPs. We have reached a situation in the UK where the police sometimes no longer believe that they have a right to stop blatant criminality during political protests. The issues raised by events in Cambridge need to be resolved. The powers of the police must be clarified, and the police must have the confidence to use them. Otherwise, we risk undermining the rule of law and even public support for the police.

On 16 February, Extinction Rebellion activists started a week of protests in Cambridge that initially involved a blockade of two major roads into Cambridge, preventing vehicles from getting in and out of the city and forcing ambulances carrying patients and other emergency vehicles to be re-routed. The blockade remained in place for a week. Blockading a road is an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980, but the police did not uphold the law and open the roads. Instead, they used emergency powers to close the roads legally, thereby giving protection to the blockades. The police were usually present during the blockades, but to protect the activists from angry members of the public.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a key issue here is the role of the College of Policing, which actually stated that blocking the public highway was not unlawful? It instructed the police in that way. Does not this also link in with a recent case in which advice from the College of Policing led to a situation where Harry Miller was visited by police on his doorstep to question his thinking on societal issues? Is it not time for the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office to look at the role of the College of Policing and the way in which it is unfortunately leading to skewed police priorities?

[Anthony Browne]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I shall come later to the issue of the advice from the College of Policing.

On 18 February, the protesters, armed with spades, dug up the lawn at Trinity College. They then proceeded to load soil into wheelbarrows and dump it in the foyer of Barclays bank—my branch of Barclays. Throughout this episode, Cambridgeshire police stood by and watched. They did not intervene to stop the criminal acts and no arrests were made at the time. The police said that they did not stop the criminal acts because they were concerned that to do so would be an infringement of the activists’ human rights. During the week, there were various acts of vandalism by activists, including at the iconic Schlumberger building and at a Shell petrol station. Subsequently, following public outrage and complaints from Trinity College, myself and Ministers, the police have arrested a total of nine activists.

The lack of police action against law-breaking protesters caused public fury across social media, the airwaves, the letters pages and my inbox. Virtually no one has argued that the police were right not to act. That public anger is very understandable. We rely on the police to uphold the rule of law, and not to let mob rule unfold. When those tasked with law enforcement appear to be unwilling or unable to intervene in flagrant criminal conduct, the public start to feel threatened. The public are also annoyed by the perceived double standard. Many said to me, “If I had blockaded the road or committed criminal damage, I’d be arrested on the spot. Why aren’t the protesters?” I want to put on record that I strongly support the ultimate objective of Extinction Rebellion in combating climate change, but I do not support its means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Clearly, a crime happening in front of the police is different from a crime being reported to the police. Obviously, every crime is investigated. Speaking from memory, some tens of thousands of people are prosecuted for theft and burglary every year. Of course, one reason why we are recruiting 20,000 extra police officers is to make sure that crimes can be even more thoroughly investigated than they are already. None the less, there is an expectation that the police will take action in relation to all crimes that they are aware of, particularly when the police have direct evidence in front of them that a crime is taking place.

In relation to the Trinity College incident, although arrests were not made immediately, subsequently, as one Member said, three protesters were arrested and charged with criminal damage. They have been released on bail and will appear at Cambridge magistrates court on 30 March. In relation to the incident at the Schlumberger oil service facility, a total of five people were arrested and charged with offences, including criminal damage, and again they will appear at Cambridge magistrates court on 30 March. In relation to the episode at the Shell petrol station, five arrests were made and four people were subsequently charged. The fact that people were arrested and charged is something that we can be pleased about.

[Tom Hunt]

Does the Minister agree that there appears to be an issue with the College of Policing? On many occasions, including on this one and also in the case of Harry Miller, the advice that it gives to the police is leading to skewed priorities for police forces.

[Chris Philp]

That is something that is always kept under careful review. My colleague, the Minister for Crime, Police and the Fire Service, is, unfortunately, at a conference this afternoon so cannot attend this debate, but I will ask him to write to my hon. Friend on that question. Perhaps the best thing is for him to write to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire on this College of Policing question, just to explore it a little further.

In relation to police powers, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, we have listened to police concerns regarding the challenges that they face managing protests. They have indicated that existing protest legislation can, in some places, be cumbersome, so Home Office officials have been working closely with senior Met officers, and also national policing leads to understand how we can make the existing public order legislation more effective if needed. That is ongoing at the moment.

In conclusion, we fully respect the right to peaceful protest. It is the foundation of our democracy, but that right does not include committing criminal acts, and we do expect the police to uphold the law. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for bringing this matter to the House’s attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Policing (England and Wales)

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing some reality to the discussion.

The Opposition have learnt that police chiefs have also recently been told to find another £165 million in 2019-20 and up to £417 million in 2020-21 as a result of the overhaul of pension schemes recently announced by the Treasury. We of course support better police pensions, and indeed better public sector pensions in general, but we do so by arguing that they should be properly funded, whereas Ministers want the money to support them to come out of the extra moneys that they are announcing today. The amount provided in the funding settlement to cover the pension changes is nowhere near the amount it will cost the police. There is a real risk that, with this poor beginning, the Government will fail to meet their total recruitment target. I hope that Government Members are taking due note.

Thirdly, I want to question the Government’s entire approach to this matter, because although police numbers are a key factor, they are only one aspect of combating serious and violent crime. The Government’s goal must be to keep our citizens safe, but their track record is abysmal. I know that this set of Ministers like to pretend that the record of the past 10 years has nothing to do with them, but most of the Ministers now in office voted for the police cuts that have been made. This is continuity Toryism, and they are continuity Tories.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

Is the right hon. Lady very proud of the Labour Mayor’s record on tackling crime in London?

[Ms Abbott]

As we know, the Labour Mayor is ultimately dependent on funding from the Government. Given the funding available, I am confident that Sadiq Khan has done the very best he can. The issue comes back to the totality of funding and the police funding formula.

The Tories cut the police and they should own it—cuts have consequences. But they also did much worse: they presided over soaring serious and violent crime, and an abysmally low detection and sanction rate—cautions or charges—even for some of the most serious crimes. The latest crime data for the year ending September 2019 was recently published. It shows a 7% rise in offences involving knives or sharp instruments recorded by the police. That is 46% higher than when comparable recording began—in the year ending March 2011—and the highest on record. That is the Government’s record.

Offences involving firearms hit a low in March 2015 but have risen since. Robbery offences are at a 10-year high. Fraud incidents are up sharply and now there are almost 4 million fraud crimes a year, often impacting on some of the most vulnerable members of our communities. Over the long term, the trend in total crime had been downwards, but under successive Tory-led Governments since 2010 that overall progress has stalled. A key part of this is the fact that central Government funding for police and crime commissioners has fallen by 30% in real terms since 2010-11.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

Ah, there is another Dorset MP in his place. The Dorset police do a fantastic job, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree.

The aim of the police, in my view, is to prevent crime and to catch criminals—that is it. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his place. He is doing a wonderful job, as he always has, and will be an extremely able Minister. I am sure he would agree that the police have more and more pressures piled on them, from looking after people with mental health issues to picking up wandering dogs. That is not their job. Their job is to catch criminals and to prevent crime. A lot of their time is taken up with doing other tasks. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for this increase in our funding, but I must remind him, as I have done in the past, that Dorset is near the bottom of the pile. We welcome the levelling up, but more levelling up is needed, and the funding formula, which Opposition Members have mentioned, definitely needs to be looked at.

Before I get on to the three points that the police and crime commissioner has asked me to raise, I would like to touch on minor crime. I will not speak for very long. We hear time and again about the effects of minor crime. As a journalist for 17 years, I covered those sorts of things, and I saw the damage that they did. One old lady, for example, lost all her belongings when a burglar stole her husband’s war medals. She died a year later from a broken heart. That is not a minor crime. It is burglary, which is very serious, and the effects of it are devastating. That is why we need more police officers on the beat. I understand that the nature of crime has changed and that more officers are now behind the scenes dealing with online crime and all those things. I get that, but that does not negate the need for men and women in uniform—not in yellow jackets. Can we get them back in their blue uniforms with the proper hats, please, so that we know what a policeman looks like? They stand for law and order. They are not a whole bunch of children on a sort of trail with yellow jackets all over the place. We need more officers on the beat, so that people can actually see them and the criminals who are about to commit a crime can see them. That means foot patrols in our cities, our towns and our villages. There is nothing that beats a foot patrol. I know that because I am an ex-soldier who served in Northern Ireland. That was our job—to deter the terrorist and, in the event, to catch them in the act.

[Tom Hunt]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in tackling crime, the police should spend far less time hounding members of the public for what they may or may not think on societal issues, such as in the case of Harry Miller and Humberside police, and far more time taking the side of the law-abiding majority and cracking down on the activities of Extinction Rebellion activists that we saw in Cambridge last week?

[Richard Drax]

I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend. As my colleagues know, I am very forthright in my views. Why did those police stand there while those activists dug up the lawn? If I did that, I would lose my job, my reputation—everything. They did not. Why not? That cannot be right. This is why we need more officers, to catch these people who are committing minor crimes. Minor crime undermines morale in our rural environment, in our towns and in our cities. Antisocial behaviour is another classic case in point. We need the police officers to jump on it, and jump on it fast.

Let me turn to the three points that I quickly want to make. We have a huge influx of tourists, and the funding formula does not cater for that. I would welcome some clarity on that when one of the Ministers sums up.

As part of the uplift programme, we have 50 new officers, whom we welcome. This is very good news. This uplift will take place over three years, and we expect another 120—I hope they come—but the police budgets are confirmed only one year at a time. A multi-year settlement would greatly help forces to plan for the future. Perhaps the Minister can expand on that when he sums up.

My final point relates to cases of fraud against the older population, which is becoming far too frequent. Sadly, many elderly people—many of my constituents—have been done on the telephone by these awful people who go to great lengths to sound like a bank or whatever it may be. The PCC said that he is mindful of the current review of serious and organised crime and aware of the negative publicity surrounding the national agency, Action Fraud. Does the Government have plans to deal with fraud in a different and more effective way in the future?

May I conclude in the same way that I started, by praising Dorset police and all the brave men and women who keep us safe both in the day and at night?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I congratulate the four Members who have made maiden speeches this evening: my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Laura Farris), for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). They do not only follow Nancy Astor; they follow in the footsteps of four very distinguished former Members of Parliament, and I am sure that they will fill their shoes with aplomb.

When we look at the settlement for Suffolk on a year-by-year basis, comparing like with like, we see that it is reasonable: an increase of £9.2 million, from £125.7 million to £134.9 million. I shall therefore support the motion. However, the current basis on which the annual settlements are calculated short-changes Suffolk, and is in urgent need of review.

[Tom Hunt]

rose—

[Peter Aldous]

I will give way to my fellow Suffolk MP.

[Tom Hunt]

First, let me compliment my hon. Friend on his Ipswich Town socks, which are brilliant. On a serious note, however, let me say that on Saturday night there was a potentially fatal attack in St Matthew’s Street in Ipswich. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the funding formula is reviewed, there should be a clear understanding in the Government that it is not sleepy, rural Suffolk, and that in Suffolk we have some real issues and urban areas where we need to get on top of crime, and we need the funding to do so?

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am about to set out the case for why Suffolk needs a far better funding settlement than it has at present.

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s value for money profiles show that Suffolk has the third lowest staffing numbers per 1,000 of the population. Despite that, the county’s latest PEEL report reveals that it puts a higher proportion of its workforce into neighbourhood policing than the national average, that £152 per head of population is spent on policing in Suffolk compared with the national average of £192, and that 43% of Suffolk’s policing budget comes from local taxation. That is one of the highest percentages in the country.

There is indeed the challenge of rurality to contend with. Moreover, Suffolk has a high percentage of elderly residents, with approximately 13,000 people currently diagnosed with dementia. That creates additional safeguarding issues, and hence added pressure on the police. There are deprived neighbourhoods in Lowestoft in my constituency, and also in Ipswich, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and they too need more support.

Suffolk has a long and porous coastline with 31 ports and marinas, and has for many years been a target for organised crime gangs involved in illegal immigration and the illegal drugs trade. The presence of the UK’s largest container port at Felixstowe, and the policing of the A12 and A14 routes to London and the midlands and north respectively, attract no additional support or funding.

Quite rightly, Suffolk constabulary has been collaborating with its neighbours in Norfolk in order to save money and reduce backroom costs. This collaboration, which began in 2010, has been successful and has yielded savings for Suffolk of £19 million. There is now very limited scope for making further significant changes. If Suffolk received the national average funding, the police budget would increase by nearly £30 million. If we received the same level of Home Office funding as neighbouring Norfolk, our collaborating partners, Suffolk’s grant would be £4 million higher. The case for reviewing the funding formula is strong. The Government have been promising a review since 2015, and I understand that at present it is intended that this should not take place until after the comprehensive spending review. I ask the Minister to provide, in her summing up, a more precise and, if possible, earlier timetable for carrying out this review. It is long overdue and Suffolk people are currently losing out.