22/02/2017

:00:00. > :00:09.aviation Bill. Second reading, what day? Any day! Tomorrow. Tomorrow.

:00:10. > :00:20.Thank you. We come now, colleagues, to the ten minute rule motion. James

:00:21. > :00:26.Berry. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move the leave be given for me to

:00:27. > :00:30.bring in a bill to amend section 48 or the Lee Valley regional park act

:00:31. > :00:33.1966 to remove the power of the Lee Valley regional park authority to

:00:34. > :00:37.raise funds by way of levy on any local authority whose local

:00:38. > :00:42.authority area falls outside the area defined under section 2.2 of

:00:43. > :00:47.that act and for connected purposes. Like so many people in this country,

:00:48. > :00:51.I love our parks and open spaces. I enjoy walking in the stunning parks

:00:52. > :00:56.we enjoy in south-west London almost every weekend, and I doubt that I

:00:57. > :01:04.can improve on the conclusions of local government committee to Mac'

:01:05. > :01:10.-- local government committees' excellent reports. Parks are

:01:11. > :01:16.essential to the lives of their communities, providing leisure,

:01:17. > :01:19.exercise and also are fundamental to community cohesion, physical and

:01:20. > :01:23.mental health and well-being, biodiversity and local economic

:01:24. > :01:26.growth. I would be pleased to welcome any member of this House to

:01:27. > :01:32.one of our excellent local park in the royal borough of Kingston upon

:01:33. > :01:36.Thames, to the injured Fairfield in Kingston, fish ponds part, Toloa

:01:37. > :01:42.court farm, Chessington or Beverley park in new Maldon to name but a

:01:43. > :01:45.few. All of these parks are open for the public to enjoy, and all are

:01:46. > :01:51.maintained with Kingston taxpayers' money. The same is the case for

:01:52. > :01:58.virtually every part of the country, local taxpayers pay for their local

:01:59. > :02:02.parks. But Lee Valley park is different, it is paid for by local

:02:03. > :02:06.ratepayers but also by ratepayers of every single London borough, and

:02:07. > :02:10.this includes my borough of Kingston upon Thames, which is about as far

:02:11. > :02:15.away from the Lee Valley as one can get within Greater London. Let me be

:02:16. > :02:18.caveat said. I have no quarrel with the Lee Valley regional park. It is

:02:19. > :02:23.an excellent facility enjoyed by many Londoners full stop my simple

:02:24. > :02:27.contention is that at a time when councils are having to reduce their

:02:28. > :02:31.own parks budgets, it is no longer justifiable that hefty sums are

:02:32. > :02:41.levied on London borough to maintain a park that is miles away and seldom

:02:42. > :02:46.used by their resident Mac. S. The Lee Valley regional park authority

:02:47. > :02:49.was created in 1966 to maintain the valley, it is a 10,000 acres amenity

:02:50. > :02:54.from Hertfordshire to East India Dock, and as well as the counties of

:02:55. > :03:00.Essex and Hertfordshire, seven out of London's 32 boroughs have parts

:03:01. > :03:04.of their park within it. It contains several state-of-the-art Olympic

:03:05. > :03:09.sporting venues such as the Whitewater venue for the Olympics,

:03:10. > :03:18.and this was partially funded by the Mayor of London's Olympic precept

:03:19. > :03:21.which Londoners have footed the bill for. The clause in the act allows

:03:22. > :03:26.the authority to raise funds for the upkeep of the park by way of a levy

:03:27. > :03:30.on every London borough as well as three councils immediately outside

:03:31. > :03:34.London. This unusual funding model might have been appropriate in 1966,

:03:35. > :03:40.and certainly this House deemed it so 50 years ago, but rather like the

:03:41. > :03:42.England football team's fortunes, the financial position of local

:03:43. > :03:47.authorities was rather more favourable in 1966 than it is now.

:03:48. > :03:55.Local authorities have had to make significant spending cuts following

:03:56. > :04:02.repeated cuts to their grants, and will have to continue to do so.

:04:03. > :04:05.Councils are having to retreat to meeting the increasing demand of

:04:06. > :04:09.statutory services like adult social care at the expense of discretionary

:04:10. > :04:13.services including parks. The Si Yajie committee's report shows that

:04:14. > :04:20.92% of local authority parks departments have experienced budget

:04:21. > :04:22.reductions in the last three years. Kingston's Conservative council has

:04:23. > :04:25.rightly maintain funding on parks, but that is a political commitment

:04:26. > :04:31.the Conservative group made in the 2040 local elections and one that

:04:32. > :04:34.comes at the opportunity cost of funding in other discretionary areas

:04:35. > :04:39.that other councils have chosen to prioritise, so it is against this

:04:40. > :04:42.backdrop that there is increasing disquiet, particularly south of the

:04:43. > :04:46.Thames, at having to pay the Lee Valley park's massive annual levy.

:04:47. > :04:49.The opportunity to present this ten minute rule Bill is timely, because

:04:50. > :04:54.local authorities receive their demand from the authority just

:04:55. > :05:02.before recess on February ten, and the 2017/18 levy is over ?10

:05:03. > :05:05.million. I should point out this is a small reduction, and a welcome

:05:06. > :05:09.reduction on last year's levy. But it is out of step with the reduction

:05:10. > :05:17.in funding for local authorities over the same period. The demand on

:05:18. > :05:23.my local authority of Kingston is 160,000 pounds, and over the same

:05:24. > :05:28.period, Kingston Council will be spending ?1.3 million on parks,

:05:29. > :05:32.trees and ground maintenance within our borough, Sir R ratepayers would

:05:33. > :05:35.rightly ask me when our own services are under pressure they are being

:05:36. > :05:42.forced to pay a sum equivalent to 10% of our borough's own parks

:05:43. > :05:49.budget to maintain apart 20 miles and -- away which most never use and

:05:50. > :05:52.some have never heard of. A number of arguments will be levied against

:05:53. > :05:56.me, the first that believe Valley park is there for the enjoyment of

:05:57. > :06:02.all Londoners, so the cosh should be shared across London. But as would

:06:03. > :06:05.be expected, there is an uneven distribution of visitors, with the

:06:06. > :06:07.number of visitors coming from contiguous borrowers far

:06:08. > :06:11.outstripping the numbers coming from other boroughs, particularly south

:06:12. > :06:16.of the river, and this is borne out by the visitor statistics for last

:06:17. > :06:24.year, with show that 6005000 visits were made by residents from Waltham

:06:25. > :06:30.Forest, yet only 5000 by Kingston resident and 4000 by Sutton

:06:31. > :06:33.residents. Dividing the resident levied by the number of visitors,

:06:34. > :06:40.the cost per visit tells an interesting story. A visit from each

:06:41. > :06:49.Waltham Forest resident costs 32p per visitor. A visit from a Kingston

:06:50. > :06:53.resident costs my local council ?32 per visitor, and I suggest that is

:06:54. > :07:01.unreasonable. A visitor from Sutton costs their council ?46.92 per

:07:02. > :07:05.visit, and the levy bears no relation to the number of visitors

:07:06. > :07:09.from a borough in the previous year. I suggest even if my bill is not

:07:10. > :07:13.carried, the funding formula is in need of radical review. Another

:07:14. > :07:18.point that might be made against me is that the Lee Valley park would

:07:19. > :07:23.suffer from a loss of funding from all London boroughs, let me be

:07:24. > :07:26.clear, I do not want to see any diminution in the quality of the

:07:27. > :07:30.park. There are many other funding models. The levy on local

:07:31. > :07:34.authorities proximate to the park could be increased, though that

:07:35. > :07:37.clearly would not be popular with those local authorities. The park

:07:38. > :07:41.could be funded by central government in the same way that the

:07:42. > :07:46.royal parks and national parks are. Or the part could find ways to

:07:47. > :07:52.reduce its frankly very high outlay. Its budget is twice that of the

:07:53. > :07:55.largest park in the country, the Lake District national park, 58

:07:56. > :08:01.times the size of the Lee Valley regional park, or it could increase

:08:02. > :08:03.its revenue, including through the use of the amazing sporting

:08:04. > :08:09.facilities it has been gifted at the taxpayers' expense. And the noble

:08:10. > :08:12.lord Trew offered some suggestions to this effect in the Other Place

:08:13. > :08:16.last March. I do not pretend to have a solution today for the future

:08:17. > :08:20.funding model of the park. That will be a matter for debate and

:08:21. > :08:25.consultation in the future. So in conclusion, Mr Speaker, it is my

:08:26. > :08:29.contention that the Lee Valley regional park authority should have

:08:30. > :08:32.it statutory power to levy local authorities outside the area in

:08:33. > :08:35.which it sits should be removed. This is also the contention of

:08:36. > :08:40.colleagues on the Government benches who have kindly lent their support

:08:41. > :08:42.to this bill. The contention of London's Conservative council

:08:43. > :08:46.leaders and of the Greater London authority Conservative group in the

:08:47. > :08:55.London assembly, and having reviewed reports on the note Lee Valley

:08:56. > :08:59.campaign, a number of representatives across the political

:09:00. > :09:03.divide agree, too. The Lee Valley regional Parks act passed through

:09:04. > :09:05.this House over 50 years ago when the financial position of local

:09:06. > :09:10.authorities was very different to that today. In straitened times,

:09:11. > :09:15.when local authorities are being required to cut their own parks'

:09:16. > :09:19.budgets, it is simply not right that vast sums are being levied

:09:20. > :09:22.year-on-year by the Lee Valley authority on boroughs like Kingston

:09:23. > :09:27.to pay for the upkeep of a park many miles away that is seldom used by

:09:28. > :09:30.their residents. I hope that the Lee Valley regional park has a long

:09:31. > :09:38.future, but not at the expense of taxpayers in Kingston or across

:09:39. > :09:43.London. The question is that the honourable member have leave to

:09:44. > :09:49.bring in the Bill. Stella Creasy. Mr Speaker, I rise to oppose this

:09:50. > :09:52.legislation, and I hope the honourable gentleman opposite will

:09:53. > :09:57.give me an opportunity to explain why. Let me declare straitened

:09:58. > :09:59.foremost as a member Parliament for Waltham Forest I'm a regular user of

:10:00. > :10:05.the Lee Valley park authority spaces. I have been to the ice rink.

:10:06. > :10:12.I'm afraid I haven't been on the horses. I certainly walk the

:10:13. > :10:16.wetlands. I also as a young child enjoyed the parks of Kingston, my

:10:17. > :10:21.grandparents living in Surbiton. And it is for that reason I believe that

:10:22. > :10:24.this legislation that the gentleman proposes is fundamentally misguided,

:10:25. > :10:32.because he misses the point of the value of regional Parks for London

:10:33. > :10:35.and for all of our constituents, for the benefit of maintaining and

:10:36. > :10:40.developing beautiful spaces for recreation, nature and enjoyment for

:10:41. > :10:45.all our constituent Roumat, and I hope at the time available to me

:10:46. > :10:47.that I can set out the five reasons I believe that white he might feel

:10:48. > :10:49.he is standing up for the residents of Kingston, he actually may be

:10:50. > :11:11.selling them short. Even born respect the fact that

:11:12. > :11:18.London needed green spaces. We referred to Lee Valley's authority

:11:19. > :11:24.is London's lung. It has 10,000 acres of Greenland benefiting every

:11:25. > :11:29.single resident of London. Patrick Abercrombie, who argued for the case

:11:30. > :11:33.of this park never saw it as simply benefiting those who live nearby,

:11:34. > :11:38.recognising the investment or the regions could make in that park

:11:39. > :11:45.benefiting every constituents. When he talks about the visitor numbers,

:11:46. > :11:51.I share his concern, not as many of his residence, as my residents, use

:11:52. > :11:56.the park. I would encourage them to come to the park and benefit from

:11:57. > :12:00.the green lung. He talks about citizens in Kingston not having

:12:01. > :12:06.heard of the Lee Valley Park. Many will have watched and visited the

:12:07. > :12:12.Olympics. VuliVuli regional Park played a key part in the Olympics.

:12:13. > :12:22.Many constituents cheering on Joe Clark as the won GB's first medal.

:12:23. > :12:27.While he thinks he is talking up for his constituents, he may understand

:12:28. > :12:31.their pride on what the Lee Valley Park delivered during the Olympics

:12:32. > :12:36.and continues to deliver. When he talks about visitor numbers, we have

:12:37. > :12:41.seen a 50% increase in people coming to leave early. That is directly

:12:42. > :12:43.because people saw the benefits of having the Olympic recreational

:12:44. > :12:51.facilities on our doorstep in London. It is more than that, not

:12:52. > :12:56.just about whether people are coming, it is the concept of a green

:12:57. > :13:01.lung. The air quality in our city has never been worse. Constituents

:13:02. > :13:05.coming to him like they do me about the air quality in London, and their

:13:06. > :13:09.concerns. The value of green spaces become more paramount, not just to

:13:10. > :13:13.those living in the area, the member for Richmond jumping up and down.

:13:14. > :13:18.The same argument comes for Richmond Park. The value of the spaces

:13:19. > :13:23.becomes bigger, not smaller when we are facing such a crisis with the

:13:24. > :13:27.quality of air and the quality of our environment in this city. The

:13:28. > :13:31.fact we have 14 sites of scientific interest in VuliVuli Park identifies

:13:32. > :13:39.the specialisms we have there. I would like to invite the member for

:13:40. > :13:43.Kingston, instead of not visiting, come and see the benefits of the

:13:44. > :13:48.Walthamstow wetlands. A National site of significance. The crucial

:13:49. > :13:53.pressure for all of us. I would like to invite all the members opposite

:13:54. > :14:03.to you: see the Walthamstow the herons the cormorants we have in

:14:04. > :14:07.London. This is the point. Sometimes we invest together because we

:14:08. > :14:15.benefit together. Lee Valley regional Park authority is exactly

:14:16. > :14:20.that. Set up in the 1960s to recognise the mutual investment in

:14:21. > :14:32.green spaces in London. In the 21st 2017, the case for the spaces grows

:14:33. > :14:37.even bigger. Certainly the member opposite's could ask about the

:14:38. > :14:42.funding for the Royal Parks. Whether or not, I did listen to what he

:14:43. > :14:46.said. I did look at his legislation, not suggesting a similar cut in the

:14:47. > :14:51.Royal Parks funding, reflecting concern about whether residents from

:14:52. > :14:56.Kingston go to the Royal Parks. That is the point are invest in these

:14:57. > :15:01.regional organisations for our mutual benefit. I recognise the

:15:02. > :15:06.point he's making about local government cuts. Maybe he should be

:15:07. > :15:10.talking to the front bench about the way the funding level for local

:15:11. > :15:16.government has gone down, rather than skimping in saving on such

:15:17. > :15:20.valuable regional authorities. If we only ever see Parks is valuable to

:15:21. > :15:25.people who live directly next to them, of which I am one of them, I

:15:26. > :15:28.recognise that. We missed the point of the benefit of having these

:15:29. > :15:35.authorities. Rather than trying to cut corners, he makes the case to

:15:36. > :15:37.the front bench of that proper investment in local government,

:15:38. > :15:42.proper funding for local government. Not trying to cut the funding to

:15:43. > :15:47.this green lung for London that his constituents can benefit from.

:15:48. > :15:55.Encourage his constituents to come and use the facilities they are

:15:56. > :15:59.painful. He will find a warm welcome in the north-east corner of London.

:16:00. > :16:03.While I recognise the member for Kingston may think he is making a

:16:04. > :16:07.case for the residents of Kingston, I believe the residents of London,

:16:08. > :16:11.which the residents of Kingston and Surbiton are some, they deserve

:16:12. > :16:16.better for all of us. To think strategically, invest in regional

:16:17. > :16:21.parks like this. To see London as potentially an urban green part in

:16:22. > :16:24.the future. To invest in green spaces, to recognise the benefits

:16:25. > :16:29.for all of us. Fully small amount of funding entails. To make a case of

:16:30. > :16:32.local funding for government. This bill does not do any of these

:16:33. > :16:37.things, I don't believe it should proceed further in the House. There

:16:38. > :16:41.are others from our part of London and across the country who will come

:16:42. > :16:49.and benefit from the Walthamstow wetlands, he will agree with me. The

:16:50. > :16:53.question is that the honourable member have leave to bring the bill.

:16:54. > :17:04.As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no".. I

:17:05. > :17:10.think the ayes have it. He will bring in the bill. Bob Blackman,

:17:11. > :17:27.Neil Stewart. Mike Freer, Victoria Royo. Syriza Villiers, and me, Sir.

:17:28. > :18:02.Lee Valley regional Park Amendment Bill. Second reading stop 24th of

:18:03. > :18:07.March. We come to motion number two on the police grant report, England

:18:08. > :18:13.and Wales. To move, I called the Minister, Brendan Lewis. Thank you

:18:14. > :18:17.Mr Speaker. I bid to move that the police grant report, laid before

:18:18. > :18:24.this House on the 1st of February be approved. In addition to seeking

:18:25. > :18:27.approval, I think it is right to outline the context in which we find

:18:28. > :18:35.it covers the work around the continuation of the job we have of

:18:36. > :18:40.seeing through police reform. This funding settlement provides a fair

:18:41. > :18:42.and stable funding for the police, providing essential policing reform

:18:43. > :18:51.and tremendous summation to go further and faster, so we make sure

:18:52. > :18:58.we have support from the vulnerable, supporting crime fighting in our

:18:59. > :19:03.communities. Today I'm seeking this House's approval for the second

:19:04. > :19:10.reading. We protected police spending last year, and I'm pleased

:19:11. > :19:18.to say that the 20 17th funding settlement maintains protection for

:19:19. > :19:29.police spending. -- the 2017 - 18 settlement. On December 15 Islay

:19:30. > :19:44.-- I laid before the House the funding, along with a ministerial

:19:45. > :19:49.statement, after careful consideration of the consultation

:19:50. > :19:56.responses. We have decided force level allegations will be as

:19:57. > :20:02.announced in December. I believe providing stable funding is the

:20:03. > :20:06.right way to allocate. I am concerned that the Minister may have

:20:07. > :20:11.inadvertently misled the House. He has said here's been able to protect

:20:12. > :20:14.police budgets, after the precept is taken into account. That is not the

:20:15. > :20:20.case in greater magister police, they had to cut front line policing

:20:21. > :20:26.even though they used the whole precept power. Will he correct the

:20:27. > :20:31.record? Greater magister police is a good example of a police force that

:20:32. > :20:37.has increased reserves. Across the sector they have increased reserves

:20:38. > :20:40.by 400 million. The reality is for policing when the precept is taken

:20:41. > :20:43.into account we are delivering on the spending review statement, the

:20:44. > :20:51.funding settlement maintains protection for police spending. Our

:20:52. > :20:53.police forces do a great job, they need funding to support vital work.

:20:54. > :21:11.So-called traditional crafts the direct accountability and

:21:12. > :21:35.transparency with the policing crime commissioners.

:21:36. > :21:45.They are taking ?1 billion of savings. Does the Minister intend to

:21:46. > :21:52.shift more money away from London, after the level of 700,000,020 15?

:21:53. > :21:57.Will he say whether he will fund the national and capital cities grant?

:21:58. > :22:01.The Home Secretary is appointing a new commissioner with the mayor. The

:22:02. > :22:04.Minister must recognise there are special responsibilities in London

:22:05. > :22:12.which the government should engage with? This statement is per the

:22:13. > :22:17.written statement in December. He is referring to the work we are doing

:22:18. > :22:21.to the police funding formula. That work is ongoing, I was with the

:22:22. > :22:27.mayor this morning. I do not recognise the figure he outlines.

:22:28. > :22:30.700 million. I have spent a lot of time with the mayor in the last

:22:31. > :22:34.couple of days. Not something he has outlined to me. I look forward to

:22:35. > :22:45.hearing how he is come to those figures. The 2017 and 18

:22:46. > :22:51.settlement... I will give away. He is making a lot of sense on this

:22:52. > :22:54.issue. Bedfordshire, from a financial 's point, one of the most

:22:55. > :23:01.financially challenged police forces. Kathryn Holloway has found

:23:02. > :23:06.planning to put 100 more officers on the front line. We can do things to

:23:07. > :23:10.increase front line policing. Can he say more about the timing of the

:23:11. > :23:16.funding formula? That will make a very big difference in Bedfordshire.

:23:17. > :23:22.I will not be in position to outline the new funding formula, that work

:23:23. > :23:27.is ongoing. In terms of timing, I will give a flavour. Police forces

:23:28. > :23:32.around the country have done some interesting work, and good work

:23:33. > :23:37.around performance. More officers spending time on the front line is

:23:38. > :23:42.giving up as a percentage. Gone up 50%. We are using resources

:23:43. > :23:45.properly, ensuring uniformed police officers are on the front line

:23:46. > :23:51.working for their communities. There is some good work going on.

:23:52. > :23:56.Bedfordshire, I met the PCC and the council in Bedfordshire, as I did in

:23:57. > :24:02.London. Talking about the changes they face. As a county, where they

:24:03. > :24:06.have real work to do with a urban centre in Luton. Good examples in

:24:07. > :24:11.Bedfordshire and elsewhere about police forces working with other

:24:12. > :24:14.forces, as Bedfordshire does, and working with other agencies, the

:24:15. > :24:18.Fire brigade, ambulance, to see operational benefits, bringing

:24:19. > :24:22.savings and a better service for communities. I thank the Minister

:24:23. > :24:28.for giving way, and the engagement with the North Yorkshire PCC, on the

:24:29. > :24:33.challenges of rural policing. Could I urge to look at recommendations of

:24:34. > :24:37.his department's technical reference group, including population is the

:24:38. > :24:43.best predictor of police demand, and should be a key part of any future

:24:44. > :24:47.funding formula for rural areas? I thank my honourable friend for his

:24:48. > :24:51.comment. I'm very happy to be engaged with the excellent PCC in

:24:52. > :24:58.Bedfordshire and North Yorkshire, with Julia Mulligan. There is

:24:59. > :25:02.another good example of a police and crime commission delivering for the

:25:03. > :25:06.front line, looking to find savings, to deliver even better and wider

:25:07. > :25:12.services or the local community. In terms of coming up to my honourable

:25:13. > :25:15.friends question about the timeline and the technical reference group,

:25:16. > :25:21.there are two groups working. Academics, police crime

:25:22. > :25:26.commissioners, and chief constables. I am grateful for the work of all of

:25:27. > :25:31.them, to be involved in that group. To come and see me. I still have an

:25:32. > :25:37.open door policy for any he want to come see me to talk through this, to

:25:38. > :25:39.put forward ideas that they are working through. In terms of

:25:40. > :25:41.Thailand, I'm clear from the beginning. I will just finishing

:25:42. > :25:45.answering the previous questions before I give way further. I have

:25:46. > :25:50.been clear from the beginning, this is a very big piece of work.

:25:51. > :25:54.Important piece to get right. Rather than setting timelines I want to let

:25:55. > :25:59.the groups do their work, to report to us. There are decisions we have

:26:00. > :26:01.to make. I'm keen we get the work done, equally I demand to pressure

:26:02. > :26:06.them with having a specific time frame. Honourable friends will have

:26:07. > :26:08.to bear with us. Important rather than rushing this, we take the time

:26:09. > :26:22.to get it right. I would just like to ask the

:26:23. > :26:32.Minister weather, although it says within the special areas, sparsity

:26:33. > :26:37.and rurality are taken into consideration. It is important for

:26:38. > :26:49.our area. If we go by population, suffered will be 3000 less than

:26:50. > :26:54.Norfolk -- Suffolk. The Suffolk PCC was in in the last week or two just

:26:55. > :26:59.making that very point. There is a piece of work to do at the moment.

:27:00. > :27:02.The technical reference group, the senior group, will be making those

:27:03. > :27:08.recommendations to us. I'm not going to prejudge the outcome. It is right

:27:09. > :27:14.to let the experts do their work to see what the fundamentals should be.

:27:15. > :27:19.This sentiment also includes extra resources for national programmes

:27:20. > :27:24.including the transformation fund which enables forces to undertake

:27:25. > :27:33.essential policing reform. Last year, we provided help to PCCs.

:27:34. > :27:41.Stable funding for the police force. It means every PCC who maximises

:27:42. > :27:47.their local precept will receive the same direct resource funding in cash

:27:48. > :27:52.as they received in 2015, 2016. I can also report of the House that

:27:53. > :27:55.local council tax precept income has actually increased faster than

:27:56. > :28:02.expected. This means we can not only meet our planning assumptions but we

:28:03. > :28:05.can also increase our national investment in police reform and

:28:06. > :28:12.transformation faster than expected. This make sure police officers are

:28:13. > :28:20.given the tools to perform and able to perform in the change in the

:28:21. > :28:25.nature of crime. I hope he agrees that the outstanding Labour PCC Ron

:28:26. > :28:29.Hogg and chief constable who is working hard to make the force more

:28:30. > :28:36.efficient, which he also recognise forces like Durham are hindered in

:28:37. > :28:45.being able to raise the amount of precept? In Durham, 55% of

:28:46. > :28:56.properties adding banned a -- are in Band A so it doesn't generate as

:28:57. > :29:00.much money as Surrey. I met the police chief constable and PCC

:29:01. > :29:06.recently, this came to see me to outline some of the points he just

:29:07. > :29:08.made. It is correct to say there are differences around the country and

:29:09. > :29:12.we got to make sure we recognise that different areas will have

:29:13. > :29:17.different abilities to raise money locally based on their council tax

:29:18. > :29:19.base, he's absolutely right. I represent a constituency were

:29:20. > :29:34.something like 80% of our property falls into the law tax band so I

:29:35. > :29:36.appreciate the point -- law, lower. My honourable friend is making

:29:37. > :29:49.sensible observations on the changing profile of crime and the

:29:50. > :29:54.rural of crime. It is different in rural areas. Difficult jobs that

:29:55. > :30:00.require police presence cannot be offset by technology. That must be

:30:01. > :30:05.understood in this review. My honourable friend makes a very good

:30:06. > :30:09.point as always and is one of the realities of their time with the way

:30:10. > :30:16.policing is changing and it's important we have local

:30:17. > :30:20.decision-making around police and are able to redirect resources to

:30:21. > :30:27.meet the basic demands of their area. This year, we have created the

:30:28. > :30:30.police transformation fund because the grant settlement is not the only

:30:31. > :30:37.source of money for policing. The fund has already provided investment

:30:38. > :30:44.to tackle cybercrime and other emerging crimes and has created an

:30:45. > :30:50.uplift in capacity and the fund will increase to ?175 million next year,

:30:51. > :30:53.a ?40 million increase and we will allocate specific funding to

:30:54. > :31:03.counterterrorism to make sure terrorism capabilities -- accounts

:31:04. > :31:09.to combat terrorism capabilities are maintained. This reinforces our

:31:10. > :31:15.commitment to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. This

:31:16. > :31:17.House and the public can be in no doubt the police will have the

:31:18. > :31:21.resources they need to do their crucial work and will be given the

:31:22. > :31:26.investment necessary to provide a more modern and efficient service.

:31:27. > :31:31.My honourable friend will agree that we have the most professional armed

:31:32. > :31:35.police officers in the world and the statistics of fatalities bear that

:31:36. > :31:38.out but would you agree that forces outside London have two upscale

:31:39. > :31:42.there aren't capacity to match the level we have in London in view of

:31:43. > :31:48.the terror threat that affects the whole country? This comes back to

:31:49. > :31:53.the point when it's important that local Police and Crime Commissioners

:31:54. > :32:01.are able to insist what is right for them and to work across policing. It

:32:02. > :32:04.is being nature the police forces are working across areas and coming

:32:05. > :32:08.together for the benefit of the country. The Metropolitan police has

:32:09. > :32:15.a big part to play in that as a large part of policing in this

:32:16. > :32:19.country. This year 's's efficiency report raised a concern that some

:32:20. > :32:28.forces may have eased up on the pace of reform in the last year so it is

:32:29. > :32:34.a clear challenge from us to police leaders to ensure this is not the

:32:35. > :32:40.case in 2017, 2018. Maintaining funding should not mean police take

:32:41. > :32:44.their foot off the gas. What I can assure this gas is that this

:32:45. > :32:46.Government will do its part to support forces to make the

:32:47. > :32:49.transformation more efficient and I want to update the House on the

:32:50. > :32:53.steps we are taking to give the police the tools they need to

:32:54. > :32:59.transform. We are increasing the size of the transformation fund by

:33:00. > :33:03.?40 million and this will enable additional investment in cross force

:33:04. > :33:06.capabilities, exploring new technology, driving efficiency and

:33:07. > :33:12.improving how we respond to changing threats. The first year of the fund

:33:13. > :33:22.has demonstrated that it is supporting and incentivising

:33:23. > :33:27.policing to meet new challenges. The key to the success of this work is

:33:28. > :33:32.that it is sent a lead. Through the police reform and transformation

:33:33. > :33:40.board, the police transforming themselves to meet Japan's, the

:33:41. > :33:43.demands of the future. But the police presence in place, there is

:33:44. > :33:46.more that can be done to create compelling investment proposals and

:33:47. > :33:50.the functional also allowed the best ideas from across policing for

:33:51. > :33:57.transformational change to be developed and delivered so in 2017,

:33:58. > :34:05.2018, we will invest further ?32 million to continue major uplift in

:34:06. > :34:10.firearms capacity so we can respond quickly to any firearms attack. I

:34:11. > :34:18.expect proposals endorsed by the National crime agency to go further.

:34:19. > :34:20.Organised crime is a growing and diverse national security threat

:34:21. > :34:27.that cost the native kingdom at least ?24 billion a year. It leads

:34:28. > :34:34.to loss of life, praise on the vulnerable, creates negative role

:34:35. > :34:40.models and communities -- in communities. We need to ensure that

:34:41. > :34:45.police forces have the right tools to do the job and improve

:34:46. > :34:53.efficiency. Thank you to the Minister for finally giving way. The

:34:54. > :34:58.most outstanding police force in the country for efficiency is Durham.

:34:59. > :35:03.Can you tell me why that has not been rewarded? This year, for

:35:04. > :35:10.example, the budget in the funding formula will mean the force will

:35:11. > :35:14.face ?700,000 less than it had last year. What it would say to the

:35:15. > :35:19.honourable gentleman, I have already accepted an intervention once

:35:20. > :35:26.already so I'm surprised at his opening comment! He has made a good

:35:27. > :35:30.case for why it is important we do this funding review to make sure we

:35:31. > :35:35.get a formula not based on the one that has been in place for decades

:35:36. > :35:40.that many police forces are unhappy with. We will deliver on our

:35:41. > :35:45.manifesto pledge to create a fair funding formula for police. What the

:35:46. > :35:51.public are noticing is a reduction in visibility in terms of policing

:35:52. > :35:54.in neighbourhoods. They will match what they have seen on the ground

:35:55. > :36:00.with complacent statements they have heard today. We need to get

:36:01. > :36:07.transparency. The promise at the 20 15th spending review was wheeled --

:36:08. > :36:13.real term protection for the police. Has he met that promise or not? We

:36:14. > :36:17.have met that promise. For the Police and Crime Commissioners who

:36:18. > :36:20.maximise their precept, the ad in the same positions is no matter how

:36:21. > :36:26.many times you ask the same question, you will get the same

:36:27. > :36:40.answer. I thank the Minister for giving way.

:36:41. > :36:49.Order! I didn't hear anything that was said that was out of order. If I

:36:50. > :36:52.didn't hear it, I can't act on it, but at this point, the honourable

:36:53. > :36:58.gentleman is intervening so we will hear that. I can't comment on

:36:59. > :37:08.something I didn't hear. Intervention. When the Chancellor

:37:09. > :37:13.announced in 2016 the police budgets would continue to be protected in

:37:14. > :37:16.cash terms assuming council tax was maximise, I like many others

:37:17. > :37:23.welcomed the news. Last year's cuts in grant funding were 0.6% and this

:37:24. > :37:27.year's provisional settlement outlined a further 1.3% cut to

:37:28. > :37:35.direct resource funding. How does that square with what the Minister

:37:36. > :37:39.has said? Last year we protected police spending were precept is

:37:40. > :37:42.taken into account in the overall level of Government funding

:37:43. > :37:50.allocated to police is exactly as announced in the 20 15th spending

:37:51. > :37:59.review at 8400 and ?97 million. That's why I am delighted because it

:38:00. > :38:08.lets us implement provisions that will further help policing in

:38:09. > :38:12.future. It's better tackles emerging threats, they can go further and

:38:13. > :38:14.faster and make sure money is spent on the front line delivering for the

:38:15. > :38:20.communities in which the police work. There is evidence that shows

:38:21. > :38:24.closer collaboration between emergency services. Can it improve

:38:25. > :38:26.public safety, secure more proficient services and deliver

:38:27. > :38:34.better value for money for taxpayers. I strongly support has

:38:35. > :38:38.efforts to get stronger collaboration and efficiency. Does

:38:39. > :38:43.he accept however that when these reviews are formally going on, they

:38:44. > :38:48.often don't take into account the capacity in different kinds of

:38:49. > :38:52.forces to make change? If you're a large, or an authority you have huge

:38:53. > :38:55.capacity for change. If you are a small, rural police force, it is

:38:56. > :39:00.much more difficult. Will that be taken into account? It is a very

:39:01. > :39:07.good point and we are looking at all of these factors as we work through

:39:08. > :39:12.that process. The chief constables and Police and Crime Commissioner

:39:13. > :39:14.you're are doing that work to make sure that it is fully informed when

:39:15. > :39:19.we come through with the process and no doubt we will be discussing that

:39:20. > :39:23.in this House in due course. What we have seen is Police and Crime

:39:24. > :39:27.Commissioners and chief constables up and down the country already

:39:28. > :39:36.collaborating and pooling resources to improve effectiveness. That is a

:39:37. > :39:46.credit to them. I think... Thank my honourable friend for his case. I

:39:47. > :39:51.encourage him to proceed in the way he has outlined because my local

:39:52. > :39:56.constabulary in Cambridgeshire is working on things that forensics,

:39:57. > :40:01.fires, dogs and homicide and has become more efficient and the tragic

:40:02. > :40:08.Joanna Dennehy murders of two or three years ago would not have been

:40:09. > :40:12.solved as efficiently without cross county collaboration by police

:40:13. > :40:17.forces. My honourable friend is right and having met his Police and

:40:18. > :40:22.Crime Commissioner earlier this week, they were able to exemplify

:40:23. > :40:26.some of the great work being done and also working to make sure they

:40:27. > :40:30.deliver the opportunities that the act gives them in terms of bringing

:40:31. > :40:40.together the fire and police force to see even further efficiencies.

:40:41. > :40:48.Efficiency has increased, but can only take us so far. Londoners are

:40:49. > :40:54.playing ?61 in their council tax every year to make up the shortfall

:40:55. > :41:02.that should come from national funding. When the Minister looks at

:41:03. > :41:04.funding further, will he look at regional and local authorities, and

:41:05. > :41:09.what they are contributing at the moment? I do agree with the

:41:10. > :41:13.honourable gentleman, as they go through the work, in terms of the

:41:14. > :41:18.review work we look at the functions coming in at a capital city, like

:41:19. > :41:22.other parts of the country. It is true that we do pay extra money into

:41:23. > :41:25.London. We have to remember the Metropolitan Police is by far the

:41:26. > :41:33.best funded police force in the country. Accounts for 25% of all

:41:34. > :41:39.funding. Very well funded police. So I want to make some progress. We

:41:40. > :41:45.have to make sure we support greater collaboration, and to support this,

:41:46. > :41:48.the act contains revisions to enable policing crime commissioners to take

:41:49. > :41:54.over responsibility for local Fire Services where that case is made.

:41:55. > :41:57.That means we can maximise the benefits of joint working at local

:41:58. > :42:03.level, and bring the same accountability to fire as does

:42:04. > :42:08.policing this the settlement for 2017 and 18 is not impacting by the

:42:09. > :42:12.police called grant distribution review, maintaining the pr cis

:42:13. > :42:16.distribution we have used in recent years. I give way to my honourable

:42:17. > :42:20.friend. Would you not acknowledge that it will be different in

:42:21. > :42:34.different places? Wilts and Dorset went from a consolidation. It would

:42:35. > :42:38.mean more costs being spent on reorganisation when we just had won

:42:39. > :42:42.on the Fire Service. It needs to be done carefully, county by county. My

:42:43. > :42:49.honourable friend makes a very good point, highlighting is important

:42:50. > :42:54.should be locally driven thing. The actors is an enabling power, not a

:42:55. > :42:59.regulatory power. I know his own PCC are looking at how they can be more

:43:00. > :43:03.involved without necessarily changing the excellent work done to

:43:04. > :43:09.find savings over the last year or so. A number of honourable members

:43:10. > :43:12.and honourable friends have mentioned distribution reviews,

:43:13. > :43:18.while I'm talking about the funding formula, it would be remiss not to

:43:19. > :43:22.answer questions on that review, as there is clearly widespread

:43:23. > :43:27.interest. We are continuing the process of widespread engagement. I

:43:28. > :43:33.have been meeting all PCCs who want to discuss the issue. I can ensure

:43:34. > :43:39.the House no funding regions will be put in place without a full proper

:43:40. > :43:43.public consultation. I want to highlight, the 2017 and 18 funding

:43:44. > :43:48.settlement does provide a fair and stable funding for police forces. It

:43:49. > :43:51.increases funding for the police transformation fund, to make sure

:43:52. > :43:56.police leaders are given tools to support reforms. And the

:43:57. > :44:01.capabilities they need to respond to the changing nature of crime. We are

:44:02. > :44:05.protecting police spending, meeting our commitment to finish police

:44:06. > :44:09.reform so we can make sure we and the police are helping the

:44:10. > :44:13.vulnerable, cutting crime and supporting our communities. I

:44:14. > :44:22.commend this motion to the House. The question is, as on the order

:44:23. > :44:26.paper. We on this side of the House deplore the approach this government

:44:27. > :44:30.has taken to police funding. They have broken their promise to

:44:31. > :44:36.parliament that they would protect front-line policing. They have let

:44:37. > :44:40.police forces across the country not have the money they need to keep

:44:41. > :44:45.citizens safe from crime. Funding cuts every single year, there are

:44:46. > :44:49.now 21,000 fewer police officers than they were in 2010. That is what

:44:50. > :44:54.this government has done for policing. Moreover, they are

:44:55. > :44:57.persistently failing to introduce a funding formula linked in any

:44:58. > :45:03.meaningful way to the different needs for different areas. When they

:45:04. > :45:08.did try, it literally did not add up, and had to be withdrawn. Now we

:45:09. > :45:17.see, in the motion we are debating today that for another year they are

:45:18. > :45:22.salami slicing the budget again. Cuts across the force. Regardless of

:45:23. > :45:27.need. They decided they could not run their own funding model, because

:45:28. > :45:32.they said it was broken. They have not been able to build a new one,

:45:33. > :45:38.despite trying for four years. This is incompetence, the action of a

:45:39. > :45:42.panicked and out of touch government. Forced to make bad

:45:43. > :45:48.decisions that bear little relation to the community's needs. Because of

:45:49. > :45:54.lack of capacity, which is a problem of their own creation. I thank my

:45:55. > :46:00.honourable friend for way. Would she agree that the 4.9 real percentage

:46:01. > :46:03.cut in Gwent, and the cuts in south Wales will put front-line policing

:46:04. > :46:09.at risk in those areas? Does she agree we have spent time with

:46:10. > :46:11.front-line police officers as part of the Parliamentary policing

:46:12. > :46:18.scheme. They front-line officers I have met do not recognise the rosy

:46:19. > :46:21.picture painted by the Minister. I agree with my honourable friend,

:46:22. > :46:25.appreciating the work he has done with the police parliamentary

:46:26. > :46:31.scheme. He understands what real policing is all about. No wonder,

:46:32. > :46:35.Madam Deputy Speaker, last week the outgoing head of the Metropolitan

:46:36. > :46:39.Police said, and I quote, it is getting difficult, the bottom line

:46:40. > :46:43.is that there are less cops. I cannot see any other way. Only so

:46:44. > :46:48.much you can cut and make efficiencies, then you have to have

:46:49. > :46:54.less police. I am not sure whether that is wise. We do not believe it

:46:55. > :47:01.is wise either, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would my right honourable

:47:02. > :47:06.friend agree, the payments are not been distributed equally across the

:47:07. > :47:12.country? In Durham we have lost 25% of our police officers since 2010.

:47:13. > :47:18.Nationally the averages 12%. Surrey has only lost 1% of the officers. I

:47:19. > :47:28.would certainly agree. I think it is shambolic. We believe that this was

:47:29. > :47:35.unwise. Broken promises, let me give history. In 2011, David Cameron said

:47:36. > :47:38.there is no reason for there to be fewer front line police officers.

:47:39. > :47:45.The number of police officers fell by almost 21,000 since he became

:47:46. > :47:52.Prime Minister. The total for the police workforce falling by over

:47:53. > :47:55.46,000 since 2010. Following a successful campaign from these

:47:56. > :48:09.benches, led by the right honourable gentleman for Lee, he told

:48:10. > :48:14.parliament, now is not the time for further police cuts, there will be

:48:15. > :48:20.real term protection for police funding. These figures show he has

:48:21. > :48:27.broken a promise to Parliament. Between 2015 and 16, and going

:48:28. > :48:37.forward, 2017 and 18, the total amount of grants for police fell by

:48:38. > :48:42.4.4%. The real turn -- turn cuts come on top of the cuts of ?2.3

:48:43. > :48:49.billion, a cut of 25% in the preceding five years, as shown by

:48:50. > :48:56.the National Audit Office. The motion before us today means next

:48:57. > :49:00.year, after inflation... I'm interesting in the argument that

:49:01. > :49:11.develop. Is she asserting local taxation is not a form of revenue?

:49:12. > :49:14.It is. The motion means next year after inflation funding for London

:49:15. > :49:18.services will be cut by more than ?48 million. The Northumberland

:49:19. > :49:22.police service will find themselves in a position where they have to

:49:23. > :49:29.increase the local tax burden by ?6 million. Just to stand still.

:49:30. > :49:34.Funding for South Wales Police service will fall by over 5% in a

:49:35. > :49:43.single year. Meanwhile, crime, which they keep telling us is falling, I

:49:44. > :49:48.will... I'm grateful for her giving way. The promise in the 2015

:49:49. > :49:53.spending review was real terms protection. Local tax rises have not

:49:54. > :49:58.made up for the cuts the front bench has given the police. Real terms cut

:49:59. > :50:01.for police services all over the country. Of all ministers in the

:50:02. > :50:08.government, the police Minister should tell the truth at the

:50:09. > :50:10.dispatch box? It will be welcome. Meanwhile, crime which they keep

:50:11. > :50:16.telling us is falling, is around twice what it was previously

:50:17. > :50:20.presumed to have been. As we have learned since January, and inclusion

:50:21. > :50:24.of cyber crime. In London, the proposed settlement does not include

:50:25. > :50:28.the full costs of policing ceremonial and national events

:50:29. > :50:37.taking place, because it is our nation's capital. I will. I thank

:50:38. > :50:42.you, for painting the correct picture, London only get half the

:50:43. > :50:46.money should get nationally. ?61 every Londoner is paying on its

:50:47. > :50:49.council tax to subsidise that. One of the biggest cost is in

:50:50. > :50:52.neighbourhood policing, destroyed under the previous mayor to London,

:50:53. > :51:00.resurrected by the current mayor. Under huge financial pressures. I

:51:01. > :51:04.agree with my honourable friend. In London, if you happen to be a

:51:05. > :51:09.citizen of London, you end up paying more for national events through

:51:10. > :51:14.your council tax than anyone else. Colleagues in London will be pleased

:51:15. > :51:20.to note out of their pockets will come the funding for trips, such as

:51:21. > :51:24.that by President Trump. This underfunding of police services must

:51:25. > :51:28.stop. Our citizens deserve the police force fit for purpose. Our

:51:29. > :51:34.hard-working police men and women deserve a government supporting them

:51:35. > :51:38.to do a job. They minister is being disingenuous trying to imply that

:51:39. > :51:46.these cuts take place without any negative effect in our ability to

:51:47. > :51:50.police effectively. Excuse me. We're starting to see real evidence that

:51:51. > :51:56.neighbourhood policing is suffering as a direct result of the actions of

:51:57. > :52:01.the party opposite. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in the

:52:02. > :52:06.latest annual report, and I quote, neighbourhood policing is one area

:52:07. > :52:10.where the day danger of across-the-board reduction in

:52:11. > :52:13.resources is apparent. As chief officers reduce workforces, they

:52:14. > :52:20.would need to include assurances that a smaller police force will not

:52:21. > :52:24.compromise public safety, and explain any effect there may be

:52:25. > :52:28.neighbourhood policing. I share these concerns. Neighbourhood

:52:29. > :52:35.policing matters, not just reassuring local communities, but

:52:36. > :52:40.crucial for crime prevention. Unfortunately, I fear the damage has

:52:41. > :52:46.really been done. To continue the quotation from last year's annual

:52:47. > :52:49.report, we found there are too many forces where there are signs of an

:52:50. > :52:54.ever larger proportion of the workforce being drawn into

:52:55. > :53:01.responding to incidents, leading to a reduction in crime reduction

:53:02. > :53:06.activity. I don't believe the cuts being asked for today will not lead

:53:07. > :53:09.to reduction in neighbourhood policing. I can only assume that is

:53:10. > :53:14.a price the Minister is willing to pay. The problem is compounded by

:53:15. > :53:19.cuts to other front line services, as local authority and mental health

:53:20. > :53:23.services are also being pegged back. It is forced for the police to pick

:53:24. > :53:28.up services when preventable problems become major incidents.

:53:29. > :53:33.This is a problem for police resources. More than that, a tragedy

:53:34. > :53:47.for the individuals, families and communities concerned. Returning to

:53:48. > :53:56.the HMIC assessment, they concluded that society should no longer

:53:57. > :54:01.tolerate these cuts, in a society with disorder, desperation, but

:54:02. > :54:05.these are tolerated because the government has got their priorities

:54:06. > :54:09.wrong. As a result police resources are used to respond to individual

:54:10. > :54:16.cases, that do not count in the crime figures. Forces themselves

:54:17. > :54:21.estimate the crime any accounts for 22% of the number of emergency and

:54:22. > :54:26.priority incidents. When the minister says crime is falling, he

:54:27. > :54:34.is wrong. It is wrong to use that as the justification for funding cuts.

:54:35. > :54:39.The Minister argues, it is OK to cut, because forces can raise local

:54:40. > :54:46.precepts to fill the gap. That is missing the point. Raising the

:54:47. > :54:50.preset, which most forces for understandable reasons are

:54:51. > :54:54.attempting to do is just asking the public to pay more for a political

:54:55. > :54:58.decision, taken on behalf of the government, so they can give less

:54:59. > :55:05.from general taxation. I will make progress. It is passing the buck on

:55:06. > :55:09.a monumental scale. More than that, it is unfair, because some forces

:55:10. > :55:15.are on able to raise the same as others. I will make progress.

:55:16. > :55:19.Depending on local circumstances and the prevailing level of accounting

:55:20. > :55:24.tax. Neither of which bears resemblance to policing needs. In

:55:25. > :55:28.fact, initial results from a current research project at the London

:55:29. > :55:32.School of Economics, which has examined factors driving demand for

:55:33. > :55:38.policing, suggest in general crime levels are significantly higher

:55:39. > :55:42.where house prices are lower. If this is correct, it means shifting

:55:43. > :55:49.towards greater funding through a council tax precept is precisely the

:55:50. > :55:53.opposite of what is required. The communities with the greatest need

:55:54. > :55:59.will have the least ability to meet that need through higher tax rises.

:56:00. > :56:05.All of this suggests the government has a policy on policing is wrong.

:56:06. > :56:11.My real concern is deeper, it is this. I do not think the government

:56:12. > :56:15.has any real idea of whether or not it is jeopardising public safety. No

:56:16. > :56:20.analysis behind the proposals, we are being asked to approve today.

:56:21. > :56:24.The National Audit Office in its 2015 report on the financial

:56:25. > :56:30.sustainability of police forces concluded that, police forces have

:56:31. > :56:36.insufficient funds at Delhi Macca understanding fully the month for

:56:37. > :56:45.the services affecting their cost. -- police services have insufficient

:56:46. > :56:51.understanding for services affecting the cost. It is hard to find out if

:56:52. > :56:55.the service is offering value for money, how can the party opposite

:56:56. > :57:06.shore us that these cuts are safe? Frankly it is a mess. -- assure

:57:07. > :57:13.Russ. We need to understand that but that the attack there. Cannot even

:57:14. > :57:19.come up with a formula funding before is fairly on current need.

:57:20. > :57:24.And understand our responding to future needs must be beyond the

:57:25. > :57:28.capability. Worse than that they are ignoring the work already done. In

:57:29. > :57:31.2014, a group of senior police officers explored how policing

:57:32. > :57:37.should work in an environment of austerity. The report, entitled

:57:38. > :57:43.reshaping policing for the public discussed a wide reshaping of the

:57:44. > :57:50.police force, wide restructuring to get greater bang for the taxpayer's

:57:51. > :57:53.bark. As predicted, by the policing crime commission for Northumbria,

:57:54. > :57:54.the report made its way onto a shelf in Whitehall, currently collecting

:57:55. > :58:03.dust. In summary the government presents

:58:04. > :58:08.itself of the party of law and order but their policy on policing is in

:58:09. > :58:13.shambles. They do not know what forces need or where the taxpayers'

:58:14. > :58:17.money is being spent properly. You cannot see at which point efficiency

:58:18. > :58:21.gains become a threat to public safety. They promised they would

:58:22. > :58:26.protect the front line as they take away the cash that is needed to do

:58:27. > :58:29.so. They passed the Bucks to local taxation even though the areas that

:58:30. > :58:34.need more resources are those with the least ability to raise funds. In

:58:35. > :58:42.the absence of any credible policy they keep cutting every year. In the

:58:43. > :58:46.hope all will be OK. It is not OK. The government's incompetence led

:58:47. > :58:51.down the taxpayer. The broken promises about further cuts to front

:58:52. > :58:55.line services lead in the public and it is insulting to the hard-working

:58:56. > :59:11.and brave police officers across this country. It would be negligent

:59:12. > :59:20.of me, I shall not be speaking for long, to thank our PCC, the 1200

:59:21. > :59:25.brave officers who serve other than the 1000 staff who support them so

:59:26. > :59:30.admirably across Dorset. I would like to pay tribute to the minister

:59:31. > :59:37.on the front bench who has been given a difficult pack of cards and

:59:38. > :59:41.is dealing with it as best he can bearing in mind that the state of

:59:42. > :59:49.our economy, which we inherited, and to run an effective NHS or police

:59:50. > :59:54.force, we need money. Dorset Police have an overall budget requirement

:59:55. > :00:02.of ?121.3 million. That sounds a lot of money but for the large county

:00:03. > :00:05.like Dorset it is not. Dorset still receives the second lowest grants

:00:06. > :00:13.per head of population. Only surreal receives lest. That has been the

:00:14. > :00:16.case for some years. The comments I have made have been based on

:00:17. > :00:22.comments from the Chief Constable herself and the PCC Mr Underhill.

:00:23. > :00:29.All police forces have faced the same cut in police grant which

:00:30. > :00:35.equates to a cut of 1.4%. This is higher than last year due to top

:00:36. > :00:41.slicing for national projects like the police transformation fund and

:00:42. > :00:46.the emergency services network. In Dorset that 1.4% cut in central

:00:47. > :00:53.government grants these a reduction of over ?800,000. In a letter to the

:00:54. > :00:58.police resources unit the Chief Constable and Mr Underhill said,

:00:59. > :01:05.they are disappointed in the settlement provided to the PCC

:01:06. > :01:11.Dorset. Each police force can raise funds through council tax. The

:01:12. > :01:17.elected PCC in each police force area decide the level of preset

:01:18. > :01:24.levied on the residential council tax bills. It is limited to 2% or

:01:25. > :01:28.triggers a referendum. After local consultation in Dorset and with the

:01:29. > :01:33.clear majority of nearly 80% to approve an increase Mr Underhill

:01:34. > :01:41.agreed to increase the council tax by 1.98% this year. However with a

:01:42. > :01:49.1.4% cut in central funding this means the overall funding remains

:01:50. > :01:55.static. Every year the number of people paying council tax in Dorset

:01:56. > :01:59.increases. Which you would think is good news, it increases the tax

:02:00. > :02:03.base. However that tax base is a direct result of an increase in the

:02:04. > :02:08.number of properties in the county. Which in turn places more pressure

:02:09. > :02:15.on the police service. It is generally accepted and we have here

:02:16. > :02:20.that a new funding formula is being looked at. The government is to

:02:21. > :02:27.replace the existing one with a simplified formula and is consulting

:02:28. > :02:29.on the arrangements. However following the discovery of

:02:30. > :02:34.statistical errors in the funding proposals last year the formula

:02:35. > :02:40.review was restarted. It is not yet finished and I believe it is not

:02:41. > :02:49.clear, maybe he can help, as to when this will be. Dorset still loses

:02:50. > :02:56.?1.9 million while the formula dampens due to the 2009 - 2010

:02:57. > :03:03.review and the formula never been properly implemented. To balance the

:03:04. > :03:07.books this year Dorset Police strategic alliance with Devon and

:03:08. > :03:11.Cornwall police, which will be welcomed, the fact they are looking

:03:12. > :03:17.far and wide to create more efficiencies, will be required to

:03:18. > :03:22.deliver savings of ?3.9 million and ?12 million over the next three

:03:23. > :03:26.years. These are considerable sums of money. Dorset is way ahead of

:03:27. > :03:34.many police forces in cutting backroom staff and making more

:03:35. > :03:41.efficient. The comprehensive spending review of 2010 resulted in

:03:42. > :03:49.savings. These were due to the fact that the country was in a terrible

:03:50. > :03:52.state. Cuts had to be made. Thankfully in November 2015 the new

:03:53. > :03:57.spending review protected police spending. But this was based on the

:03:58. > :04:04.assumption that council tax would rise every year. The actual

:04:05. > :04:13.settlement for 2016 with a cast reduction of 0.6% and gave no

:04:14. > :04:16.details for future years. Future settlements protect police funding

:04:17. > :04:22.only on the basis that council tax will rise every year. The

:04:23. > :04:26.provisional police settlement is once again only for a single year

:04:27. > :04:34.unlike other government departments which give a four-year preparatory

:04:35. > :04:40.budget. This significantly compromise is the ability for police

:04:41. > :04:44.forces to plan ahead. The police are facing radical reviews and changes

:04:45. > :04:52.and different crime patterns, particularly in areas like rural

:04:53. > :04:57.Dorset. Any new formula needs to provide stability, transparency and

:04:58. > :05:08.certainty. And recognise the needs of a predominantly rural police

:05:09. > :05:11.force like Dorset. I listened carefully to the argument he has

:05:12. > :05:16.been advancing and I agree with much of what he has been seeing. Would he

:05:17. > :05:24.say that the government has honoured its promise to the police that was

:05:25. > :05:29.made in the 2015 spending review? He is playing slightly with figures in

:05:30. > :05:34.the sense that the government has honoured but it depends on the fact

:05:35. > :05:38.that council tax is not raised every single year which in some cases it

:05:39. > :05:46.is not and the various different bands raised different levels of

:05:47. > :05:55.money. He is doing his best. I am grateful. Would he agree that

:05:56. > :06:01.history suggests that very complicated formally invented by a

:06:02. > :06:06.very clever statisticians usually go horribly wrong? There is a great

:06:07. > :06:09.deal to be said in this instance for simplicity and transparency for

:06:10. > :06:13.tilting towards a formula based on population which we can all

:06:14. > :06:20.understand. That would help Dorset and the country as a whole. It is

:06:21. > :06:26.well known that he is an extremely intelligent man. I did not know he

:06:27. > :06:30.was able to foresee what I was about to see in the very next sentence!

:06:31. > :06:39.Maybe he wrote my speech. That is the point I was going to make. A

:06:40. > :06:43.fair settlement would use population, not crime statistics, as

:06:44. > :06:49.a basis for any formula, and I believe he mentioned sparsity which

:06:50. > :06:56.is essential for counties like mine. The population measure is fair,

:06:57. > :07:02.robust, can be monitored, and is not influenced by police action. Crime

:07:03. > :07:05.statistics ignore things like road safety, fear of crime, and assume

:07:06. > :07:15.the same police response for every situation. I hear what he is saying

:07:16. > :07:21.about population but is he saying that any future formula should not

:07:22. > :07:28.take into account poverty, demand in terms of the issues that are faced

:07:29. > :07:35.in cities or areas with particular problems? If he is suggesting what

:07:36. > :07:41.he is suggesting clearly we will get what we have gotten local government

:07:42. > :07:45.where any type of understanding of poverty which relates to crime and

:07:46. > :07:50.anything else is taken out of the formula which will benefit his

:07:51. > :07:55.constituents at the expense of mine. He clearly does not know the make up

:07:56. > :08:04.of my constituency which probably has as much poverty in it hidden in

:08:05. > :08:12.the depths of Dorset as hers. Dorset needs a fairer share of the cake.

:08:13. > :08:20.Whether it be education funding, police funding, any funding. We

:08:21. > :08:24.suffer from huge rural mass which the police force have difficulty

:08:25. > :08:30.getting round. People in my constituency do not often see a

:08:31. > :08:34.police officer and what concerns me are comments that I here if you do

:08:35. > :08:42.not see a police officer that is a good thing. If someone says that,

:08:43. > :08:54.the goodies say that, I am sure the baddies see that as a soft touch and

:08:55. > :08:58.want to go for a day out, which happens all too frequently. Would he

:08:59. > :09:00.agree that there is often an assumption that rural areas are

:09:01. > :09:04.wealthy but in fact rural deprivation is very significant and

:09:05. > :09:09.it often requires to be measured in different ways, and those in rural

:09:10. > :09:21.areas are often below average income but have higher costs? Absolutely.

:09:22. > :09:27.In Dorset and her constituency the deprivation is spread over a vast

:09:28. > :09:30.area. With respect to the member I suspect the deprivation is in a more

:09:31. > :09:36.compact area therefore easier to police. Dorset is a massive area

:09:37. > :09:43.which is not easy to police and deprivation is spread across it. A

:09:44. > :09:50.few points Mr Underhill made in a recent letter to me. Rural

:09:51. > :09:54.communities already struggle to access services on a par with urban

:09:55. > :09:59.communities, public transport, affordable housing and the like. The

:10:00. > :10:05.fear of crime is higher than any urban areas. Confidence in policing

:10:06. > :10:10.is lower in rural areas although this is not a criticism of Dorset

:10:11. > :10:15.Police who do the best job they can. People in rural areas do not often

:10:16. > :10:20.see police areas. -- police officers. They will do not feel the

:10:21. > :10:24.police understand their concerns. The point was made about her

:10:25. > :10:32.coursing. And other rural crime that takes place across Dorset like hare

:10:33. > :10:38.and trespassing. The honourable gentleman talks about

:10:39. > :10:44.confidence in the police. Just last night and my constituency, a

:10:45. > :10:49.convicted murderer was taken to the local hospital in a taxi and

:10:50. > :10:54.absconded because the taxi was called for to return back to prison.

:10:55. > :11:00.Is this part of the problem that he talks about in regard to confidence

:11:01. > :11:04.when police numbers are a factor in taking prisoners to and from

:11:05. > :11:11.appointments outside the prison. Does this need a review of numbers?

:11:12. > :11:16.I hear the honourable member and the example he is giving. I think I read

:11:17. > :11:22.about something now he's mentioned it but not aware of the details are

:11:23. > :11:31.not in a position to comment I hear his concern that he's expressed. All

:11:32. > :11:36.the above will only get worse if the funding for rural police is reduced

:11:37. > :11:40.any further. Finally, can I beg the minister on behalf of Dorset Police,

:11:41. > :11:46.who do a wonderful job for us, please, please, please, when this

:11:47. > :11:51.review is done that all the factors I mention are taken into account and

:11:52. > :12:03.Dorset gets not more of the cake but a fairer share. Delighted to follow

:12:04. > :12:10.the honourable member for South Dorset. We represent very different

:12:11. > :12:13.constituencies but made a thoughtful contribution which exposed many of

:12:14. > :12:27.the flaws in the Minister's arguments about police funding. Each

:12:28. > :12:35.year in the September recess I hold a community consultation across my

:12:36. > :12:40.constituency. And make that point because 1000 people come to around

:12:41. > :12:46.50 meetings and 1000 or more completing surveys, it's a useful

:12:47. > :12:49.time to take the temperature once a year every September on what the

:12:50. > :12:53.issues are that are concerning people. And what's worrying them

:12:54. > :13:08.about their communities. each of them there is an issue. In

:13:09. > :13:21.last year's consultation it came up even more forcefully. People in

:13:22. > :13:25.areas where between 1997 and 2010 patient work properly supported in

:13:26. > :13:35.developing community policing and building partnership had a real

:13:36. > :13:39.impact to reduce crime, Edward enhanced community safety, made

:13:40. > :13:42.people feel positive about the areas they lived in an proud of the areas

:13:43. > :13:54.they lived in. It builds trust in the police. That work has been

:13:55. > :14:03.eroded since 2010 and communities have felt the consequences. South

:14:04. > :14:06.Yorkshire Police has had its problems over the years and had a

:14:07. > :14:19.number of particular issues we've had to

:14:20. > :14:28.confront we now have strong leadership in an outstanding Police

:14:29. > :14:31.and Crime Commissioner Alan Billings and a newly appointed and

:14:32. > :14:38.outstanding Chief Constable Stephen Watson. Like forces across the

:14:39. > :14:46.country, their ability to provide the policing our communities need a

:14:47. > :14:49.severely undermined by the funding that's been made available by the

:14:50. > :14:56.government and I'd like to pay tribute to all the men and women in

:14:57. > :15:00.the South Yorkshire force who do a tough job on behalf of all of us

:15:01. > :15:06.that live in the region and often at enormous personal risk. But it's a

:15:07. > :15:11.tough job, Madam Deputy Speaker that's being made tougher that the

:15:12. > :15:27.cuts they have to do come to terms with. Numbers are key. In 2011 we

:15:28. > :15:36.had a force of 5849 full-time equivalent staff. For 2017-18 we're

:15:37. > :15:41.looking at a force of 4967 and break those numbers down further, what

:15:42. > :15:48.we've seen is an 18% fall in the number of front line police. We've

:15:49. > :15:52.lost almost one in five of those people serving us on our streets.

:15:53. > :15:57.It's almost the equivalent of every police officer in Doncaster gone,

:15:58. > :16:08.wiped out in impacting the force across the region. Civilian staff

:16:09. > :16:09.are down by 24%. Police civilian staff play a critical role in

:16:10. > :16:31.supporting people. Police community support officers

:16:32. > :16:35.who played such a vital role over the preceding years and building up

:16:36. > :16:41.the relationship between communities and police, in developing that trust

:16:42. > :16:48.and identifying the source is a crime on dealing with it before

:16:49. > :16:53.crimes emerged, we lost 27% of those people and all of that has an

:16:54. > :17:01.impact. Both for the communities that depend on policing but also for

:17:02. > :17:07.those who provide it and as the acting chair of South Yorkshire

:17:08. > :17:11.Police Federation told me, she said to me, I represent a talented and

:17:12. > :17:16.committed group of people and she does. They care deeply about the

:17:17. > :17:19.communities that they serve. But she said to me, they feel increasingly

:17:20. > :17:26.that they're doing their job with their hands handcuffed behind their

:17:27. > :17:33.backs. It's not simply that, we are putting them at risk as well. There

:17:34. > :17:37.is an increasing reliance on single crewing, where previously officers

:17:38. > :17:42.worked in pairs in dealing with difficult situations and the

:17:43. > :17:55.Minister will be aware of the appalling attack on Sheffield PC

:17:56. > :18:03.Lisa Bates. A vicious, awful axe attack which was felt desperately

:18:04. > :18:13.across the whole of the community across South Yorkshire. Lisa, in

:18:14. > :18:20.that situation... If she had been single crewing as we now face

:18:21. > :18:25.increasingly, she might now be dead. These are the risks that cuts and

:18:26. > :18:30.numbers are putting, not only on our communities but on the people that

:18:31. > :18:34.serve them in our police force. There are all the issues that people

:18:35. > :18:39.have talked about on the Minister acknowledged the growth in serious

:18:40. > :18:43.organised crime. The growth in cybercrime and there are other

:18:44. > :18:48.pressures too. Caused by the cuts that other arms of the government

:18:49. > :18:54.are making on partner organisations who work alongside the police in

:18:55. > :18:58.trying to build safe and secure communities. Increasingly the police

:18:59. > :19:01.are picking up the consequences of pressures on social services,

:19:02. > :19:06.picking up an increasing role from the crisis in mental health

:19:07. > :19:13.provision. Madam Deputy Speaker, the thin blue line in South Yorkshire,

:19:14. > :19:19.and I know across the country, is becoming the last line of protection

:19:20. > :19:30.in ever wider areas. And it's reaching breaking point. Now I know

:19:31. > :19:34.judging by the only service he didn't mention. This the Ambulance

:19:35. > :19:39.Service I think that is the single greatest source of pressure on front

:19:40. > :19:43.line policing and is putting police officers in very difficult

:19:44. > :19:47.situations belong beyond their training and competence. Does there

:19:48. > :19:50.need to be an urgent review on the performance of the Ambulance Service

:19:51. > :19:55.and the pressure it's placing on police officers on the front line. I

:19:56. > :20:00.think my right honourable friend makes a perfect point and is right

:20:01. > :20:07.in seeking such a review and we seen the pressure is on the Ambulance

:20:08. > :20:10.Service in some fairly frightening cases and one that my honourable

:20:11. > :20:13.friend the member for Sheffield dealing raised on the floor of the

:20:14. > :20:23.House in terms of response times and the combination of the problems and

:20:24. > :20:29.pressures that are created. I want to return to the point about the

:20:30. > :20:35.level of funding which he also tried to pin the minister down on earlier

:20:36. > :20:41.and judging by the Minister's early responses I'm sure he's going to

:20:42. > :20:45.argue that arise in the precept to offset the proposed cut in grants

:20:46. > :20:51.will compensate the South Yorkshire force for the ?2.5 million loss in

:20:52. > :20:57.funding that we face with this settlement. But that is

:20:58. > :21:08.disingenuous. And the Minister knows it. Even putting aside the political

:21:09. > :21:13.double-dealing of forcing local tax increases to fund national tax cuts

:21:14. > :21:19.for those who don't need them. Flat cash funding isn't real protection

:21:20. > :21:26.for police and he knows that's the case. To meet the increase in wages

:21:27. > :21:31.and other pressures within the South Yorkshire, we will still seek cuts

:21:32. > :21:34.of around ?7 million to the local force so local residents are being

:21:35. > :21:41.asked to pay more for a further decline in services. Now, we have

:21:42. > :21:51.seen what short-sighted policies have done to our prison service.

:21:52. > :21:56.With the government itself now scrambling to overcome the problem

:21:57. > :21:59.is that they've created. Surely we can't let this happen to the police

:22:00. > :22:03.service as well. We need the government to recognise the scale of

:22:04. > :22:06.the problem, to recognise this settlement doesn't address it and to

:22:07. > :22:15.persuade the Chancellor to take action before it's too late. It's a

:22:16. > :22:22.pleasure to follow the honourable member for Sheffield Central. As in

:22:23. > :22:26.all areas of public services, the police service is historically

:22:27. > :22:33.underfunded in rural areas for too long. This has often been based on a

:22:34. > :22:37.false perception about the nature of crime and policing in rural areas

:22:38. > :22:41.when compared to cities and other urban areas. The notion that crime

:22:42. > :22:46.in rural areas is little more than the occasional break into a garden

:22:47. > :22:49.shed or something of that nature is a false notion. There is a direct

:22:50. > :22:57.comparison between the types and nature of crime in urban areas on a

:22:58. > :23:03.population pro rata basis, the number of crimes are also distinctly

:23:04. > :23:06.similar. In addition there are many very specific challenges of policing

:23:07. > :23:14.rural areas. They often require great police presence that requires

:23:15. > :23:21.boots on the ground. The constituency of St Austell and

:23:22. > :23:24.Newquay that I represent, it's an area of Cornwall that alongside

:23:25. > :23:30.routine residential police matters sees record numbers of tourists,

:23:31. > :23:34.evermore busy roads and many other issues concerning our rural

:23:35. > :23:38.communities, not least the simple fact that sparsely populated rural

:23:39. > :23:43.areas have additional logistic costs to bear. Cornwall is after all one

:23:44. > :23:48.of the longest counties with the longest coast and that is before you

:23:49. > :23:54.consider the challenges of policing the Isles of Scilly. The cost of

:23:55. > :23:59.policing rural sparsely populated areas where officers must cover

:24:00. > :24:05.large areas and deal with on wide variety of issues, not just crimes,

:24:06. > :24:11.is significant. Rural areas have more than its fair share of remote

:24:12. > :24:17.and winding roads. Statistically there is a disproportionately high

:24:18. > :24:22.number of road traffic accidents. I understand that 61% of road traffic

:24:23. > :24:28.accidents are on our rural roads. That puts additional burden on the

:24:29. > :24:31.police and other emergency services. I'm pleased to see that deprivation

:24:32. > :24:37.is a key factor when considering police funding but yet again there

:24:38. > :24:43.is a myth perpetuated, often by the party opposite, that deprivation

:24:44. > :24:46.only exists in cities. My constituency of St Austell and

:24:47. > :24:54.Newquay contains five neighbourhoods that are in the 10% most deprived in

:24:55. > :24:59.the country. I got to say I'm sure he's obviously not read my maiden

:25:00. > :25:04.speech but I refer to my constituency as a rule constituency

:25:05. > :25:07.with urban problems, so I very much recognise the pointy mates. I'm very

:25:08. > :25:13.grateful to the honourable member for that dimension and pleased to

:25:14. > :25:15.report that he is an exception of the members opposite to continually

:25:16. > :25:22.present the image that deprivation is an exclusively urban issue.

:25:23. > :25:27.Previously when discussing this I was told that the trouble with

:25:28. > :25:32.Cornwall was that we had the wrong type of deprivation when it came to

:25:33. > :25:35.attracting police funding. The wrong type of deprivation, I do not

:25:36. > :25:41.believe that is an excuse even Network Rail could come up with.

:25:42. > :25:45.Deprivation exists in our rural villages and it is often the people

:25:46. > :25:51.who live in the most remote parts of our country who are the most

:25:52. > :25:56.probable. It is time to address the unfairness in funding that has left

:25:57. > :26:03.our police in rural areas... That has affected our police in rural

:26:04. > :26:06.areas. I believe that we have a police minister who understands the

:26:07. > :26:11.issues facing rural areas and is willing to address them. Not only

:26:12. > :26:17.have I phoned him willing to take on board the points that I and many of

:26:18. > :26:20.my colleagues have put to him but I am pleased to report the Police and

:26:21. > :26:23.Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall has asked me to

:26:24. > :26:28.congratulate the minister for the transparent unconstructive process

:26:29. > :26:34.that he has dealt with her and other PCCs. The job of fighting crime and

:26:35. > :26:39.making our communities safe is not just the responsibility of the

:26:40. > :26:43.police, it is a partnership between all stakeholders. In my constituency

:26:44. > :26:49.we have a number of examples where this is happening. In Newquay the

:26:50. > :26:52.new key safe scheme has attracted national recognition, a

:26:53. > :26:56.collaboration between residents, the council, the business community and

:26:57. > :27:00.the police, who have successfully worked together to reduce crime and

:27:01. > :27:06.anti-social behaviour in the town and repair the image of new key as a

:27:07. > :27:10.world-class family holiday resort. Another town has suffered from a

:27:11. > :27:14.growing problem of anti-social behaviour in recent years.

:27:15. > :27:19.Stakeholders have come together to address the problem and recently the

:27:20. > :27:24.town centre have funded extra security to reduce anti-social

:27:25. > :27:27.behaviour in the town centre. While it is good that different parts of

:27:28. > :27:32.the community are working together to address the issues that cannot be

:27:33. > :27:36.a substitute for front line police. We should not expect the business

:27:37. > :27:42.community to be finding others to do the job of the police in keeping our

:27:43. > :27:47.streets safe. I am pleased to report that despite the restraints on

:27:48. > :27:51.budgets and the comments from members opposite our PCC has

:27:52. > :27:53.recently announced Devon and Cornwall will be gaining 100

:27:54. > :27:59.additional front line police officers. The increase is greatly

:28:00. > :28:06.welcomed and will take the forced's total back-ups over 3000. Another 80

:28:07. > :28:10.posts are to be created in key support roles, proving once again it

:28:11. > :28:13.is this party on the side of the house that is leading the way in

:28:14. > :28:21.delivering value for money for the taxpayer. While we would all of

:28:22. > :28:24.course like more money for our police I am happy to support the

:28:25. > :28:30.motion of the police grant that is before the house today. However I am

:28:31. > :28:34.also reassured by the minister's acceptance that the formula does

:28:35. > :28:38.need to be reviewed going forward and I trust that we can count on him

:28:39. > :28:43.to ensure that in future the unfairness towards rural areas is

:28:44. > :28:53.addressed and we can see our police in places like Devon and Cornwall

:28:54. > :28:59.receive a better deal in the future. I have listened carefully to what

:29:00. > :29:04.the member has said and particularly the member from Sheffield Central.

:29:05. > :29:10.It rings very true what comes forward. Merseyside Police relies on

:29:11. > :29:14.government funding for 81% of its funding for the police force. That

:29:15. > :29:23.is due to the low council tax base. Percentage cuts therefore government

:29:24. > :29:28.grant heads as hard. Since 2010 Merseyside Police budget has been

:29:29. > :29:32.reduced by 15% and during this period the force has been required

:29:33. > :29:40.to make reductions of spending in policing of ?91 million. The budget

:29:41. > :29:48.of Merseyside Police is ?21 million short to restore the 4000 police

:29:49. > :29:54.officers we need. The police employed 4588 police officers. By

:29:55. > :30:01.March next year that was 2010. By March next year force will be

:30:02. > :30:08.reduced to 3580 police officers, losing more than 1000. If these cuts

:30:09. > :30:13.continue we estimate that by 2020 the force will be operating with

:30:14. > :30:21.more than 26% less officers compared to 2010, reduced the 3400 police

:30:22. > :30:30.officers. As the government continues to cut our police grant

:30:31. > :30:36.ministers are determined, by the maximum allowed 1.95% a year. Our

:30:37. > :30:45.commissioner has not really been given a choice. Even though we are a

:30:46. > :30:47.low council tax -based county. Most of our properties around Bandy and

:30:48. > :30:54.banned bees will be below not well off and therefore ?5 has a

:30:55. > :30:57.significant impact on them. Before Christmas it was confirmed by the

:30:58. > :31:06.government that the grant allocated to Merseyside Police would be

:31:07. > :31:12.further cut for 2017-2018. This equated to 1.4% cut and has left the

:31:13. > :31:18.force with ?0.3 million less grants next year in comparison to this

:31:19. > :31:23.year. By increasing the precept by the maximum allowed it raises less

:31:24. > :31:30.than half the money lost by the grant, it raises 1.2 million. Even

:31:31. > :31:37.with the extra contribution provided by taxpayers we still have to find

:31:38. > :31:43.6.8 million of savings in this next financial year in order to balance

:31:44. > :31:50.the books. The demands on Merseyside Police, 1.2 million calls every

:31:51. > :32:03.year, between 500 and 700 emergency 999 calls every day, on average

:32:04. > :32:06.1.234 thousand incidents each day. Over 200 or their covert operations

:32:07. > :32:12.and events every year including large-scale public orders. One of

:32:13. > :32:19.the most the mandate of all is organised crime which is a major

:32:20. > :32:24.priority in Merseyside. There are 83 organised crime groups operating

:32:25. > :32:30.regionally but identified crossovers or geographic links to Merseyside.

:32:31. > :32:36.The force analysis highlights the significant national spread of

:32:37. > :32:43.activity of organised crime. Merseyside in all 43 forces. This

:32:44. > :32:49.means our police have to cross over into 43 forces. Merseyside has a

:32:50. > :32:54.significantly higher number of organised crime groups with

:32:55. > :32:57.international links. The assessments have indicated Merseyside is one of

:32:58. > :33:04.the three hubs nationally for drugs. The main criminality for 70% of

:33:05. > :33:10.Merseyside organised crimes is drugs. The other being the

:33:11. > :33:16.Metropolitan Police Service and West Midlands Police. This is a further

:33:17. > :33:23.indication of the impact of Merseyside organised crime groups on

:33:24. > :33:31.national crime trends. Recorded crime, drug offences, 5903

:33:32. > :33:41.nationally, was only met by record by the Met Police. Gun crime,

:33:42. > :33:44.2014-2015 162 firearm offences, the sixth highest in the country

:33:45. > :33:53.reported to Parliament. This indicated there were 277 firearms on

:33:54. > :34:01.Merseyside, that eight of which were active and had been fired within the

:34:02. > :34:04.next 12 months -- 38. Since 2010 Merseyside has written a 12%

:34:05. > :34:11.increase in the number of people killed or seriously injured on the

:34:12. > :34:18.roads. Recent data, every 12 months more than 500 people are killed or

:34:19. > :34:21.suffer serious injuries. Merseyside has some of the most deprived

:34:22. > :34:28.boroughs in the country. The index of multiple deprivation rates

:34:29. > :34:32.Liverpool as second and fifth local authority districts with the largest

:34:33. > :34:38.proportions of highly deprived neighbourhoods in England. With

:34:39. > :34:42.Liverpool being the local authority with the largest number of

:34:43. > :34:51.neighbourhoods in the most deprived 1% of all neighbourhoods. This issue

:34:52. > :34:55.is further exacerbated by ongoing cuts to all other public sector

:34:56. > :34:58.services like love local authorities who have magnificent working

:34:59. > :35:05.relationships with the police and many joined up issues but they work

:35:06. > :35:09.together all sadly being disembarked. Youth offending

:35:10. > :35:13.services who were previously more able to support the police in their

:35:14. > :35:23.community safety work. Merseyside poll, act -- the ability to assist

:35:24. > :35:31.other forces as it has done in the past may be compromised making this

:35:32. > :35:35.as much a national as local issue. Government is currently working on a

:35:36. > :35:39.new funding formula which must dictate how much each police force

:35:40. > :35:50.receives from the current funding pot. We deserve a proper funding

:35:51. > :35:54.settlement from the government. It is sad but I have to say this, the

:35:55. > :36:01.Conservative government has chosen austerity programme cuts to all

:36:02. > :36:06.public services valued by everyone in this country has sadly taken the

:36:07. > :36:19.great out of Great Britain and what we were so admired for in years gone

:36:20. > :36:23.by. The minister knows that I have sought to work as cross-party is

:36:24. > :36:28.possible to try to overcome some of the challenges facing front line

:36:29. > :36:32.policing. My campaign has had support from MPs across the house

:36:33. > :36:34.and the 11 names on my bill presented to the chamber two weeks

:36:35. > :36:40.ago represented five different political parties. But I am

:36:41. > :36:44.struggling to recognise the picture painted by the minister who suggests

:36:45. > :36:47.that this funding formula is the fastest route to a transformed

:36:48. > :36:53.efficient and therefore better policing. The Home Office has always

:36:54. > :36:56.sought to suggest there is no correlation between reduction in

:36:57. > :37:00.funding and increased vulnerability of officers which he knows is an

:37:01. > :37:04.important issue to me and the reduced service they are able to

:37:05. > :37:08.offer. In his statement published with the police grant report he

:37:09. > :37:13.stated, the government will provide the resources necessary for the

:37:14. > :37:16.police to do their critical work and prioritise finishing the job of

:37:17. > :37:20.police reform by enabling the police to transform so they can tackle

:37:21. > :37:26.changing crime, deal with previously had an crimes and protect the

:37:27. > :37:29.vulnerable. It is this notion that cuts to policing facility reform and

:37:30. > :37:35.reform equates to better policing that I am struggling with. Since

:37:36. > :37:40.2010 West Yorkshire Police have lost 1200 front line officers, 800

:37:41. > :37:46.members of staff. The impact this has had on their ability not just to

:37:47. > :37:48.respond to be increased complexity of crime and social challenges that

:37:49. > :37:55.are the responsibility of the police and to do some of the basics is

:37:56. > :37:58.undeniable. My experience being out with officers in my constituency, I

:37:59. > :38:03.welcome investments in technology and advances in forensics which make

:38:04. > :38:07.the police more effective than ever before, in almost every aspect of

:38:08. > :38:13.policing the numbers of boots on the ground really do matter. I

:38:14. > :38:15.appreciate he will stress that the allocations are protected at flat

:38:16. > :38:22.cash levels compared with the previous financial year however West

:38:23. > :38:30.Yorkshire Police have faced cuts of 140 million since 2010, 20 5% of

:38:31. > :38:36.their budget. Does she is sure the concern that the funding formula

:38:37. > :38:41.review taking place first of all has been shrouded in mystery, the

:38:42. > :38:45.minister has not given any details of the main indicators that are

:38:46. > :38:52.going to be implemented in the outcome of that, and also many

:38:53. > :38:56.police authorities I am sure will be on the receiving end of that funding

:38:57. > :39:02.and he is not able to tell us when that review itself will be finished?

:39:03. > :39:10.Even if police forces are scratching their heads about the future. You

:39:11. > :39:14.are right in that there was confusion about whether this was the

:39:15. > :39:17.formula for next year or the year after because we have not had that

:39:18. > :39:22.level of detail about what is coming up in the future. You are right

:39:23. > :39:25.about the uncertainty that fosters within forces up and down the

:39:26. > :39:30.country trying to respond to challenges. Faced with those cuts

:39:31. > :39:37.efficiencies alone simply cannot offset cuts like that. We know the

:39:38. > :39:41.amounts that PCCs can collect will very greatly with the poorest unable

:39:42. > :39:49.to finance the shortfall in the grant required to meet the grant.

:39:50. > :39:55.West Yorkshire is the fourth-largest force and takes in Leeds, Bradford,

:39:56. > :40:01.Wakefield and others. The Leeds district itself is bigger than some

:40:02. > :40:07.forces. We have diverse communities, lots to offer, but sometimes that

:40:08. > :40:12.challenges as well. We have socio economic characteristics in pockets

:40:13. > :40:21.of deprivation that increased policing demands. We taken some of

:40:22. > :40:24.the urban areas, big urban areas, in the north like Leeds and Bradford

:40:25. > :40:29.uncovered some of the sweeping rural areas in the Pennines. We have heard

:40:30. > :40:33.from members this should be a formula based on population size but

:40:34. > :40:38.I do not believe the police grant recognises the pressures of complex

:40:39. > :40:43.evolving crimes such as cyber crime, human trafficking, preventing child

:40:44. > :41:43.sexual exploitation and missing persons inquiries.

:41:44. > :41:49.The resources allocated have not changed. I was able to see during my

:41:50. > :41:53.time with West Yorkshire Police the difficulties of having to divert

:41:54. > :41:57.cruised into locating missing people which is compromising policing work

:41:58. > :42:03.and eating into officers available for 999 calls. Leading up to the

:42:04. > :42:07.shift I did, they had safely recovered nine vulnerable missing

:42:08. > :42:12.people and were involved in looking for an additional seven the

:42:13. > :42:15.following day. It is picking up the pressures to cuts to services that

:42:16. > :42:21.is having an impact on policing at the same time they are facing

:42:22. > :42:27.financial pressures. The weekly average for called Ollie is 43

:42:28. > :42:31.missing people. West Yorkshire Police responded to over 20,000

:42:32. > :42:36.occurrences of missing people last year which is staggering and

:42:37. > :42:40.completely unsustainable. We have had a safeguarding uplift to meet

:42:41. > :42:45.this demand but those officers have come from policing so numbers are

:42:46. > :43:08.down across the vital teams I work so closely with in my role. The

:43:09. > :43:12.conversations I've had. Having spent time with out of hours mental health

:43:13. > :43:16.services, I spent all night sad with two police officers who were unable

:43:17. > :43:21.to leave somebody detained under the Mental Health Act. They had to

:43:22. > :43:23.listen to call after call but could not believe a young nurse on her own

:43:24. > :43:28.mother gentleman who didn't agree she should have been detained and

:43:29. > :43:31.becoming increasingly aggressive. I've been out with history Dane

:43:32. > :43:35.Nielsen my community which is a great initiative were volunteers

:43:36. > :43:39.seek to ensure that people on a night that have a safe time. That

:43:40. > :43:43.alleviates the pressures on the police and the notion of the big

:43:44. > :43:46.society in action was that they have expressed concerns to me that when

:43:47. > :43:54.the encounter fights or potentially violent individuals and demands on

:43:55. > :43:59.the police are such they can't get involved and organisations like them

:44:00. > :44:02.start to lose confidence in the police, should they be able to

:44:03. > :44:06.respond to them if they needed and that starts to undermine some of the

:44:07. > :44:10.great partnership work that we are seeing. The minister is well aware

:44:11. > :44:13.of my concerns as we have heard from my honourable friend the member for

:44:14. > :44:16.Sheffield Central that reduced numbers mean that officers

:44:17. > :44:20.themselves are particularly vulnerable to assaults when they are

:44:21. > :44:24.on their own. I hope the Minister will consider any and all measures

:44:25. > :44:29.to protect officers including those measures outlined in my ten minute

:44:30. > :44:34.Bill. I'm asking the Minister ahead of the publication of the funding

:44:35. > :44:38.formula that we're expecting in the spring that he looks to factor in

:44:39. > :44:42.the different demands placed on forces beyond simply population and

:44:43. > :44:45.geography. From there that recognises there is an imbalance

:44:46. > :44:48.between the amounts that different forces can harvest through the

:44:49. > :44:52.precept and adopt a formula that genuinely meets the demands on

:44:53. > :44:58.policing and allows officers to do the job that they do so well.

:44:59. > :45:05.It's a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Halifax and a

:45:06. > :45:11.very thoughtful and well considered speech. I'd like to use the

:45:12. > :45:15.opportunity to initially raise some general points about the funding of

:45:16. > :45:20.Welsh police forces. On my skull and Northern Ireland, policing is not

:45:21. > :45:26.yet devolved to Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland policing is done

:45:27. > :45:34.via the Barrett allocations and Welsh policeman are reliant on a

:45:35. > :45:37.funding formula from Westminster. Usual ballot allocations were

:45:38. > :45:41.applied and Welsh police forces would benefit from an extra ?25

:45:42. > :45:46.million investment per annum on policing services in my country if

:45:47. > :45:48.the money was ring fenced by the Welsh government. The wheels are

:45:49. > :45:55.Naidin formula has not been historically kind to Welsh policing.

:45:56. > :45:59.My police force has faced cuts of ?30 million over the years. This is

:46:00. > :46:03.one of the primary reasons for the controversial loss of our dedicated

:46:04. > :46:08.police helicopter and I will resist the temptation to re-raised those

:46:09. > :46:12.issues today. The aborted funding formula review read by the previous

:46:13. > :46:18.minister last year would have led to a cut of ?32 million for Welsh

:46:19. > :46:27.police forces funding. A further 7.9 million pounds, a staggering 16% of

:46:28. > :46:33.its budget. The aborted formula aims to concentrate on social economic

:46:34. > :46:36.data in terms of criteria for funding allocations. These

:46:37. > :46:40.determinations cannot reflect the true cost of policing rural areas

:46:41. > :46:45.like the ones I represent and it's vital that the Minister before he

:46:46. > :46:48.publishes his new formula takes a broader view. Due to Westminster

:46:49. > :46:53.underfunding, local residents have had to make a greater contribution

:46:54. > :46:57.for police services by the annual precept. It's a typical trick

:46:58. > :47:01.whereby the burden moved from general tight-lipped taxation onto

:47:02. > :47:06.local taxation and the Tory manifesto pledging to not increase

:47:07. > :47:10.income tax, the UK Government has to look at other forms of taxation to

:47:11. > :47:13.make up the numbers. The sort of fiscal strategy is completely

:47:14. > :47:19.regressive and we have had that point made by several honourable

:47:20. > :47:21.members. There is no operational reason why policing is not devolved

:47:22. > :47:27.to Wales and it's disappointing that the last wheels built like the

:47:28. > :47:31.ambition to equalise powers not to mention cities like Manchester were

:47:32. > :47:36.policing powers are being devolved. With all four Welsh police

:47:37. > :47:40.commissioners and a clear financial dividend is clear that its narrow

:47:41. > :47:43.ideology driving policy in Westminster as it relates to Welsh

:47:44. > :47:47.policing. May I now turn my attention to other points raised by

:47:48. > :48:01.police commissioners relating to the cost.

:48:02. > :48:10.The area cost factor the police each users is skewed in favour to the

:48:11. > :48:19.south-east of England are salaries are higher. This might be necessary

:48:20. > :48:22.but is not including... The Department for environment and rural

:48:23. > :48:27.affairs reported in 2014 outlining how the cost of service delivery in

:48:28. > :48:30.rural areas is higher than average. Mentioned in this report of travel

:48:31. > :48:34.costs and travelled downtown, evidence shows travel time for

:48:35. > :48:37.police forces in rural areas is 25 times longer than in metropolitan

:48:38. > :48:41.areas. The issue concerns the size and shape of various forces police

:48:42. > :48:45.and particularly the distance they have to travel to deal with public

:48:46. > :48:51.safety and welfare and transport. The point made by the honourable

:48:52. > :48:54.member for Cornwall. Population in the small compact police forces make

:48:55. > :48:59.less demand on travel time than one in a large irregular police force

:49:00. > :49:09.area with multiple population focus. It serves less than 8000 people in

:49:10. > :49:12.290 hectares. The police serves a resident population over half a

:49:13. > :49:15.million people spread across over 1 million hectares of largely

:49:16. > :49:22.dispersed towns and villages. The UK Government report also has the

:49:23. > :49:27.difficulty of channel shift. As you have also heard from other members

:49:28. > :49:33.of the party, digital infrastructure is a major problem in our country.

:49:34. > :49:37.Too many of our communities, they are without broadband. The police

:49:38. > :49:40.forces have to rely on other ways to communicate with their service

:49:41. > :49:44.industries which are more time intensive. Call handler can deal

:49:45. > :49:50.with one collar at any one time but may deal with several simultaneously

:49:51. > :49:53.using web chat. Another example is holding cells, due to its

:49:54. > :50:00.geographical territory, there are three holding cell units in our area

:50:01. > :50:06.and these must be manned simultaneously in 24 hour basis.

:50:07. > :50:11.That's more expensive than a police force who has one central holding

:50:12. > :50:14.unit. I could go on and on to make several other examples. The area

:50:15. > :50:19.cost adjustment factor for the City of London is 1.52, the area cost

:50:20. > :50:26.adjustment for vivid palace is less than one. I would urge the Minister

:50:27. > :50:29.to review the factors that review area cost to take into account the

:50:30. > :50:32.unique and more difficult circumstances that rural police

:50:33. > :50:36.forces face. If I may now turn my attention to the national and

:50:37. > :50:39.international capital city ground. It is difficult to conceive of a

:50:40. > :50:43.simple police grant formula that could encompass such a range of

:50:44. > :50:47.circumstances for stubbornly the specific needs of the City of London

:50:48. > :50:50.Metropolitan Police forces have long been recognised, primarily through

:50:51. > :50:54.the national and international capital city ground. Cardiff is also

:50:55. > :50:58.a capital city and does not receive this grant. What consideration has

:50:59. > :51:01.the Minister given to awarding Wales with a proportion of the national

:51:02. > :51:05.and international capital city grant to adequately address the unique

:51:06. > :51:11.challenges the police forces face in the capital city of my country. I

:51:12. > :51:17.would like to conclude by saying that when it comes to the funding of

:51:18. > :51:21.release services my country, the devolution of policing to Wales as a

:51:22. > :51:26.political and financial no-brainer. I would finish by saying that this

:51:27. > :51:29.is probably the only time you'll ever hear me and this house saying

:51:30. > :51:39.something positive about Barnet formula.

:51:40. > :51:45.Lancashire's been one of the top performing police forces in the

:51:46. > :51:50.country for many years and in some ways it's been a victim of its own

:51:51. > :51:53.success. I say that because despite the improvements in performance and

:51:54. > :51:56.efficiency, it still be on the receiving end of cuts from this

:51:57. > :52:02.government for quite a number of years. Given its success I would

:52:03. > :52:09.like to pay a particular tribute to the county council, our police and

:52:10. > :52:13.crime commission but especially to chief Percival Cisse in his retiring

:52:14. > :52:20.nature after many years service to the people Lancashire. -- Chief

:52:21. > :52:23.Constable. The pressures police are facing and their partner services

:52:24. > :52:28.are cut as well as the challenges that we face through future

:52:29. > :52:35.uncertainty of the police. The financial uncertainty caused by the

:52:36. > :52:41.return of the police formula funding review means forces like Lancashire

:52:42. > :52:45.are particularly affected. Last time around mistakes were made in the

:52:46. > :52:51.process that suggested Lancashire would lose around ?25 million a year

:52:52. > :52:55.on top of the ?76 million worth of savings that have been made since

:52:56. > :53:01.2010. However, even when the figures were revised over ?8 million a year

:53:02. > :53:06.would be taken out of Lancashire's annual policing budget on this man

:53:07. > :53:11.that Lancashire face savings over four ?100 million a year by 2020

:53:12. > :53:16.compared with 2010 that is the equivalent of more than a third of

:53:17. > :53:23.Lancashire's budget. Reform of the police funding formula is overdue,

:53:24. > :53:26.as has been stated by the home affairs select committee and indeed

:53:27. > :53:30.mentioned here today and it's vital that the new formula actually

:53:31. > :53:34.represents the demands on police forces. All forces me to be

:53:35. > :53:39.adequately resourced but this must happen without disadvantaging other

:53:40. > :53:44.areas where already making tough choices to deliver necessary

:53:45. > :53:48.savings. My constituents repeatedly tell me that they do not want to see

:53:49. > :53:53.resources taken out of policing and they have supported increases to the

:53:54. > :53:57.policing precept to see this happen. But further cuts will impact on

:53:58. > :54:03.officer numbers is around 80% of the constabulary total budget is

:54:04. > :54:11.staffing and other costs. When the Chancellor announced in 2016 that

:54:12. > :54:15.police budgets would continue to be protected in cash terms, assuming

:54:16. > :54:21.council tax was maximised, I, along with many others, welcomed the news.

:54:22. > :54:25.Last year's cuts in grant funding where a uniform 0.6% and this year's

:54:26. > :54:33.provisional settlement outlined a further 1.3% cut to direct resource

:54:34. > :54:37.funding. While these cuts are considerably better than originally

:54:38. > :54:43.expected in 2015, they do still mean that Lancashire has to absorb normal

:54:44. > :54:47.inflation and other government imposed cost pressures such as the

:54:48. > :54:52.national insurance changes, national living wages and introduction of the

:54:53. > :54:57.apprentice levy. As a result, in Lancashire, it still has to deliver

:54:58. > :55:06.?4 million worth of savings in 2017-18 with a further ?40 million

:55:07. > :55:13.to be found by 2019-2020. I'm also disappointed to see a further

:55:14. > :55:18.reduction in police capital grant for 2017-18. The cost of regular IT

:55:19. > :55:22.replacement cycles are a significant cost for the force but this

:55:23. > :55:26.investment is vital to ensure improved productivity and efficiency

:55:27. > :55:29.in future years. The reduction in grant means that the burden on

:55:30. > :55:36.scarce revenue resources is increased as borrowing increases to

:55:37. > :55:39.meet these costs and it's an unattractive option given the

:55:40. > :55:45.relatively short life cycle of IT assets. I'll talk a little bit about

:55:46. > :55:52.top slicing because the Minister didn't mention that in his speech to

:55:53. > :55:58.the House. The value of top slicing has increased significantly in 2017

:55:59. > :56:03.- 2018 by over ?100 million. This increases more than the assumed

:56:04. > :56:08.year-on-year increase in precept income from the 2016-2017 level

:56:09. > :56:10.nationally. It could therefore be argued that this means that local

:56:11. > :56:25.taxpayers are in effect funding the There is no detail of the plans for

:56:26. > :56:30.the transformations fund set up for 2017-18. The Treasury of my health

:56:31. > :56:34.or it is unable to gauge how much of this funding might be coming back

:56:35. > :56:38.into the service. In recent years there has been a shift by government

:56:39. > :56:43.towards creating ports of funding for the police service to bid for

:56:44. > :56:46.and that bidding process can be laborious and possibly fruitless at

:56:47. > :56:52.the time and resources are thinly stretched. We would also like an

:56:53. > :57:00.assurance that the proposed increase of this transformation fund of ?525

:57:01. > :57:05.million in 2018-19 to give total fund of ?700 million will not be met

:57:06. > :57:09.by further top slices to the police grants distributed to PCCs as a

:57:10. > :57:14.further reduction of this magnitude in direct funding for policing would

:57:15. > :57:19.have detrimental effect on the ability of forces to deliver their

:57:20. > :57:23.services to the public. The top slice taken to fund the emergency

:57:24. > :57:26.services network programme has increased significantly at the time

:57:27. > :57:31.in the implementation of the new network is consistently being pushed

:57:32. > :57:37.further back. I am concerned that the report of the Public Accounts

:57:38. > :57:41.Committee into the new programme that the December 2019 cut-off point

:57:42. > :57:46.may not be met. This may mean that the existing error with contract

:57:47. > :57:52.being extended at the potential cost of almost ?500 million. This is at

:57:53. > :57:56.the time and resources for policing are stretched to an unprecedented

:57:57. > :58:00.level. It does not seem prudent to remove funding from forces to pay

:58:01. > :58:06.for a programme that is not really moving forward. I would be grateful

:58:07. > :58:10.from the minister for any information or the assurances the

:58:11. > :58:13.department can provide about the ability to meet the timescales in

:58:14. > :58:20.question or protection of individual force budgets for many of our costs

:58:21. > :58:25.arising from the emergency services network or the extension of airwave

:58:26. > :58:29.contracts. I would also appreciate more certainty in general about the

:58:30. > :58:34.future level of top slicing that will take place as this has

:58:35. > :58:38.increased each year but at inconsistent levels. This makes the

:58:39. > :58:42.forecasting of future levels of resources extremely difficult and

:58:43. > :58:45.the government is making financial planning and prudent management of

:58:46. > :58:50.public funding considerably more difficult than it needs to be. I

:58:51. > :58:55.would appreciate certainty in general about the future level of

:58:56. > :59:00.top slicing that will take place as this has increased each year at

:59:01. > :59:06.inconsistent levels and it makes resources extremely difficult to

:59:07. > :59:08.allocate in particular with financial planning and the

:59:09. > :59:13.difficulty that comes with that. There has been a great deal of media

:59:14. > :59:17.attention recently on mental health services. It is widely understood in

:59:18. > :59:23.the sector that mental health is a key driver of the man for policing.

:59:24. > :59:28.When I met with my Chief Constable couple of weeks ago I was told that

:59:29. > :59:32.80% of incoming calls to the police, not even crime related, many of the

:59:33. > :59:39.calls relates to problems related to mental health. While the police have

:59:40. > :59:43.received relative protection from this particular round of the

:59:44. > :59:48.government's austerity the same cannot be said for many of our

:59:49. > :59:54.bluelight partners. Local government has been affected severely. Despite

:59:55. > :59:57.additional resources the pressures on health are well documented and

:59:58. > :00:02.have been made clear by other members speaking in this debate

:00:03. > :00:09.today. As a result the services facing increased pressure from cuts

:00:10. > :00:12.to other services funded and I would ask the Home Office and ministers

:00:13. > :00:15.present and other government departments to ensure that

:00:16. > :00:19.investment in other sectors such as the health service, the courts,

:00:20. > :00:23.prisons and other relevant departments are maintained in order

:00:24. > :00:29.to generate benefits for the police service themselves are caused by

:00:30. > :00:34.cutting these other services it is having an indirect effect on the

:00:35. > :00:39.operation of the police service. I ask that the minister speaks to the

:00:40. > :00:44.Chancellor and makes representations on the budget because I hope that

:00:45. > :00:47.the government and that the Chancellor in particular will take

:00:48. > :00:51.account of these issues that had been raised in order to improve the

:00:52. > :01:00.police service to the people of Lancashire and elsewhere up and down

:01:01. > :01:04.this country. The minister has come to the house today to tell us that

:01:05. > :01:14.the government and he are protecting police budgets. That is not true.

:01:15. > :01:21.Not true. The minister learned many of his people skills at the knee of

:01:22. > :01:25.the member for Brentwood who works on the basis that what you do is you

:01:26. > :01:31.just keep saying the same thing over and over and people will believe

:01:32. > :01:37.you. Today we have seen across the chamber people exploding the myth

:01:38. > :01:44.which he tried to be true today. The member for Sheffield Central made it

:01:45. > :01:48.clear flat cash is not protection of our budgets. The member for Dorset

:01:49. > :01:54.south made clear the cuts which has for so going to have to make even

:01:55. > :01:59.with this settlement today. It is no good the minister coming here and

:02:00. > :02:03.repeating that the government are protecting police budgets because

:02:04. > :02:11.the people who really know this is not true are the brave men and women

:02:12. > :02:16.of our police forces up and down the country who are doing a job to

:02:17. > :02:20.protect our safety. We take them for granted on many occasions and we do

:02:21. > :02:25.not back them enough. I agree with the member for Halifax who outlined

:02:26. > :02:33.the dangers which they face on a daily basis. Can we stop this that

:02:34. > :02:38.somehow the budgets are being protected? We have to take into

:02:39. > :02:46.account the effects of the last six years of cuts on police forces up

:02:47. > :02:52.and down the country. In Durham, which covers my constituency, they

:02:53. > :03:00.have lost the hundred and 75 officers, extreme PCS alls and 82

:03:01. > :03:02.police support staff. The National Audit Office recognise it as one of

:03:03. > :03:12.the forces most affected by the government cuts in police funding.

:03:13. > :03:18.In 2010 central government grant was ?100 million, this unit will be ?84

:03:19. > :03:25.million. The central government grant accounts for 75% of funding

:03:26. > :03:30.for Durham Constabulary's funding, the other 25% is made up from the

:03:31. > :03:38.precept. Even with what is being put forward today the budget for Durham

:03:39. > :03:43.will be cut by another ?700,000 in 17-18. The realities on the ground

:03:44. > :03:49.are going to be that police budgets are going to be cut. No matter what

:03:50. > :03:53.the minister tries to spin the figures and tell us that the

:03:54. > :03:57.government are committed to protecting police funding they are

:03:58. > :04:01.clearly not. You have to add onto that the compound effect in terms of

:04:02. > :04:06.what has happened over the last year. Durham has lost 25% of front

:04:07. > :04:13.line police officers over the last six years. It is the force apart

:04:14. > :04:18.from Cleveland, it has lost more in that period, the only one. That is

:04:19. > :04:25.the direct result of the decisions taken by this government in terms of

:04:26. > :04:34.cutting the police grant. Much has been said about the new funding

:04:35. > :04:38.formula that we can make up the shortfall is that I been put forward

:04:39. > :04:45.by the cuts in central grant by precepts. That is where areas such

:04:46. > :04:49.as Durham are at a huge disadvantage because if you look at Durham's

:04:50. > :05:04.council tax base 55% of the properties are in band

:05:05. > :05:15.A. Comparing it to areas like Surrey and others which are up to band H

:05:16. > :05:20.properties, a 1% increase would generate large sums of money. In

:05:21. > :05:27.times of that funding formula or trying to block the cuts that have

:05:28. > :05:32.been forced upon Durham and others by this government the ability of

:05:33. > :05:43.Durham to do this is limited and that is the case for many areas.

:05:44. > :05:51.Whatever the government are going to spin after this debate Durham

:05:52. > :05:55.Constabulary will have to find another ?700,000 cut to its police

:05:56. > :06:03.budget in addition to the 16 million it has lost over the last six years.

:06:04. > :06:10.The idea that somehow you can keep cutting without affecting front line

:06:11. > :06:17.services, as members have said, is unrealistic. Durham has done a

:06:18. > :06:23.tremendous job in spite of what the cuts have been inflicted on them by

:06:24. > :06:28.this government. It is the most efficient force the UK. It is

:06:29. > :06:33.outstanding as a force and that is down... I am sorry that the minister

:06:34. > :06:39.would not grudgingly admit that the labour PC sea had to do with this,

:06:40. > :06:44.but it is good teamwork between him and the Chief Constable who works

:06:45. > :06:48.very closely together in terms of not just driving efficiencies but

:06:49. > :06:55.making sure that front line policing is protected despite the cuts. I

:06:56. > :06:58.would like to thank the men and women of Durham Constabulary because

:06:59. > :07:06.it is them on the front line doing the job every day. It is the support

:07:07. > :07:10.staff also we should pay tribute to. Front line police officers are very

:07:11. > :07:14.important in terms of being a visible face of the police but

:07:15. > :07:19.without the admin staff behind them they cannot carry out that. They

:07:20. > :07:29.have done a tremendous job. We have the funding formula in terms of

:07:30. > :07:34.being promised for 2018-19. If we do not take on the issue around

:07:35. > :07:40.recognition that there are places such as Durham which has a large

:07:41. > :07:45.number of band A properties that if we do not tackle the issue around

:07:46. > :07:54.the precept the ability in Durham to raise any substantial amount will be

:07:55. > :07:59.little effect. The member for Mookie raise the issue about rural

:08:00. > :08:06.policing. Durham is a rural county. We have those issues in some of our

:08:07. > :08:12.former post-industrial communities which are on par with some of the

:08:13. > :08:17.issues that urban communities face. In terms of ensuring that the

:08:18. > :08:24.distribution of central government funding is targeted it has to take

:08:25. > :08:30.into account poverty and need of those local communities. The member

:08:31. > :08:36.for Preston raised a point which this government does not think

:08:37. > :08:39.about, it is not about joined up government because we have a

:08:40. > :08:42.situation where if you take money out of one part of the system it

:08:43. > :08:48.will directly impact on another part. Policing is a great example.

:08:49. > :08:53.The member for Preston raise the issue about mental health services.

:08:54. > :08:59.If you cut those those people have to go somewhere and end up in A

:09:00. > :09:05.and the police get called to deal with those. Is that good for those

:09:06. > :09:12.individuals and a good use of police time? No. I would go further and

:09:13. > :09:15.look at the neighbourhood policing, which a model in Durham has been

:09:16. > :09:19.used which has worked well have joined up services between local

:09:20. > :09:25.councils and the police but with cuts coming in that affects the

:09:26. > :09:29.ability... In a minute... Affects the ability of those councils to do

:09:30. > :09:35.the joint partnership working with the local police and local

:09:36. > :09:40.authorities. I would like to join him in commending the work that the

:09:41. > :09:43.police force do with particularly with those suffering from mental

:09:44. > :09:49.health problems. Would he agree the funding formula needs to not only

:09:50. > :09:52.include that but wider issues of vulnerability particularly the

:09:53. > :10:00.elderly population which is higher in rural areas like Devon? She makes

:10:01. > :10:08.a very good point. It goes back to the point about vulnerability. If

:10:09. > :10:14.you get a child who goes missing it is the police get involved. With an

:10:15. > :10:20.elderly population and a rise in dementia and other illnesses, they

:10:21. > :10:23.are going to put pressures on local services and police because of

:10:24. > :10:28.someone goes missing from a care home or their home the first people

:10:29. > :10:34.to call are the police and we have to have services that are joined up

:10:35. > :10:40.locally. I do not think you can look at policing in isolation.

:10:41. > :10:48.I supported it because I think the joint work we've seen in Durham

:10:49. > :10:52.between health services and police and local authorities is the way

:10:53. > :10:55.forward. You can't keep taking money out of one system and don't think it

:10:56. > :11:01.will affect on another. The honourable lady does make very good

:11:02. > :11:05.point. And grateful to my honourable friend for giving way on that point

:11:06. > :11:10.in relation to the point made by the member opposite. I mention that when

:11:11. > :11:15.I was out with the out-of-hours services and police officers were

:11:16. > :11:18.there with somebody detained in the Mental Health Act but another person

:11:19. > :11:22.was detained because there is pressure to keep people detained in

:11:23. > :11:26.Mental Health Act to police cells, there was no other place with safety

:11:27. > :11:31.and accredited in a police car until the place safety became available.

:11:32. > :11:34.Tying all this together and getting the systems in place and supporting

:11:35. > :11:38.people with mental health difficulties, the police will keep

:11:39. > :11:43.picking up those vulnerabilities. My honourable friend makes a very good

:11:44. > :11:46.point and I served on the police Bill and had a welcome step of

:11:47. > :11:51.trying to ensure we do not keep people with mental health issues in

:11:52. > :11:55.police cells. She also makes a very good point, it's reliant then on

:11:56. > :12:02.places of safety to go to and in some areas it may be a hospital bed.

:12:03. > :12:09.Miles of we need at a local level to develop places of safety where

:12:10. > :12:13.people can be taken to and not left, as she just described, and a police

:12:14. > :12:20.car anywhere else. That is about funding and like I said, you cannot

:12:21. > :12:24.look at policing just an isolation. If we have some joined strategy here

:12:25. > :12:30.it can save money because I think there is an issue about money being

:12:31. > :12:37.saved but it's also got to make sure that better provision of services.

:12:38. > :12:43.In conclusion, I'd like to say this, in the case of Durham we have an

:12:44. > :12:46.outstanding force, a force which despite the horrendous cuts that

:12:47. > :12:50.have been inflicted upon them are doing a first-class job. They can't

:12:51. > :12:59.take any more. I would just urge the Minister if he's listening to this,

:13:00. > :13:04.when he does come to his new funding formula, forces like Durham that

:13:05. > :13:06.have gone through a lot of pain and change are recognised in terms of

:13:07. > :13:13.the efficiency and steps they've taken forward and also not only the

:13:14. > :13:19.reality of situations but also in terms of the formula that those

:13:20. > :13:23.areas with large numbers of band aid properties who have not got an

:13:24. > :13:26.ability to raise the precept, that should be taken into consideration,

:13:27. > :13:32.otherwise what will happen unfortunately, it will have... The

:13:33. > :13:36.cuts have already taken place and more pain will be added onto them.

:13:37. > :13:44.To finish, I will say this. Do not believe what the Minister is saying

:13:45. > :13:46.today. This settlement today is a cut in police services to our nation

:13:47. > :13:58.and people should recognise that. The total police grant for 2017-18

:13:59. > :14:04.for England and Wales is being cut by ?96.7 million, a cut of nearly ?1

:14:05. > :14:10.billion. This comes after swingeing cuts of 4% in 2015-16. Merseyside

:14:11. > :14:14.Police which serves my constituency relies on the government for 81% of

:14:15. > :14:19.its funding and has been one of the worst hit by the government cuts.

:14:20. > :14:23.Our budget has been reduced by 15% since 2010 and during this time the

:14:24. > :14:29.force has been required to make savings of ?91 million to balance

:14:30. > :14:33.the books. That's a huge figure. Merseyside Police is now facing a

:14:34. > :14:38.?21 million shortfall for the money that it needs to restore 4000 police

:14:39. > :14:42.officers. I know from talking to officers just how hard police

:14:43. > :14:45.officers work and I know that they need a fair deal and so did the

:14:46. > :14:49.communities that they serve. Let's just consider for a moment some of

:14:50. > :14:52.the work they do to keep our community said. Merseyside Police

:14:53. > :14:58.takes more than 1.2 million calls every year. It receives between five

:14:59. > :15:06.and 700 emergency 909 calls every day and on average it records 1234

:15:07. > :15:10.incidents each day. Merseyside as unique policing demands. There are

:15:11. > :15:13.83 organised crime groups operating in the region, including a

:15:14. > :15:16.significant number with international links. Merseyside is

:15:17. > :15:22.one of the three hubs nationally for illegal drugs and just under 6000

:15:23. > :15:31.drug offences were reported in June 20 16. Gun crime sort 162 firearms

:15:32. > :15:34.offences in 2014-15. As my friend, the member for St Helens are clearly

:15:35. > :15:38.set out, Mehdi said as one of the most deprived boroughs in the

:15:39. > :15:42.country and bringing with it particular policing challenges and

:15:43. > :15:45.of course there are also the issues around a value of the precept that

:15:46. > :15:48.can be raised locally, and issue dealt clearly by my honourable

:15:49. > :15:55.friend the member for Swansea East and North Durham. It is vital that

:15:56. > :15:58.the Home Secretary and her minister acknowledged that Merseyside has

:15:59. > :16:01.unique policing demands and it is vital they recognise that by cutting

:16:02. > :16:05.the police budget over the last seven years they are leaving our

:16:06. > :16:09.communities vulnerable. In so doing they are putting pressure on police

:16:10. > :16:13.officers as well. Men and women who on already sometimes dangerous job

:16:14. > :16:17.in service of the local communities. The budget for Merseyside Police is

:16:18. > :16:20.?21 million short of the money it needs and it's vital that the

:16:21. > :16:24.Minister takes note and looks at what he can do to give us that

:16:25. > :16:27.money. On Merseyside, the Police Commissioner in Chief Constable have

:16:28. > :16:29.been forced to consider the possibility of closing police

:16:30. > :16:33.stations and while no decision on a particular station has been made

:16:34. > :16:38.yet, I do know that the impact of last year's cuts and the cuts for

:16:39. > :16:41.2017-18 are already causing anxiety amongst the residents in Wirral

:16:42. > :16:46.West. I know this because they tell me, as do the people that run

:16:47. > :16:50.businesses in the area. Madam Deputy Speaker, is a prime responsibility

:16:51. > :17:35.of government to keep our people safe.

:17:36. > :17:39.The Conservative Party used to claim to be the party of law and order,

:17:40. > :17:42.sadly I believe that can no longer be the case. We all remember the

:17:43. > :17:44.terrifying scenes of the London police riots in 2011 under the Tory

:17:45. > :17:46.led coalition government, yet it seems that the Tories have not

:17:47. > :17:49.learnt from this banging episode. There was serious disorder in 22 of

:17:50. > :17:51.32 boroughs overseen by the Metropolitan Police and on the

:17:52. > :17:53.fourth day of rioting 16,000 officers were deployed, yet under

:17:54. > :17:55.the tourist police numbers have fallen by 20000 and now they're

:17:56. > :17:57.making further cuts. The government has a duty to fund policing

:17:58. > :17:59.adequately. Our community is deserve as much. That absolutely

:18:00. > :18:02.unacceptable to me that there are some parts of my constituency Wirral

:18:03. > :18:04.West, very nice place to be, where some are too frightened to go to the

:18:05. > :18:07.local shops in it's unacceptable that an already dangerous job is

:18:08. > :18:09.being made more perilous by of duty and I call upon the government to

:18:10. > :18:11.give our police the funding the government must think again. By

:18:12. > :18:14.believe anything less is a dereliction of duty and I call upon

:18:15. > :18:16.the government to give our police the funding they need. Thank you

:18:17. > :18:19.Madam Deputy Speaker. With a leave of the House I would thank you Madam

:18:20. > :18:22.Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House I would just like to say

:18:23. > :18:24.briefly that this debate and I'm grateful to all members across the

:18:25. > :18:27.House who an excellent debate and I'm grateful to all members across

:18:28. > :18:29.the House who have contributed over the last hour or fair funding

:18:30. > :18:32.settlement for the we have actually secured a fair funding settlement

:18:33. > :18:35.for the I note the comments made by a number we're going forward with

:18:36. > :18:37.and then pleased to hear she will be supporting us in getting that done.

:18:38. > :18:40.I'm just curious as to why they never did it when they were in

:18:41. > :18:42.government around the police funding formula review work that we're going

:18:43. > :18:45.forward with and then pleased to hear she will be supporting us in

:18:46. > :18:51.getting that done. I'm just curious as to why they never did when they

:18:52. > :18:54.were in government also she spoke and members of the set have talked

:18:55. > :18:56.as if there was no point any kind of budget deficit. They sometimes

:18:57. > :19:00.forget the mess that they real tyrants. The government has met the

:19:01. > :19:02.real spending review .promised that we outlined in the 2015 spending

:19:03. > :19:05.review. When you consider the government grant, precept and

:19:06. > :19:09.reallocation such as the police transformation fund, the 2015 let's

:19:10. > :19:15.be very clear about the numbers here because honourable members opposite

:19:16. > :19:21.really haven't seen it. The total spending in 27-18 of 11700 and 83

:19:22. > :19:29.million. With preset maximised this has a settlement and proposes a

:19:30. > :19:32.higher total of some 11800 and ?4 million. Police forces across this

:19:33. > :19:40.country, not a single police force in this country looked at 2015-16 to

:19:41. > :19:44.2017-18 with the use of its precept sees any reduction whatsoever. The

:19:45. > :19:49.Right Honourable gentleman who was speaking from a sedentary position

:19:50. > :19:52.quite a lot but chose not to speak, talked about greater Manchester I

:19:53. > :19:59.forgot to point out that they're actually seeing an increase from 541

:20:00. > :20:02.to over ?543 million. Indeed, the police and crime commissioners

:20:03. > :20:07.across the country and the last few years have seen the reserves

:20:08. > :20:13.increase by over ?400 million. Putting aside what those increases

:20:14. > :20:16.in the reserves may be used for, it means they've had surpluses and

:20:17. > :20:20.funds in the last few years to build up those reserves in the first

:20:21. > :20:26.place. I look forward to seeing police forces use them wisely in the

:20:27. > :20:30.efficiency work on the ahead. There are still considerable scope for

:20:31. > :20:34.forces to continue to improve the efficiency of the organisations and

:20:35. > :20:38.transform the way in which they operate. It's vital that pace and

:20:39. > :20:43.urgency of change continues and goes faster. If we are to make sure we

:20:44. > :20:46.have a police force that is fit to meet the challenges of the 21st

:20:47. > :20:50.century. I want to bang honourable friends from South Dorset and Saint

:20:51. > :20:53.Austell in Newquay for the contributions outlining the

:20:54. > :20:58.importance of transparency. I would say to the honourable member for

:20:59. > :21:01.Preston, there will be a full public consultation. The work that is going

:21:02. > :21:05.on at the moment is being contributed to by police crime

:21:06. > :21:08.commissioners including his own and she does doubles all of whom I am

:21:09. > :21:11.willing to meet and want to be meeting. Maybe he has not been

:21:12. > :21:21.talking to policing crime commissioners the way that we have.

:21:22. > :21:24.The honourable gentlemen are surely understandable is of us who'd been

:21:25. > :21:27.in the chamber these last two hours now that he didn't take part in the

:21:28. > :21:34.debate and hasn't been in the chamber, so I hope he will not seek

:21:35. > :21:37.to intervene again. It is important the work goes ahead and we will do

:21:38. > :21:43.that in a proper way, as the service has asked us to to do it properly

:21:44. > :21:46.and not take the rushed approach the members opposite would support. I

:21:47. > :21:50.commend this police grant to the House, it provides stable funding

:21:51. > :21:54.for forces, extra funding for transformation and it should leave

:21:55. > :21:57.this has absolutely clear that the police in England and Wales will

:21:58. > :22:02.have the resources they need to continue protecting the public and I

:22:03. > :22:09.commend this motion to the House. The question is on the order paper.

:22:10. > :22:13.As many of that opinion say aye. On the contrary no. Division. Clear the

:22:14. > :24:28.lobby. Order. Before I put the question I

:24:29. > :24:34.must remind the House at the motions are subject to double majority

:24:35. > :24:37.voting. Worst of the whole house and then of those representing

:24:38. > :24:42.constituencies in England and Wales. The question is as on the order

:24:43. > :24:50.paper. As many of that opinion say aye. Aye. Of the contrary no.

:24:51. > :35:52.Tellers for the ayes. Tellers for the Noes.

:35:53. > :36:09.The ayes to the right 275. The noes to the left 179. Of those honourable

:36:10. > :36:18.members representing constituents England and Wales, the ayes to the

:36:19. > :36:24.right 269, the noes to the left 173. A moral victory.

:36:25. > :36:34.THE SPEAKER: The ayes to the right 275, the noes to the left 179 of

:36:35. > :36:39.those honourable members representing constituency in England

:36:40. > :36:46.and Wales, the ayes to the right 269, the noes to the left, 173. So

:36:47. > :37:03.the ayes have it. The ayes have it. It. Is unlock. -- unlock. We come

:37:04. > :37:07.now to the three motions on local government finance which will be

:37:08. > :37:21.debated together. I must inform the House that the Speaker has certified

:37:22. > :37:26.the third... As relating exclusively to England and within devolved

:37:27. > :37:30.legislative competence. All three instruments will therefore be

:37:31. > :37:36.subject to double majority voting, the whole House and those

:37:37. > :37:42.representing constituencies in England. I call the Secretary of

:37:43. > :37:48.State Mr Sajid Javid to move the first of the three motions. Thank

:37:49. > :37:53.you. I beg to move that the report on local government finance England

:37:54. > :37:58.2017-18 laid before this House on the 20th February be approved.

:37:59. > :38:06.Madame Deputy Speaker, local government is the front-line of our

:38:07. > :38:10.democracy. Every day England's almost 400 districts, counties

:38:11. > :38:13.boroughs Metropolitan areas provide countless services to millions of

:38:14. > :38:20.people. Clean our streets, repair our roads care for you our most

:38:21. > :38:25.vulnerable people, maintain our struck, put roofs on our head and so

:38:26. > :38:29.much more. It's our job to make sure they are adequately funded to do

:38:30. > :38:33.that. A financial settle am was published last year. We have

:38:34. > :38:36.received formal representations from nearly 200 organisations and

:38:37. > :38:41.individuals. Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone who

:38:42. > :38:45.has taken part in that process. The results of the consultation are

:38:46. > :38:49.before you all today in the shape of the financial settle am. It's a

:38:50. > :38:53.settlement that provides councils with the resources required to

:38:54. > :38:57.deliver world-class public services in a year ahead while continuing to

:38:58. > :39:03.play their part in bearing down on the deficit. No, I will in a moment.

:39:04. > :39:12.Nobody knows local government better than local government itself so this

:39:13. > :39:16.is a settle am that representatives of every tier of local government

:39:17. > :39:22.and every political party. I will give way to the honurable lady. I

:39:23. > :39:26.agree with him in drawing attention to the importance of local

:39:27. > :39:31.government, could he then explain why Liverpool with its high levels

:39:32. > :39:39.of deprivation and low-tax base has now lost over 60% of its central

:39:40. > :39:45.government funding? The honurable lady will know all councils have

:39:46. > :39:48.been asked to help make a distribution to dealing with the

:39:49. > :39:53.large deficit that this country had in 2010. That doesn't mean it hasn't

:39:54. > :39:57.been challenging. It has been challenging for Liverpool and

:39:58. > :40:00.others, but there are ways to deal with that many other councils have

:40:01. > :40:03.demonstrated where they have handled those challenges well. I also think

:40:04. > :40:07.it might be reashiring to the honurable lady to be reminded that

:40:08. > :40:11.Liverpool, the Liverpool city region is also part of the business

:40:12. > :40:16.retention pilot which I shall come on to in a moment which may help

:40:17. > :40:27.deal with some of those challenges. Will he give way. I

:40:28. > :40:37.Does he agree with me with authorities in my area it had been

:40:38. > :40:41.extreme and more needs to be done to create fairness? I do very much

:40:42. > :40:44.agree with my right honourable friend on just that point and in a

:40:45. > :40:50.moment I will come onto the fair funding review which attempt to do

:40:51. > :40:55.just that. I will move on and take some further interventions in a

:40:56. > :40:59.moment. The measures can be broadly grouped into three areas which I

:41:00. > :41:05.would like to go through during this debate. I would also like to update

:41:06. > :41:08.the House later on and on another important source of government

:41:09. > :41:13.funding for local authorities and that is business rates. Madam Deputy

:41:14. > :41:18.is bigger, the first request that we've had from local authorities is

:41:19. > :41:22.increased certainty over funding. For years, councils have called for

:41:23. > :41:27.the tools to improve services and deliver efficiencies over a longer

:41:28. > :41:31.horizon. That's why the 2015 spending review delivered a ?200

:41:32. > :41:36.billion flat cash settlement for local government. That's why we've

:41:37. > :41:38.delivered for your funding allocations which provide a

:41:39. > :41:43.financial certainty required for councils to be bold and ambitious.

:41:44. > :41:47.They have used that funding certainty to publish long-term

:41:48. > :41:52.efficiency plans. Joiner taxpayers that they can deliver great services

:41:53. > :41:58.and still live within their means. But the story does not end there.

:41:59. > :42:01.Last month we introduced the local government Finance Bill to this

:42:02. > :42:05.house. It will devolve 100% of business rates to local government

:42:06. > :42:10.and will also enshrine in law our commitment to providing funding

:42:11. > :42:13.certainty, establishing a legal framework for multi-year

:42:14. > :42:18.settlements. The revenue support grant will be abolished so councils

:42:19. > :42:20.will become financially self-sufficient and with the

:42:21. > :42:25.services financed locally, councils will be even more accountable to the

:42:26. > :42:32.electorate rather than ministers in Whitehall. The Secretary of State

:42:33. > :42:36.says councils are living within their means but Trafford Council,

:42:37. > :42:40.where I'm a member of Parliament as having to draw on its reserves to

:42:41. > :42:44.meet the spending gap that it faces as a result of the reduction in the

:42:45. > :42:47.revenue support grant, which is not fully compensated even in a rich

:42:48. > :42:55.authority like Trafford by being able to retain more business rates.

:42:56. > :43:02.My honourable friend, the Minister for local growth met with Trafford

:43:03. > :43:07.Council just recently and I do meet with many of the councils and listen

:43:08. > :43:11.to some of the challenges they have but Trafford Council is one of those

:43:12. > :43:14.that is implementing some efficiencies but there are always

:43:15. > :43:17.more things that can be done and later on in the statement I will

:43:18. > :43:24.highlight some of those types of measures. Hull City Council wrote to

:43:25. > :43:29.the Secretary of State a short while ago and the Secretary of State in

:43:30. > :43:33.his response offered to meet with the chief executive and the leader

:43:34. > :43:37.of the Council in Hull. We waited many many weeks to get that meeting

:43:38. > :43:42.setup and then we received from the secretary a letter saying the

:43:43. > :43:45.Secretary of State wasn't able to meet. I wonder what he's just said

:43:46. > :43:50.about meeting with local authorities whether he'd never agree to meet

:43:51. > :43:56.with Hull City Council. -- he'd now agreed to meet. I can assure the

:43:57. > :43:59.honourable lady that ministers from my department have had a number of

:44:00. > :44:05.meetings with Hull council and I'm happy to meet with Hull council. I

:44:06. > :44:08.did receive a letter if I remember collecting in November and replied

:44:09. > :44:12.within weeks and more than happy to meet and just today I can tell the

:44:13. > :44:17.honourable lady I have contacted Hull council and offered the

:44:18. > :44:21.meeting. Madam Deputy is bigger, under the new system, there will no

:44:22. > :44:24.longer be an annual Finance settlement that's reviewed and

:44:25. > :44:28.imposed by Westminster each year. Instead the government will set the

:44:29. > :44:31.envelope on the principles for allocating funding over a period and

:44:32. > :44:36.it will be for councils to grow their income. This can be done in a

:44:37. > :44:40.variety of ways from attaching new businesses, to building new homes,

:44:41. > :44:45.to working with local partners to deliver more joined up local

:44:46. > :44:50.services. 100% business rates retention is being piloted from next

:44:51. > :44:53.year in greater Manchester, and the Liverpool city region, the West

:44:54. > :45:02.Midlands, Cornwall, the West of England and by the Greater London

:45:03. > :45:11.authority. I'd like to bring to the attention the fact that Lancashire

:45:12. > :45:15.is the third lowest tax base of any of the Shire local authorities and

:45:16. > :45:19.whilst we welcome the reductions in business rates that we've seen for

:45:20. > :45:24.example in my constituency in Preston, or this effectively means

:45:25. > :45:27.is that the 100% tax take, as a result of the reduction of the

:45:28. > :45:31.business rate, we don't mind that but the loss of central government

:45:32. > :45:37.funding through the rate support grant, would be a huge vote

:45:38. > :45:41.Lancashire Preston. I can tell the honourable gentleman first letter

:45:42. > :45:43.has been reset for Lancashire, so they shouldn't lose everything but

:45:44. > :45:47.the fares any further information he wants to provide me with that we

:45:48. > :45:51.might not be aware of, I'd be happy to take a look at that. Madam Deputy

:45:52. > :45:55.Speaker, these authorities that I just mentioned with the business

:45:56. > :45:59.rates pilots will be able to keep more of the growth in their business

:46:00. > :46:04.rates income with no impact on the rest of local government. We plan to

:46:05. > :46:13.undertake further pilots in 2018-19 in areas without a devilish and deal

:46:14. > :46:17.including two tier council areas. I very much welcome the roll-out of

:46:18. > :46:22.these pilots across the country and entirely the right approach to take.

:46:23. > :46:25.His immediate predecessor K2 Bromley and met the leader of our council

:46:26. > :46:28.and chief executive when the expressed interest in Bromley

:46:29. > :46:32.becoming a pilot. Will he take it from me that that offer and interest

:46:33. > :46:36.still stands and perhaps he could come to Bromley to discuss it with

:46:37. > :46:41.us. First of all, I know my honourable friend speaks with a

:46:42. > :46:46.great deal of experience on matters of local government and I would be

:46:47. > :46:53.more than happy to meet the member for Bromley. We plan to undertake

:46:54. > :46:56.further pilots for the two tier authorities and the like to welcome

:46:57. > :47:01.applications from any council 's witty to take part in this second

:47:02. > :47:06.trial. The nationwide roll-out of 100% business rate retention will

:47:07. > :47:10.take place across England in 2019-20. Ever this month, my

:47:11. > :47:15.department published a consultation seeking views on exactly how the

:47:16. > :47:22.system will look. The second key area... Secretary of State, unless

:47:23. > :47:25.I've missed it, could he explain were sorry is in these pilots

:47:26. > :47:31.because that was the explanation as to why it wasn't a sweetheart deal,

:47:32. > :47:37.it something permit perfectly normal and available to authorities. We're

:47:38. > :47:42.trying to work it out here. There's actually not much to work out. I

:47:43. > :47:53.think that ridiculous claim was demolished on the day it was made.

:47:54. > :47:57.The second key area... At the Secretary of State looks at page 34

:47:58. > :48:08.he'll see Surrey- Croydon business rates pool set out in the statement.

:48:09. > :48:15.I thank my honourable friend. I just want him to clarify which councils

:48:16. > :48:21.are eligible to be part of the pilot run the 100% retention of business

:48:22. > :48:27.rate and which ones are not. Is all councils in two tier areas. Madam

:48:28. > :48:31.Deputy Speaker, the second key area where we have listened and responded

:48:32. > :48:37.as funding for adult social care. This is an issue that transcends

:48:38. > :48:39.party politics. Local government may have the statutory duty to look

:48:40. > :48:44.after our most vulnerable citizens but we all have a moral duty to help

:48:45. > :48:51.them do so. The spending review put in place to ?3.5 billion funding for

:48:52. > :48:55.adult social care by 2019-20. We recognise that the coming year is

:48:56. > :48:59.the most difficult in the settlement period for many councils. There are

:49:00. > :49:03.immediate challenges in the provision of care and these are

:49:04. > :49:08.challenges that must be met now before those substantial additional

:49:09. > :49:12.resources become fully available. The settlement creates a new ?240

:49:13. > :49:18.million adult social care support grant. It allows councils to raise

:49:19. > :49:23.the adult social care precept by up to 3% next year and the year after.

:49:24. > :49:26.Together, these measures make up almost ?900 million of additional

:49:27. > :49:31.funding from adult social care available over the next two years.

:49:32. > :49:35.That means the total dedicated funding available for adult social

:49:36. > :49:41.care over the next four your settlement period is 7.6 billion. I

:49:42. > :49:48.thank the sector estate for giving way. Does he recognise that the

:49:49. > :49:54.packages put forward while welcome will go nowhere near addressing the

:49:55. > :50:00.major crisis in social care that the people in Liverpool are currently

:50:01. > :50:06.suffering from? Madam Deputy is bigger, I do recognise there is more

:50:07. > :50:08.to do, especially in the area of reform of adult social care,

:50:09. > :50:14.something I will come on to in a moment. Of course, some local

:50:15. > :50:18.authorities, when it comes to the precept will be able to raise less

:50:19. > :50:23.than others. That's why we've also confirmed that the improved better

:50:24. > :50:28.care fund allocations, which are worth ?1.5 billion by 2019-20, that

:50:29. > :50:37.these allocations will take into account cancel's ability to raise

:50:38. > :50:40.funding through the precept. I recognise what he says is that it

:50:41. > :50:43.would be tailored in such a way as to help those authorities that can

:50:44. > :50:47.raise less under the precept. The better care fund is really kick in

:50:48. > :50:50.until the following financial year. Why is the government not doing

:50:51. > :50:54.anything to help those councils with a lesser ability to raise the

:50:55. > :51:03.precept in the next financial year 17-18? The honourable gentleman, he

:51:04. > :51:07.may not be aware, the better care fund, whilst it's correct to say it

:51:08. > :51:12.picks up over time, it has already kicked in. I think it's ?105 million

:51:13. > :51:16.this year, rising in the following years but it's already kicked in. He

:51:17. > :51:20.does make an important point and I do listen carefully to what he has

:51:21. > :51:23.to say, especially as chair of the select committee overseeing my

:51:24. > :51:29.department. Hopefully he will agree with me that the better care fund,

:51:30. > :51:35.as it comes in and starts to build up, will start making a bigger

:51:36. > :51:40.difference. I'm sure he'll also... Will he confirm that all additional

:51:41. > :51:44.funds that have been committed and will be committed for the purposes

:51:45. > :51:48.of adult social care will be allocated according to the needs

:51:49. > :51:53.-based formula, not the existing local government formula so that

:51:54. > :51:58.they will truly consider things like sparsity of population and a

:51:59. > :52:04.deteriorating demographic? I can confirm to my honourable friend that

:52:05. > :52:09.the way the funding has been allocated overall is based on

:52:10. > :52:14.relative needs and also in particular, for example, I mentioned

:52:15. > :52:18.the ?240 million fund that this settlement sets up for adult social

:52:19. > :52:24.care, that's also based on need as well. My honourable friend, he has

:52:25. > :52:29.also been a very passionate advocate of making sure that we think about

:52:30. > :52:34.all parts of our country, including the more rural parts that face some

:52:35. > :52:38.particular challenges and I know that in the past he's rightly

:52:39. > :52:40.highlighted and had many constructive discussions with him on

:52:41. > :52:44.this and will continue to do so, that we've got to make sure that

:52:45. > :52:48.those needs -based formulas, whether for adult social care or for funding

:52:49. > :52:51.for local authorities more generally that they are updated and modern and

:52:52. > :53:04.certainly something I'm attempting to do. Thank you Minister. By 2020,

:53:05. > :53:07.using the figures from Northumberland, the rate support

:53:08. > :53:13.grant review will give each person 600 and -- ?6.85, whereby the

:53:14. > :53:24.neighbouring metropolitan Tyne Wear gets ?68 53. Can you explain

:53:25. > :53:29.that? I don't have the same numbers that the honourable gentleman is

:53:30. > :53:33.looking at. Again, what I can tell us that first of all I do recognise

:53:34. > :53:38.that for many local authorities have had to see their core spending power

:53:39. > :53:42.changed and therefore had to deal with some of those challenges. But

:53:43. > :53:46.he might be reassured to know that in his local authority,

:53:47. > :53:53.Northumberland, core spending power per dwelling is over ?1700, which is

:53:54. > :54:00.far higher than the average for that class and I'm sure that goes to help

:54:01. > :54:04.the people in Northumberland. I thank the Secretary of State and I

:54:05. > :54:09.commend the effort via the better care fund to address the demographic

:54:10. > :54:15.issues, to which he refers, which actually transcend party politics.

:54:16. > :54:20.Can I ask specifically, when looking at the efficacy of the funding he's

:54:21. > :54:24.mentioned, will he bring in a fiscal incentive to those local authorities

:54:25. > :54:28.who are trying to integrate adult social care with Acute Hospital care

:54:29. > :54:34.such as Torbay, so they have a real incentive to drive those reforms and

:54:35. > :54:41.changes that are needed. My honourable friend with me directly

:54:42. > :54:45.to my next point, which is about making sure that we all recognise

:54:46. > :54:49.that more money for adult social care is not the only answer. We want

:54:50. > :54:54.every area to move towards integration of health and social

:54:55. > :54:58.care services by 2020 and so it feels much more like one service. I

:54:59. > :55:02.welcome what I believe is a consensus across both sides of the

:55:03. > :55:06.host that in the long term we need to develop reform to make social

:55:07. > :55:10.care more sustainable and effective for everyone. I do think the point

:55:11. > :55:13.my honourable friend is made is an important one that as we work

:55:14. > :55:22.towards integration we should best look to see how we can encourage

:55:23. > :55:25.that. 30 area concerns the fair funding review.

:55:26. > :55:30.It's nearly a decade since the current formula was looked at

:55:31. > :55:37.thoroughly. Some parts of it date back to as far as 1991, a time when

:55:38. > :55:41.Theresa May was an up-and-coming young councillor. It's fair to say

:55:42. > :55:47.that few things have changed since then. The demographic makeup of many

:55:48. > :55:51.areas has altered radically. An ageing population means demand for

:55:52. > :55:56.different services has shifted. And, we're entering a world in which

:55:57. > :56:01.local government spending is funded by local resources, not central

:56:02. > :56:05.grant. So we are undertaking a fair funding review to thoroughly

:56:06. > :56:10.consider how to introduce a more up-to-date, a more transparent and a

:56:11. > :56:15.fairer needs assessment formula. It's vital that the new formula

:56:16. > :56:19.delivers to we're working closely with local government to give way.

:56:20. > :56:26.Will you give way? I will, of course. I welcome many aspects of

:56:27. > :56:30.this statement. He's aware that rural authorities were unhappy at

:56:31. > :56:33.the end of the last Conservative Government, the then Labour

:56:34. > :56:37.Government shifted brutally considerable funds to the inner

:56:38. > :56:41.cities. There is now a massive discrepancies, not just in council

:56:42. > :56:45.tax raised but money redistributed from the the centre and, above all,

:56:46. > :56:49.services. I will vote tonight with the Government, without any great

:56:50. > :56:53.enthusiasm for this settlement. I would like an absolute guarantee

:56:54. > :56:56.this review will go back to the basics and look at the needs and the

:56:57. > :57:00.significant changes on the ground so that next year we come back we will

:57:01. > :57:04.have a completely different settlement which will reverse the

:57:05. > :57:12.trend and bring wealth back fairly to the rural areas. I welcome my

:57:13. > :57:17.right honourable friend's support for the settlement. I very much

:57:18. > :57:21.sympathies with the issues he raised about wrurl communities. He has been

:57:22. > :57:25.a passionate advocate for this for a long time. I'm pleased his only

:57:26. > :57:30.local authority is part of the working group we established to look

:57:31. > :57:35.at the specific challenges faced by more rural areas. I do want to

:57:36. > :57:39.reassure him that this fair funding review must look at the kind of

:57:40. > :57:42.issues he mentioned, that I know he knows a lot about and make sure that

:57:43. > :57:52.this time when we approach this that we get it right. Now, Mr Deputy

:57:53. > :57:57.Speaker, as we conduct this fair funding review, we need to make sure

:57:58. > :58:02.that, as I said, it's up-to-date, it's more transparent and a fairer

:58:03. > :58:05.needs based assessment. It's vital the new formula delivers so we are,

:58:06. > :58:08.woing closely with all of local government in trying to get that

:58:09. > :58:12.right. We had literally hundreds of responses to the call for evidence

:58:13. > :58:16.that my department published last year. It's clear that people in all

:58:17. > :58:19.areas feel very strongly about this, as we've just heard from my right

:58:20. > :58:24.honourable friend. Will you give way? I will. Thank you. I'm grateful

:58:25. > :58:28.for my right honourable friend giving way. When we looks at the

:58:29. > :58:32.review, would he take into account, not least because of the debate on

:58:33. > :58:35.social care, whether the funding review will take into account age

:58:36. > :58:40.based proportions within a community? That may be one way of

:58:41. > :58:48.diverting more money for those at the older age of the spectrum? Mr

:58:49. > :58:51.Deputy Speaker, I can confirm to my honourable friend that is exactly

:58:52. > :58:55.the kind of thing we need to look at more closely. Physical he allows me,

:58:56. > :59:01.I can give him more detail on the kind of things I'm keen to make sure

:59:02. > :59:05.is covered by this review. Now, I've been privileged to hear the views

:59:06. > :59:08.from colleagues across the House on this issue many with direct

:59:09. > :59:10.experience in local government. Various themes have emerged.

:59:11. > :59:15.Foremost is the needed to make sure that the formula works for all local

:59:16. > :59:20.authorities where ever they are, rural councils, in particular, have

:59:21. > :59:23.unique needs that have to be met and councils have been very clear they

:59:24. > :59:28.want to see action sooner rather than later. So I am happy to confirm

:59:29. > :59:33.what we have previously said on this issue. We will make the changes to

:59:34. > :59:40.the fastest possible parliamentary timetable and we will aim to

:59:41. > :59:48.implement new baselines for every authority in 1920, following Royal

:59:49. > :59:53.accent, secondary legislation and the replacement of the funding

:59:54. > :59:58.review. I will update the House when I have further details to share. I'm

:59:59. > :00:03.grateful. In the fastest time parliamentary process will allow.

:00:04. > :00:08.Can I invite him to be clearer on when he will anticipate that means

:00:09. > :00:13.the review being completed and committed to. What I can tell my

:00:14. > :00:18.honourable friend, again I want to take this opportunity to thank him

:00:19. > :00:22.for the role he's played in making sure that this issue is looked at

:00:23. > :00:25.properly, is that he will know that because of the business rates

:00:26. > :00:33.retention commitment that we have, I've talked about it a moment ago,

:00:34. > :00:36.we want that to start in 1920, that financial year, that there will be a

:00:37. > :00:39.requirement to have the proper baseline set for all local

:00:40. > :00:43.authorities before that can be properly brought in. I hope that

:00:44. > :00:47.gives him some comfort on the timing that is necessary with the two

:00:48. > :00:51.things, the fair funding review and the business rates retention plan.

:00:52. > :00:55.They are very much interlinked. There will be various staging posts

:00:56. > :00:59.on the way. As always, I will be more than happy to sit down with my

:01:00. > :01:05.honourable friend and take him through those and discuss it

:01:06. > :01:11.further. I'm grateful. What he is saying is music to my ears also.

:01:12. > :01:20.Does he agree with me, this is exactly the right time to address

:01:21. > :01:24.this issue of unfair funding. It will be there forever. It's vital we

:01:25. > :01:30.get it right now before the retention of business rates goes

:01:31. > :01:36.ahead? He's right on this point. As we move to business rates retention,

:01:37. > :01:39.100% business rates retention, that requirement for local authorities to

:01:40. > :01:45.be more self-sufficient, it is right that we have the correct baselines

:01:46. > :01:54.and that necessary Tats a proper review of needs for all areas and

:01:55. > :01:59.including our most rural areas. -- necesstates. Will he accept that one

:02:00. > :02:04.of the key basis of this review, which is to be welcomed, is to be

:02:05. > :02:09.hoped that we can eradicate the urban versus rural. For those of us

:02:10. > :02:15.who represent rural areas it's tedious to go through all of that

:02:16. > :02:20.every year. It's an arid sort of debate. We are not seeking an unfair

:02:21. > :02:25.advantage to the rural areas, merely fairness and transparency. I'm

:02:26. > :02:29.certainly encouraged from what he said from the box this afternoon. My

:02:30. > :02:33.honourable friend is correct. It is not about special treatment for one

:02:34. > :02:39.area versuses another, it's about recognising the needs of each area.

:02:40. > :02:45.So, for example, when it comes to more rural areas, there are obvious

:02:46. > :02:47.differences, sparsity, for example, the delivery of certain services

:02:48. > :02:52.therefore can be more expensive. There may be others that might be

:02:53. > :02:58.cheaper. It's about having the right data, being more transparent and

:02:59. > :03:01.making sure those needs are met. That's exactly my ambition in

:03:02. > :03:05.looking at this and making sure we get it right. I will give way one

:03:06. > :03:14.more time on this and then I will have to move on. I don't agree with

:03:15. > :03:16.much of what he said, it is a refreshing change to have a

:03:17. > :03:20.Secretary of State who has given away as much as he has in this

:03:21. > :03:23.debate. It contributes very much to the discussion. I wanted to start by

:03:24. > :03:27.saying that. Thank you to the Secretary of State for giving way.

:03:28. > :03:31.Can I just say to the Secretary of State, whether it's 100% retention

:03:32. > :03:41.of business rates, whether it's the fair funding review he is talking

:03:42. > :03:45.about, the key question for local authorities, 62% cash reduction. The

:03:46. > :03:49.opportunity to make sure they deliver the services that the

:03:50. > :03:55.government require them to do that so many local authorities across the

:03:56. > :04:02.country are struggling to do. First, let me thank him for his words. As

:04:03. > :04:06.we conduct this review it's about all areas of England, all local

:04:07. > :04:10.authorities, whether rural or urban making sure that we have the right

:04:11. > :04:16.settlement for each one for the long-term. I think - I hope the

:04:17. > :04:19.honourable gentleman will agree, given the formula hasn't been looked

:04:20. > :04:25.at properly for years and years now. It's out-of-date. It require as

:04:26. > :04:29.fresh look and this is exactly I think the kind of approach that is

:04:30. > :04:34.required. No now, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to move on another another

:04:35. > :04:39.important topic, for local government we know that funding

:04:40. > :04:43.doesn't just have to be fair for the local government, the area itself,

:04:44. > :04:48.it also has to be fair to the people who provide the funds in the first

:04:49. > :04:53.place and that includes the millions of hard-working business owners who

:04:54. > :04:58.pay business rates. Now, growing up above the family shop I saw for

:04:59. > :05:02.myself the impact an increase in rates can have on small businesses.

:05:03. > :05:06.A rise in the cost lowered the mood of the whole family. As a child I

:05:07. > :05:10.knew it wasn't good when I found a stack of bright red final reminders

:05:11. > :05:15.hidden away at the back of the drawer. My dad was never shy about

:05:16. > :05:20.sharing about what he thought of out of town retail parks and how that

:05:21. > :05:26.took away customers from his shop on the high street. If he were alive

:05:27. > :05:30.today I'm sure he would be the first to phone me up and lobby me about

:05:31. > :05:36.the business rates revaluation, in particular, I could just imagine him

:05:37. > :05:40.telling me about the treatment of large retailers and how it compares

:05:41. > :05:44.to the more traditional shops on our high street. Now, my background

:05:45. > :05:48.helps to explain why I've always been passionate about supporting

:05:49. > :05:55.businesses. It's why, for example, as Business Secretary I Championed

:05:56. > :06:00.the ?6. 7 billion relief passage a that means 600,000 small businesses

:06:01. > :06:05.will never have to pay rates again. That is one third of all businesses.

:06:06. > :06:12.That is the biggest cut in business rates in history. Now, the current

:06:13. > :06:17.rate revaluation is fiscally neutral, it's not being used to

:06:18. > :06:21.raise a single extra penny for the Treasury. To do so would be illegal.

:06:22. > :06:25.For most businesses, three quarters of them in fact, the amount they end

:06:26. > :06:32.up paying will go down or stay the same. As I said, for 600,000 small

:06:33. > :06:35.businesses they are being lifted out of business rates altogether,

:06:36. > :06:39.permanently. While these three quarters of businesses will benefit

:06:40. > :06:45.or seep see no change, I'm also acutely aware of the impact on the

:06:46. > :06:50.quarter that will see increases. If your rates are going up, it's no

:06:51. > :06:56.consolation to hear that others will be going down. I've long recognised

:06:57. > :07:06.the need to provide support. That's precisely why we've put in place a

:07:07. > :07:10.?3.6 billion package of relief to help more than 140,000 smaller

:07:11. > :07:14.businesses. As colleagues and media highlighted in recent days there are

:07:15. > :07:17.some individual businesses facing particular difficulties. For

:07:18. > :07:23.example, businesses that are coming off rate relief can be faced with an

:07:24. > :07:27.alarming cliff edge. Independent retailers, in some high value areas,

:07:28. > :07:31.are also struggling. I have always listened to businesses and this

:07:32. > :07:36.situation is no exception. It's clear to me that more needs to be

:07:37. > :07:42.done to level the playing field and to make the system fairer. I'm

:07:43. > :07:45.working closely with my right honourable friend, the Chancellor,

:07:46. > :07:49.to determine how best to provide further support to businesses facing

:07:50. > :07:53.the steepest increases. We expect to be in a position to make an

:07:54. > :08:02.announcement at the time of the Budget in just two weeks' time. I

:08:03. > :08:08.will give way. As my right honourable friend goes around the

:08:09. > :08:15.country facing council leaders can I invite him to come to Brocks born

:08:16. > :08:19.where he can meet the Chief Executive of Mullins pub, many young

:08:20. > :08:24.people are seeing their rates increase by 200%. That isn't fair,

:08:25. > :08:31.McMullins may not be a small business, if they have to pay high

:08:32. > :08:34.rates at that level they will stop employing young people in my

:08:35. > :08:39.constituency. I will be happy to come to the pub with my honourable

:08:40. > :08:44.friend. He highlights the importance of pubs, not just McMullins, more

:08:45. > :09:00.this House, as we so often have this House, as we so often

:09:01. > :09:01.learn more from him and the pub it noted, pubs are

:09:02. > :09:05.evil is. I will give way to the evil is. I will give way to the

:09:06. > :09:09.Chair of the Select Committee. I take the point it's fiscally neutral

:09:10. > :09:13.and it reflects the change in property prices. Perhaps the

:09:14. > :09:17.Government didn't help themselves delaying it for two years. He

:09:18. > :09:29.referred to the contradiction between the cost of business rates

:09:30. > :09:34.for a premise on the high street is he is he looking on how valuations

:09:35. > :09:39.are done to get a better reflection of the cost of business between the

:09:40. > :09:45.high street and out of town centres? I will come on to the point by the

:09:46. > :09:50.Chair of the Select Committee in a moment. I will come on to those

:09:51. > :09:56.issues next. I will give way before I do so. ... Can I say, I welcome

:09:57. > :10:00.very much his statement and the tone with which that is made. Many of us

:10:01. > :10:05.have raised concerns upon the issues he touches on and in particular in

:10:06. > :10:08.areas like mine, where land values are high, that's no consolationing

:10:09. > :10:15.to the independent trader on the high street. Will he undertake to

:10:16. > :10:18.meet perhaps with myself and other London Conservatives and south-east

:10:19. > :10:24.MPs who have been doing detailed work on this to find a constructive

:10:25. > :10:30.way forward? My honourable friend makes an important issue like areas

:10:31. > :10:33.such as Bromley and challenges businesses face, particularly on the

:10:34. > :10:37.high street. I will be happy not only to meet the leader of his

:10:38. > :10:40.council with him, also to meet the local representatives that he he

:10:41. > :10:47.addressed so we can learn more about those challenges.

:10:48. > :10:54.Business taxes have been around for many decades, centuries eating.

:10:55. > :11:00.Nobody would argue that the system is perfect and it is not entirely

:11:01. > :11:06.right to ask whether the time has come for some kind of reform. The

:11:07. > :11:11.Treasury's 2015 consultation showed little appetite for replacing the

:11:12. > :11:14.whole system. It remains a vital element of the local government

:11:15. > :11:17.finance settlement and its supporters will only rise with the

:11:18. > :11:22.introduction of this dispute retention. With underlying concerns

:11:23. > :11:26.about things like globalisation, international tax structures and the

:11:27. > :11:29.struggle between the high street and the virtual world, there is clearly

:11:30. > :11:34.some room for improvement. We will be looking closely at all possible

:11:35. > :11:41.steps for making it fairer and more sustainable in both the short and

:11:42. > :11:45.long-term. I welcome what the Secretary of State says about a

:11:46. > :11:50.review. He will be interested to know of research conducted recently

:11:51. > :11:54.into shopping centres that showed that business rates were the single

:11:55. > :11:58.largest deterrent of foreign retailers establishing or expanding

:11:59. > :12:02.in the UK. Would he be willing to meet the researchers behind that

:12:03. > :12:06.report to discuss in the context of this review, what can be done to

:12:07. > :12:13.ensure the UK is an attractive destination for foreign retailers? I

:12:14. > :12:20.wondered to make sure that I am listening carefully to anyone, any

:12:21. > :12:23.business, an individual member of Parliament who has concerns to bring

:12:24. > :12:27.to me about the business rates system. I have talked about some of

:12:28. > :12:31.those now. The honourable lady talks about issues about foreign retailers

:12:32. > :12:35.and others and I would gladly look at those issues. If she wants to

:12:36. > :12:40.furnish me with more information I will look at that and make sure

:12:41. > :12:45.that, as we deal with these challenges with a tax that we agree

:12:46. > :12:48.is not perfect but serves an important purpose in funding public

:12:49. > :12:57.services, we must look to see how we can improve the situation. I thank

:12:58. > :13:01.my right honourable friend. Notwithstanding the fact there will

:13:02. > :13:08.always be speculative and vexatious appeals, will he confirm and dispel

:13:09. > :13:12.the urban myths that we are, as the government, in some way getting rid

:13:13. > :13:15.of the appeals process and that the peers will continue to be open, fair

:13:16. > :13:22.and transparent for those who are unhappy with their assessment and

:13:23. > :13:26.business rates? I am very happy to confirm just that two honourable

:13:27. > :13:32.friend. In fact, I think the appeasers are an important and vital

:13:33. > :13:39.part of the system. Businesses must be that they have confidence in the

:13:40. > :13:42.system and if they feel for any reason that their valuation could be

:13:43. > :13:48.wrong, they should be in a position to challenge it. If anything, I want

:13:49. > :13:51.to make it more transparent and easier for businesses who feel there

:13:52. > :13:58.is a valid issue to do just that. For example, some of the changes we

:13:59. > :14:03.have already introduced through the evaluation office will allow some

:14:04. > :14:06.smaller businesses to go directly online to check their valuation and,

:14:07. > :14:10.if they are in any doubt, they will be able to contact the valuation

:14:11. > :14:17.office directly on line or through other forms of direct contact and

:14:18. > :14:21.get the review very quickly. Contrary to the opinions out there

:14:22. > :14:24.that we want to make it harder, I am determined to make sure we have a

:14:25. > :14:31.proper way for businesses to challenge the system as is their

:14:32. > :14:35.right. Mr Deputy Speaker, I must conclude and what the nature of that

:14:36. > :14:39.colleagues have enough time for debate. This local government

:14:40. > :14:42.finance settlement honours are prepared to four-year funding

:14:43. > :14:46.certainty for council is committed to reform. It recognises the cost of

:14:47. > :14:49.delivering adult social care and needs more funding available sooner

:14:50. > :14:53.and that this local councillors in the driving seat with the commitment

:14:54. > :14:58.to support them with a fairer funding formula. I commend it to the

:14:59. > :15:05.House. The question is as on the order paper. With social care in

:15:06. > :15:09.crisis, huge numbers of businesses are deeply worried about rising

:15:10. > :15:15.business rates bills and council tax set to increase by 25% by 2020, this

:15:16. > :15:18.is a local government finance settlement that would work for Mr

:15:19. > :15:25.Singh -- ministers, but would work for anyone else. While there may be

:15:26. > :15:27.some help for businesses most affected by the revaluation, the

:15:28. > :15:34.Prime Minister boss Michael spokesperson was today briefing that

:15:35. > :15:40.there would be no more extra funding available to fund this support for

:15:41. > :15:44.businesses. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is the case or

:15:45. > :15:48.not, because if it is the case, what we will be seeing is one group of

:15:49. > :15:54.businesses who were expecting help being robbed to fund a relief to

:15:55. > :15:57.another group of businesses. Many businesses will receive their new

:15:58. > :16:02.bills next week and council tax bills are almost ready to be sent

:16:03. > :16:06.out. This is the latest the settlement has been for decades. One

:16:07. > :16:10.might have expected there to be better in use in it compared to the

:16:11. > :16:14.original offering in December. There is no new money for local government

:16:15. > :16:18.to tackle the social care crisis, nothing to help councils tackle

:16:19. > :16:22.rising homelessness and the doubling of rough sleeping. Just passing the

:16:23. > :16:25.buck onto local councils while residents are paying more in council

:16:26. > :16:32.tax at the same time as public services deteriorate. I will give

:16:33. > :16:35.way in one second. No wonder this is being described as a hugely

:16:36. > :16:40.disappointing settlement. But my friends, but the words of Lord

:16:41. > :16:41.Porter, chairman of the local government Association and

:16:42. > :16:49.Conservative leader of Essex County Council. Nottinghamshire County

:16:50. > :16:54.Council has lost ?200 million over the last seven years and giving 40%

:16:55. > :16:58.of the budget goes to adult social care, is and the one that they are

:16:59. > :17:01.today we are getting the most heartbreaking stories from our

:17:02. > :17:05.constituents who simply are not getting the care that their loved

:17:06. > :17:10.ones need? My honourable friend makes a very good point. All the

:17:11. > :17:13.more worrying that ministers want to abolish revenue support grant into

:17:14. > :17:19.total and at the Local Government Finance Bill. Perhaps I shouldn't be

:17:20. > :17:24.too harsh on the Secretary of State. He has had a difficult week after

:17:25. > :17:28.all. Accused by the former Conservative Party chair of spinning

:17:29. > :17:30.the numbers, I hear there was concern opposite that of the

:17:31. > :17:34.Secretary of State was being hung out to dry by colleagues. It was

:17:35. > :17:36.good to hear the spokesperson for the Prime Minister confirming that

:17:37. > :17:43.number ten still has confidence in him. In truth, in just eight short

:17:44. > :17:48.months, the Secretary of State has been found asleep at the wheel

:17:49. > :17:52.twice. A social care crisis entirely of the government's own making,

:17:53. > :17:56.which he was warned about well in advance, and now a business rates

:17:57. > :17:59.crisis, which given his party delayed the revaluation by two

:18:00. > :18:02.years, he must have known there would be a problem for many

:18:03. > :18:11.businesses. It has taken him until now to grasp its seriousness. Would

:18:12. > :18:14.he perhaps agree with me that, if county councils like Nottinghamshire

:18:15. > :18:20.what to do better in terms of social care, they can look at cutting the

:18:21. > :18:23.costs are actually going into a unitary authority, just as

:18:24. > :18:27.Nottinghamshire Conservative county council agreed was a good idea, but

:18:28. > :18:33.Labour county council is no doubt thinking about the loans has decided

:18:34. > :18:38.was a bad idea. The honourable lady, who I usually have respect for,

:18:39. > :18:43.might be encouraged, instead of making such a partisan and in

:18:44. > :18:47.accurate point, took the dreaded booklet that has been published by

:18:48. > :18:51.the LGA Libra group, giving 100 examples of the way in which the

:18:52. > :18:55.councils have innovated over the past few years and she might want to

:18:56. > :19:02.encourage some Conservative councillors that she was to take up

:19:03. > :19:07.such examples. The Secretary of State sent a letter to all of his

:19:08. > :19:09.colleagues on that side of the House claiming that the concerns raised

:19:10. > :19:15.over business rates by businesses and hospitals were based,

:19:16. > :19:18.apparently, on a relentless campaign of distortions and half-truths.

:19:19. > :19:22.Leaving aside the question of whether it was ready to release

:19:23. > :19:25.these figures just two members in his own party, the irony is it was

:19:26. > :19:32.quickly exposed that the actual bills businesses will receive are

:19:33. > :19:35.likely to be 7% higher than in the figures he produced. Under-Secretary

:19:36. > :19:39.of State, I would suggest, is in danger of getting a reputation for

:19:40. > :19:43.being sloppy with his use of figures. Ministers have known about

:19:44. > :19:47.the revaluation for a long time. Announcing the delay, the right

:19:48. > :19:51.honourable member for Brentwood explained that it was to prevent

:19:52. > :19:55.unexpected hikes in business rates. Why did the current group of

:19:56. > :19:59.ministers now not think of analysing its consequences in little earlier?

:20:00. > :20:05.How can it possibly be fair for Amazon on, who have avoided paying

:20:06. > :20:08.corporation tax, despite making huge profits, can't see it overall

:20:09. > :20:11.business rates Bill going down, while family-owned businesses which

:20:12. > :20:21.have existed for decades on local high street face huge rises in their

:20:22. > :20:25.bills? To accuse the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and the

:20:26. > :20:28.British Retail Consortium of distortions and half-truths in their

:20:29. > :20:36.campaigning is a disgrace and he should apologise to them. Whilst he

:20:37. > :20:40.is discussing the revaluation of business rates, will he perhaps

:20:41. > :20:43.welcomed the government measures in recent years to provide small

:20:44. > :20:46.business rate relief and its indefinite extension which has been

:20:47. > :20:52.advantageous to many of the businesses he claims the government

:20:53. > :20:55.has harmed? I certainly do welcome the small business rates relief that

:20:56. > :21:02.is in existence. I think we will have the wit and see if ministers

:21:03. > :21:07.will give the money to fund support for other businesses who will see

:21:08. > :21:13.even bigger increases in the business rates bills than they

:21:14. > :21:17.expected. He is making a case for more funding for social care and

:21:18. > :21:22.more great relief, how much money does he have in mind and how should

:21:23. > :21:26.that be paid for? If the honourable gentleman will bear with me, I am

:21:27. > :21:29.sorry he was successful in his efforts to get onto the Local

:21:30. > :21:36.Government Finance Bill, but I want to come to the issue of walking home

:21:37. > :21:45.and social care. I thank the honourable gentleman forgiving way.

:21:46. > :21:48.He seems concerned about the group, why was it that he and his

:21:49. > :21:52.colleagues advocated that we should vote for the authorities to increase

:21:53. > :21:58.the multiplier in an arbitrary fashion and that the tax rate of

:21:59. > :22:02.businesses? The minister has got onto his feet because I was coming

:22:03. > :22:07.on to his performance yesterday in the Local Government Finance Bill

:22:08. > :22:11.and to note that given the deep and profound concerns on the question of

:22:12. > :22:14.the business rates revaluation it was a little surprising that the

:22:15. > :22:18.Secretary of State should sound out as minister to reject the idea that

:22:19. > :22:21.any change to business rates was necessary and his spokesperson was

:22:22. > :22:28.still being quoted yesterday as claiming that business concerns were

:22:29. > :22:31.just scaremongering. In 2005, PricewaterhouseCoopers tracked the

:22:32. > :22:34.tax liabilities of the biggest British companies and found that

:22:35. > :22:39.half of the total came from corporation tax, while just 11% came

:22:40. > :22:45.from business rates. Today, corporation tax is volunteered

:22:46. > :22:52.19.7%, while the figure for business rates is 21%. Moving away from

:22:53. > :22:55.taxing revenue and profits and increasing the texture and

:22:56. > :23:00.businesses more reliant on bricks and mortar is surely going the wrong

:23:01. > :23:04.direction, given the rise of the Digital economy. Now, I welcome his

:23:05. > :23:10.decision, as I have said, that there will a review of support for

:23:11. > :23:18.businesses hit hardest by the business rates revaluation. I look

:23:19. > :23:24.forward to him being able to instruct his Minister and to

:23:25. > :23:29.encourage his honourable members to support the amendment that we have

:23:30. > :23:32.tabled again for a report stage at the Local Government Finance Bill

:23:33. > :23:36.requiring a full review of business rates and its impact on local

:23:37. > :23:41.government finance before the Local Government Finance Bill comes into

:23:42. > :23:46.effect. I just wonder if you could clarify something. He has said he

:23:47. > :23:50.supports the 100% retention of business rates for councils did

:23:51. > :23:54.seems to be advocating for a business rates for businesses and

:23:55. > :23:58.yet more money for local councils. But that doesn't seem to add up.

:23:59. > :24:05.Where will the money come from? As we have suggested before in this

:24:06. > :24:12.chamber, we simply don't think it is the right time for cuts in taxes on

:24:13. > :24:20.businesses like Amazon in terms of corporation tax were businesses like

:24:21. > :24:24.Sports Direct for the biggest banks. It is important to get business rate

:24:25. > :24:28.right because from April 2019 local government will be increasingly

:24:29. > :24:32.reliant on that income stream to fund vital public services. Since

:24:33. > :24:35.the party opposite King Power, funding from central government has

:24:36. > :24:40.been cut by more than 40% and they want to axe the revenue support

:24:41. > :24:44.grant completely. ?10 billion less would be spared the councils this

:24:45. > :24:50.year on the public services in England than they spent in 2010-11.

:24:51. > :24:53.Minster have never denied the local government Association calculation

:24:54. > :24:59.is that local authorities are faced with a ?5.8 billion gap by 2020,

:25:00. > :25:05.just to fund a statutory services. This settlement represents a further

:25:06. > :25:08.cut in councils's Quartz spending power. Not a single extra penny of

:25:09. > :25:14.new money for local government has been found for the care of the older

:25:15. > :25:19.son was vulnerable citizens. ?4.6 billion axed from social care

:25:20. > :25:23.budgets since 2010. Over 1 million English adults, people who have

:25:24. > :25:27.served our country, who deserve to be treated properly and with dignity

:25:28. > :25:31.are estimated to have an Medicare needs. A

:25:32. > :25:40.It is a crisis having profound consequences for the national health

:25:41. > :25:44.services and council axe funding for other services to enable them to

:25:45. > :25:49.have the most basic service to the most vulnerable. Back in July last

:25:50. > :25:53.year the Association of Directors for Social Services warned there

:25:54. > :25:59.were serious problems in social care but the Secretary of State wouldn't

:26:00. > :26:03.act then. The Care Quality Commission described adult social

:26:04. > :26:10.care services at a tipping point. It was dismissed as an exaggeration.

:26:11. > :26:15.The Autumn Statement came and went. When the statement of local

:26:16. > :26:20.government finance came round we were presented with money being

:26:21. > :26:23.moved around from one council funding pot and permission to put

:26:24. > :26:27.the council tax up quicker than before. That raises different sums

:26:28. > :26:35.of money in different areas. It's completely unrelated to need. It

:26:36. > :26:39.shifts the burden of solving a national crisis on to hard pressed

:26:40. > :26:42.local councils and local residents and those who are just managing make

:26:43. > :26:45.ends meet. Members from all parties ends meet. Members from all parties

:26:46. > :26:49.have called on the Government to act. The Chairs of the Select

:26:50. > :26:53.Committees on health, communities and local government and the Public

:26:54. > :26:57.Accounts Committee called on ministers to act, yet the crisis has

:26:58. > :27:02.just got worse. The Association of Directors of Social Services and the

:27:03. > :27:07.head of the NHS have all called on ministers to act, indeed, Age UK say

:27:08. > :27:13.that the English social care system is facing complete collapse. I'm

:27:14. > :27:17.grateful to him for giving way. He is right to talk about the need for

:27:18. > :27:23.social care reform. I believe this government is doing just that. Would

:27:24. > :27:26.he like to take the opportunity to congratulate Conservative-run East

:27:27. > :27:31.Sussex County Council who put their budget with the local CCG budget

:27:32. > :27:35.#57bd moving money out of hospitals so the patients come out of hospital

:27:36. > :27:40.and don't in there. Would that be a good example of local reform that is

:27:41. > :27:43.absolutely delivering now? I'm supportive of things that improve

:27:44. > :27:48.our services to local people. What I'm surprised about, it I mate say,

:27:49. > :27:52.is the honourable gentleman's complacency that the social care

:27:53. > :27:56.crisis is not in existence at all, which seems to be the implication of

:27:57. > :28:00.his remarks. Local authorities up-and-down the country, if he spoke

:28:01. > :28:04.to councillors in East Sussex, he would find they are deeply worried

:28:05. > :28:09.about the social care situation. He will give way to him. I'm grateful.

:28:10. > :28:13.I talk to my councillors on a regular basis, I'm here to represent

:28:14. > :28:17.them as I am for all constituents. When he talks about a a crisis.

:28:18. > :28:22.There are challenges in the system. There is a need for reform. The talk

:28:23. > :28:25.of crisis to me is scaremongering and sending out the signal things

:28:26. > :28:29.can't be fixed at a local level when my County Council is showing that

:28:30. > :28:34.can be by hard work, imagination and application. If the honourable

:28:35. > :28:41.gentleman won't listen to me perhaps he will listen to the Chair of the

:28:42. > :28:45.LGA's health and willing being board and ksh leader of Warwickshire

:28:46. > :28:50.council she said, "to continue it's looking like we are cutting it into

:28:51. > :29:00.the bone of services that matter to people." According to analysis, 147

:29:01. > :29:02.of England social care authorities introducing the social care

:29:03. > :29:07.pre-September for next year. They estimate that that will raise just

:29:08. > :29:10.over ?540 million which does not even cover the cost of paying for

:29:11. > :29:14.the Government's national living wage. It won't tackle either the

:29:15. > :29:19.growing crisis in services available to support the elderly or disabled

:29:20. > :29:21.or stop the need for cuts to local services, including social care.

:29:22. > :29:30.Such is the funding crisis. Of course I will give way. Grateful. He

:29:31. > :29:34.referred earlier to the needs within different local authorities. Does he

:29:35. > :29:38.accept that some local authorities are under greater pressure than

:29:39. > :29:44.others. 13 London boroughs were able to reduce or freeze council tax in

:29:45. > :29:50.2016-17 where many other local authorities were not able to do

:29:51. > :29:56.that. Is he advocating a system purely based upon cost drivers a

:29:57. > :30:02.future system based on cost drivers, based on need and the cost of

:30:03. > :30:05.delivery rather than the formulas in previous years based on regression

:30:06. > :30:10.The honourable gentleman will remember he and I had this

:30:11. > :30:14.discussion many times in the sessions on the local government

:30:15. > :30:19.finance bill. What I suggest to him is he seeks to champion his

:30:20. > :30:24.constituency and what I know a rural area. He might want to talk to

:30:25. > :30:28.ministers where they are intending to abolish the rural delivery

:30:29. > :30:34.services grant which was introduced to provide additional funding to

:30:35. > :30:41.rural areas like his own. He knows very well that is in the context of

:30:42. > :30:46.much more money coming into the system, ?12.5 billion by 2020. That

:30:47. > :30:50.is the context he is talking about rather than withdrawing funding from

:30:51. > :30:54.local authorities? I suggest to the honourable gentleman given the scale

:30:55. > :30:57.of the funding crisis facing local government at the moment, given the

:30:58. > :31:01.abolition of other funding streams, such as the ?3 billion that is going

:31:02. > :31:06.in terms of the public health grant that will be abolished as well, he

:31:07. > :31:12.ought to be more of a champion for rural areas in trying to defend, I

:31:13. > :31:16.might suggest, his own area's funding through the rural delivery

:31:17. > :31:20.services grant. I will take the honourable lady the Chairman of the

:31:21. > :31:25.Health Select Committee. I would like to put on record that my

:31:26. > :31:28.constituency covers part of Torbay which has a national and

:31:29. > :31:33.international reputation for integration of health and social

:31:34. > :31:38.care, but despite that is now under extraordinary pressure from a number

:31:39. > :31:41.of sources and I think it's very important that ministers are aware

:31:42. > :31:48.of the strain that social care is under. Quite right. Well, I commend

:31:49. > :31:54.the honourable lady's remarks she has been a brave voice on her side

:31:55. > :31:58.of the House in raising this issue. Happily give way to my honourable

:31:59. > :32:05.friend. I thank you for giving way. I think he was right earlier on when

:32:06. > :32:12.he said local authorities are allowed to raise that money by 2021

:32:13. > :32:17.it won't cover the cost as there will be a deficit. Having said that,

:32:18. > :32:22.by 2021 there will be a deficit of ?33 million that gives you the scale

:32:23. > :32:28.of the problem. My honourable friend has taken a number of opportunities

:32:29. > :32:33.of late to champion his local authority and the difficulties it is

:32:34. > :32:38.facing, not only now but in the long-term. What the situation that

:32:39. > :32:43.he describes in terms of commentary is being mirrored up-and-down the

:32:44. > :32:48.country. It is time that ministers grasp the seriousness of the

:32:49. > :32:52.situation. The Local Government Association, I will give way in a

:32:53. > :32:55.second, has made clear the continued under funding the social care is

:32:56. > :32:59.making impossible for many local authorities to fulfil their legal

:33:00. > :33:03.duties under the Care app act and leaving open the prospect of a

:33:04. > :33:09.series of costly court challenges. It is true that some money, ?240

:33:10. > :33:15.million has been switched from the new homes bonus to fund social care.

:33:16. > :33:18.When serious analysts suggest that ?1.3 billion is needed urgently now

:33:19. > :33:24.to stabilise the social care system and that the funding gap for social

:33:25. > :33:27.care is expected to reach ?2.6 billion by 2020, it is difficult to

:33:28. > :33:31.find anyone, even in the Government's own party who thinks

:33:32. > :33:40.ministers are on track to sort the social care Cha thaengs our country

:33:41. > :33:45.faces. In terms of social care funding, is it not disappointing

:33:46. > :33:49.there is an attempt now to blame local authorities for the problems

:33:50. > :33:52.that central government is making. When Mr Stevens came to the select

:33:53. > :33:57.he committee he made it clear there would be a funding problem for

:33:58. > :34:01.social care in this country even if every local authority performed at

:34:02. > :34:05.the level of the best? Well, my honourable friend makes a very good

:34:06. > :34:11.point. The default position for members opposite when there is an

:34:12. > :34:14.issue raised in terms of the funding gap both for social care and other

:34:15. > :34:21.services is to blame local authorities. The evidence of Simon

:34:22. > :34:31.Stevens and others rightly rebutts that point. OK. I'm grateful. On

:34:32. > :34:36.this side of the House we blame the Labour frontbench for shamelessly

:34:37. > :34:39.rigging the system in favour of Labour controlled cities during

:34:40. > :34:43.their time in government. I'm sure the Shadow Minister will welcome the

:34:44. > :34:48.review announced today to make sure the future funding formula for local

:34:49. > :34:56.government is much fairer to both urban and rural. Well, I admire the

:34:57. > :35:00.honourable gentleman, if nothing else. In terms of mates rates

:35:01. > :35:04.arrangements we will come to Surrey County Council in just a second.

:35:05. > :35:08.Just last month the Secretary of State once again told the House that

:35:09. > :35:13.in the last spending review the Government allocated an additional

:35:14. > :35:19.?3.5 billion a year by 2020 to adult social care. This is based on ?1.5

:35:20. > :35:24.billion from the back loaded better care fund and ?2 billion from the

:35:25. > :35:28.social care. When you look closely the ?2 billion figure is rounded up

:35:29. > :35:40.from the department's estimate that ?1.8 billion would be raised. That

:35:41. > :35:45.was based on every council raising it by the set amount. Not all

:35:46. > :35:53.councils will do so. When we look at it closely, it builds in the

:35:54. > :36:01.assumption that there will be an additional ?1. 1.5 billion House of

:36:02. > :36:08.Lords... I have no idea how they have plucked the figure of 1.5

:36:09. > :36:11.million new households paying... Perhaps he will be tempted to call

:36:12. > :36:15.this another case of spinning the numbers. The truth is, the

:36:16. > :36:20.additional funding the Government claims to be putting into social

:36:21. > :36:25.care is far from guaranteed. Even then, unless the Government finds

:36:26. > :36:30.genuinely new money there will still be a significant funding gap by

:36:31. > :36:38.2020. Let us come to Surrey County Council and the sorry saga of the

:36:39. > :36:44.abandon 15% council tax referendum. The leader of Surrey County Council

:36:45. > :36:49.revealed he had made cuts of ?450 million and explained that he would

:36:50. > :36:53.have to take an axe to services if the extra ?60 million at 15% hike in

:36:54. > :36:58.council tax would have raised wasn't greed. One reason why Surrey's

:36:59. > :37:03.announcement was so striking is that they have been able to increase

:37:04. > :37:11.spending on adult social care by over 34% since 2010-11. Some

:37:12. > :37:15.councils had to decrease spending on adult social care. Only two out of

:37:16. > :37:19.the 152 social care providing local authorities have been able to

:37:20. > :37:23.increase their spending on social care more than Surrey. If Surrey

:37:24. > :37:28.says they can't cope with the demand for social care, where can? In the

:37:29. > :37:34.most deprived areas of the country, social care spending fell by ?65 per

:37:35. > :37:38.person as councils have been hit particularly hard by Government

:37:39. > :37:44.funding cuts, but rose by ?28 per person in the least deprived areas.

:37:45. > :37:52.The ocean air would only further entrench this inequality. Blackpool,

:37:53. > :37:59.the most deprived authority area in the country faces 31% reduction in

:38:00. > :38:04.its spending power. Woking ham, the least depraved area, a 4% fall in

:38:05. > :38:08.the same period. Perhaps ministers will today finally take the

:38:09. > :38:10.opportunity to enlighten us about what discussions took place between

:38:11. > :38:15.their department and Surrey County Council. From the outside it looks

:38:16. > :38:18.like policy making on the hoof. Ministers embarrassed by one of

:38:19. > :38:23.their own, exposing the fallacy of their argue up. Ministers seem to

:38:24. > :38:31.have settled on opening up the business rates retention pilot

:38:32. > :38:35.scheme. Why is that Surrey were given special access when other

:38:36. > :38:43.local authorities have not been told how they can apply now. Woking ham

:38:44. > :38:46.starts ?400 ahead worse off than the best rewarded ones. That is why

:38:47. > :38:52.there is a different you rate. I suggest he might like to think about

:38:53. > :38:56.the funding for the services need in that area. I suggest in that spirit

:38:57. > :39:05.he might recognise the accuracy of the figures I've just given. Thank

:39:06. > :39:12.you. If you take, for example, an authority like Coventry from 2010

:39:13. > :39:16.until 2020, they will have had 50% cut in Government grants and the

:39:17. > :39:18.Government is shifting the Government is shifting the

:39:19. > :39:24.responsibility of grants into local authorities. Coventry will have lost

:39:25. > :39:29.?655 million. That will be typical of local authorities up-and-down the

:39:30. > :39:36.country. He make as good point. The more reason why we need to continue

:39:37. > :39:40.to hold the party opposite for their decision to axe it in full under the

:39:41. > :39:53.bill. Rough sleeping fell to historic lows

:39:54. > :39:56.under Labour. It's doubled since 2010. The number of social homes

:39:57. > :40:01.being built is at the lowest level on record. With more than a million

:40:02. > :40:04.people on social housing waiting lists, council spending on housing

:40:05. > :40:08.families in temporary accommodation has gone up by 46%. Ministers aric

:40:09. > :40:14.taking money away from councils through the new homes bonus.

:40:15. > :40:19.Ministers sing the praises of the multi year settlement as a way to

:40:20. > :40:23.give local government certainty but make a late switch leaving many

:40:24. > :40:27.countries with an unplanned switch in their beens. No areas in England

:40:28. > :40:30.have been spared from cuts on services. The doors have shut on

:40:31. > :40:37.libraries, day centres and care homes. Bus services, youth services

:40:38. > :40:42.and leisure centres have closed or had their hours restricted. Funding

:40:43. > :40:47.and contracts for local charities taken away. Advice services have

:40:48. > :40:53.gone. Street cleaning has been sharply reduced. All these services

:40:54. > :40:58.are vital life lines for vulnerable residents have been cutting. The

:40:59. > :41:00.people of England are left with worse public services. It will

:41:01. > :41:04.deepen the divide between those parts of the country that are well

:41:05. > :41:09.off and those who rank highest for deprivation. It will not remotely

:41:10. > :41:12.tackle the social care cries is and will hit the pockets of those

:41:13. > :41:17.struggling to balance their budgets particularly hard. It doesn't tackle

:41:18. > :41:19.the long-term problems facing councils from an increasing

:41:20. > :41:22.dependence on business rates. England deserves better. That's why

:41:23. > :41:29.we will be voting against this report.

:41:30. > :41:37.Could I begin by paying a handsome tribute to all councillors, where

:41:38. > :41:45.ever they may be and bit political party they are? I am being

:41:46. > :41:49.nonpartisan. If you have a good councillor, they are genuinely with

:41:50. > :41:53.their weight in gold, whatever their political allegiances may be. If you

:41:54. > :41:57.are a half decent member of Parliament you will work hand in

:41:58. > :42:03.glove with your councillors. I have always tried to do that come with it

:42:04. > :42:08.is at the Parish level, whether it is in the district were Barral level

:42:09. > :42:17.and at the higher tier in the county level, because I benefit from a

:42:18. > :42:21.unitary authority. We should say a big thank you to the work that so

:42:22. > :42:27.many of our good councillors do, that they have a critical role not

:42:28. > :42:31.only in delivering democracy, but in delivering the key and most

:42:32. > :42:37.important of our public services. I have only ever stood once for a

:42:38. > :42:42.council, I was unsuccessful, but I never doubted this invaluable work

:42:43. > :42:47.that local authorities do and I think we often forget the value of

:42:48. > :42:54.that work was that could I apologise to any members of Nottinghamshire's

:42:55. > :42:57.county council, Labour members can I was not suggesting they were

:42:58. > :43:01.resisting moves to be unitary because they might fear they would

:43:02. > :43:07.lose their allowances, but the reality is, I will be blunt, but in

:43:08. > :43:12.too many areas, including some Conservative and Lib Dem areas, but

:43:13. > :43:16.when there is a genuine need for a unitary authority, and I am of the

:43:17. > :43:22.firm view that we should go unitary, with very few exceptions. I said

:43:23. > :43:28.that because I wanted the pleasure of going to rugby come as a borough

:43:29. > :43:33.council it could be the fact a unitary, because they do a cracking

:43:34. > :43:37.job. Not every council should be unitary, but overwhelmingly, and I

:43:38. > :43:43.would urge this on the Secretary of State and his ministerial team, to

:43:44. > :43:46.look at his desire to have unitary authorities and to say to make of

:43:47. > :43:53.our colleagues in the Conservative Party and across the other way, the

:43:54. > :43:59.days when you could sit on a borough for district taking an allowance,

:44:00. > :44:04.doing a good job for your community, but those days have gone. We do need

:44:05. > :44:09.to move to a unitary model in order to make sure that we reduce our

:44:10. > :44:17.costs, but also deliver services in a more effective and efficient way.

:44:18. > :44:27.In our area we have yet local authorities. It cannot be right in

:44:28. > :44:31.terms of removing the tears of bureaucracy and cost that we need to

:44:32. > :44:37.do to maximise resources. I could not agree with my honourable friend

:44:38. > :44:41.more. He makes a compelling point here. I am going to turn to Brock

:44:42. > :44:49.steal her counsel and they have done a terrific job. I will pay credit to

:44:50. > :44:53.the previous Labour and Lib Dem controlled authority, when it was

:44:54. > :44:56.run by them, because they did actually start to share their

:44:57. > :45:00.back-office facilities. They take the firm view that the new

:45:01. > :45:07.Conservative run for a council is even better. Genuinely am I

:45:08. > :45:10.genuinely believe it is. Notwithstanding the unfortunate

:45:11. > :45:15.position they find themselves in, which I am about to address, because

:45:16. > :45:21.it is not all roses in my speech as you might imagine. We are here to

:45:22. > :45:29.represent our constituents and that means we are sure to represent our

:45:30. > :45:33.hard-working councillors. The council, no Conservative run, has

:45:34. > :45:39.continued much of the good work of Kings -- Charing Park offices. As my

:45:40. > :45:43.friend identifies, there is only so much you can do. What we're finding

:45:44. > :45:47.is that we are sharing and can share back office functions, but we are

:45:48. > :45:55.going across borders. We are sharing of those back offices with

:45:56. > :46:00.Rushcliffe. I have spoken to the leader of borough council, Richard

:46:01. > :46:03.Jackson, and I said I am worried about this. We share the view that

:46:04. > :46:08.we should be moving to unitary, which is a brave when you are the

:46:09. > :46:11.leader of the borough council. He is also on the county council.

:46:12. > :46:18.Conservatives on the borough are being brave and seeing that going

:46:19. > :46:22.unitary would be to the benefit. They have two or more with

:46:23. > :46:26.authorities in the county and not perhaps across the border into

:46:27. > :46:29.Derbyshire. They are sharing back office duties. As the honourable

:46:30. > :46:33.gentleman says, there is only so much that you can do and when you

:46:34. > :46:39.just look at planning, no disrespect to my planning officers who, in

:46:40. > :46:44.reality, need one unitary authority when it comes to these important

:46:45. > :46:55.matters. Turning to the difficulties that Brock still faces because of

:46:56. > :46:59.the settlement. We will lose... A total of ?1.1 million over the next

:47:00. > :47:06.three years. This equates to an increase in council tax of about 5%

:47:07. > :47:09.and we really do need to bear in mind Mr Deputy Speaker that no doubt

:47:10. > :47:14.one of the reasons the Conservatives came into power in 2015, one of the

:47:15. > :47:19.reasons, was that we promised we would not increase council tax. We

:47:20. > :47:23.do not want to put up council tax. We are faced with the big drop in

:47:24. > :47:29.their income in the forthcoming year. The thing which agitates the

:47:30. > :47:33.council even more, agitates Richard Jackson, is the short notice which

:47:34. > :47:40.they got in relation to the settlement and, as he put it to me,

:47:41. > :47:43.the administration hardly had any time to plan for the reductions that

:47:44. > :47:50.will be needed with literally a few weeks to do so in order to balance

:47:51. > :47:55.the budget next year and it is tough to say this, but the reality is

:47:56. > :47:59.that, increasingly, for all our local authorities, they are finding

:48:00. > :48:04.themselves in financial difficulty. They have a desire to deliver

:48:05. > :48:08.excellent services, but they are finding that the amount of money

:48:09. > :48:13.that they have available to them, notwithstanding the good work that

:48:14. > :48:16.so many have done in reducing their costs, is putting a strain on their

:48:17. > :48:21.ability to deliver the first class services that they are determined

:48:22. > :48:26.they will deliver. I did make that plea on behalf of the Borough

:48:27. > :48:30.Council, that they have accepted this cut, it would be difficult, and

:48:31. > :48:35.the Secretary of State was good enough to arrange a meeting and we

:48:36. > :48:39.are grateful for that, but enough is enough. This must be the end of

:48:40. > :48:47.these sorts of cuts for good local authorities. Could I turn, if I may,

:48:48. > :48:51.to the issue of business rates. I have no doubt whatsoever, having had

:48:52. > :48:54.the pleasure of working with the Secretary of State for some 12

:48:55. > :49:02.months and if you've more, that he absolutely understands the needs,

:49:03. > :49:05.the pressures and, indeed, the joys especially of running small

:49:06. > :49:10.businesses. He gets it, of course he gets and understands that. In our

:49:11. > :49:18.time together, we did do so much to improve the lot of small businesses.

:49:19. > :49:21.My concern, I have a big concerns about business rates, now is not the

:49:22. > :49:27.time to go into all of that. Business rates are about system, in

:49:28. > :49:33.my view. It is inherently unfair. It matters not how much money you make

:49:34. > :49:38.or lose, you still have to pay your rates and that is absolutely wrong.

:49:39. > :49:43.You can get a certain space that might have only a couple of people

:49:44. > :49:45.working in it, but it could be making millions and millions of

:49:46. > :49:52.pounds in profits because it is basically an online search this --

:49:53. > :49:57.service. That same space could be a shop in a high street which is

:49:58. > :50:00.struggling. We all want our high streets to be thriving places. It

:50:01. > :50:06.will deploy there be three more new book, it will have a much smaller

:50:07. > :50:10.turnover, but it's rates will be exactly the same as that

:50:11. > :50:16.multi-million pound business in the same space. I am sorry, but that is

:50:17. > :50:19.not fair. As I say, now is not the time to discuss this. I think the

:50:20. > :50:25.government gets it and the trick is to find an alternative that still

:50:26. > :50:33.raises the same amount of money and I accept that is difficult. I agree

:50:34. > :50:40.with a lot of what she has said, but if you look at business rates, we

:50:41. > :50:43.are talking small businesses. Only small business could face an

:50:44. > :50:47.increase in the rates of something like ?17,000 a year. That is a lot

:50:48. > :50:54.of money which could put small businesses out of business. I think

:50:55. > :50:58.the honourable gentleman for his intervention, but I think we do have

:50:59. > :51:04.to realise that when we define small business with companies from

:51:05. > :51:07.different ways. There is a profound difference tween the government

:51:08. > :51:11.definition of a small business, which is only business employing

:51:12. > :51:16.under 250 people and the real micro-businesses which so many of us

:51:17. > :51:22.have so many in our constituencies. Who should not underestimate the

:51:23. > :51:26.benefit that many of them have had from the raising of the threshold to

:51:27. > :51:32.12 and half thousand pounds a year. That has been a real boost. The

:51:33. > :51:35.difficulty is that there are many small businesses, the micro ones

:51:36. > :51:39.employing five people, if not even fewer than that we still have this

:51:40. > :51:45.burden of rates. And then the government can do to improve the

:51:46. > :51:49.situation is hugely welcomed. The situation in my constituency, what

:51:50. > :51:52.concerns me is that when some businesses will undoubtedly benefit

:51:53. > :51:57.from this revaluation, and we don't know all the details because it has

:51:58. > :52:02.not been officially announced and would be until March, but we know

:52:03. > :52:06.the multiplier is reduced and we are looking and asking small businesses

:52:07. > :52:14.about the effect. Weepu small businesses will benefit. My concern

:52:15. > :52:20.is that some pubs might have quite an unbearable rise in their rates.

:52:21. > :52:22.We don't have all the details and a note the Secretary of State will

:52:23. > :52:25.want to know those details and I will give them to him. We know the

:52:26. > :52:31.value of pubs. We know they are important to our communities but

:52:32. > :52:35.they are important to our economy as well. The are grouped small

:52:36. > :52:38.businesses. There are concerns about that. There are concerns that some

:52:39. > :52:43.supermarkets will find a reduction in rates, but other businesses

:52:44. > :52:49.employing five or ten people were found an increase in their rates. In

:52:50. > :52:57.my constituency it is neutral, not the 0.7 in the letter. It is just

:52:58. > :53:01.that it might be an equal in terms of who pays more and who pays less.

:53:02. > :53:07.We think the regional part, we have three retail parks, some of those

:53:08. > :53:12.businesses might be paying less, but in the high Street and the result

:53:13. > :53:17.was a debate about regional Park versus the high Street and it is

:53:18. > :53:21.often a battle between the two, and we think some high streets will pay

:53:22. > :53:27.more while retail parks will be paying less and is on the retail

:53:28. > :53:33.parks that you have the big businesses that, I am not saying

:53:34. > :53:36.they can necessarily afford it, but they can probably suck it up in a

:53:37. > :53:43.way that a small independent business cannot. I will provide any

:53:44. > :53:49.details as they come out to the Secretary of State. I know he will

:53:50. > :53:54.take those on board. I do just very quickly on to say about social care.

:53:55. > :54:00.I have no doubt this government understands the very real strains in

:54:01. > :54:05.our social care system and I welcome all that has been done. I think

:54:06. > :54:11.there is much more that also needs to be done. I reject the use of the

:54:12. > :54:16.word crisis. It is a word that is horribly overused. I don't think we

:54:17. > :54:20.are in a crisis. I think our services are strained, but they are

:54:21. > :54:24.not in a crisis and a note in Nottinghamshire, the Conservatives

:54:25. > :54:27.have made it clear that if we are successful in May and in control

:54:28. > :54:36.again of the county council, we will use the very good systems in place

:54:37. > :54:40.to raise the additional money through the preset. The extra 3%. We

:54:41. > :54:44.will do that to raise as much money as possible for social care. I

:54:45. > :54:50.greatly fear the reality is that, from government, from the taxpayer,

:54:51. > :54:54.we need to put more into it. I will have to say this, I spoke to the

:54:55. > :54:58.Chief Executive of Nottinghamshire on Friday and such is the strain,

:54:59. > :55:02.for all sorts of reasons which I don't have the time to go into, one

:55:03. > :55:08.of the reasons Nottinghamshire finds itself in the position of not being

:55:09. > :55:11.able to offer care homes for unaccompanied child refugees is

:55:12. > :55:16.because of the extraordinary cost that is required to make sure that

:55:17. > :55:20.those unaccompanied refugee children are kept safe. It is very important

:55:21. > :55:24.to get the right services and placement. At the moment,

:55:25. > :55:28.Nottinghamshire does not have the resources to do the right thing by

:55:29. > :55:32.those unaccompanied children. So, we do have to bear in mind, as I said

:55:33. > :55:38.at the beginning, the real strains that are being put on our local

:55:39. > :55:42.I made the point about unitary authorities. I would urge the

:55:43. > :55:47.Secretary of State to consider being even more brave than he is and look

:55:48. > :55:54.at saying, actually, we are going to take this bull by the horns and say

:55:55. > :55:59.to councils - now is the time, you must become unitary because for many

:56:00. > :56:05.it is the way forward to save unhundred, but actually, most

:56:06. > :56:09.importantly, to improve services. First of all, the obvious point is

:56:10. > :56:12.that there's no change from the provisional settlement. We are

:56:13. > :56:18.talking about the same figures as the Government presented to us a few

:56:19. > :56:21.weeks ago. It's difficult to imagine that nothing that any local

:56:22. > :56:25.councillor saying during this time has been relevant to their financial

:56:26. > :56:30.circumstances to the extent that ministers feel the need to respond

:56:31. > :56:35.to it in some way. If that's the ways, no change whatsoever to the

:56:36. > :56:39.initial proposals. This does therefore represent a continuation

:56:40. > :56:43.of the cuts that began in 2010. I welcome, and have done previously,

:56:44. > :56:46.the four year spending settlements that have been given to councils. I

:56:47. > :56:50.think that's a emhadful step forward. I know local government has

:56:51. > :56:57.welcomed that in general, as well. It is a cash flat settlement over a

:56:58. > :57:06.period of four years. Therefore, that means a continuation of cuts

:57:07. > :57:09.because cash does buy less over a four year period with inflationary

:57:10. > :57:13.pressures, but the additional pressures on service from the

:57:14. > :57:17.growing number of elderly, the extra pressures of the care act and the

:57:18. > :57:22.children and families act. The pressures that local authorities are

:57:23. > :57:28.having to absorb within that cash flat settlement. The auditor and

:57:29. > :57:34.controller general figures say that the spending power in real terms for

:57:35. > :57:41.local authorities has reduced by 25% between 2010 and 2016. He then says

:57:42. > :57:47.there is going to be a further 6% predubgs up to 2020. He is saying

:57:48. > :57:51.the cuts are continuing. Furthermore, it's very clear that

:57:52. > :57:57.local government has received bigger cuts over a longer period of time

:57:58. > :58:03.than any other service that's provided by Government. Far bigger

:58:04. > :58:07.than any service provided by any other central Government department.

:58:08. > :58:13.No other Government department has had cuts on that scale. That is the

:58:14. > :58:16.reality of the situation. I don't think it can be challenged because

:58:17. > :58:20.they are the facts. The Local Government Association said that by

:58:21. > :58:24.2020, at the end of the spending review period, there will be a gap

:58:25. > :58:28.of ?5.8 billion. That's their figure. I know there will be some

:58:29. > :58:34.people who say - they would say that, wouldn't they, they want extra

:58:35. > :58:39.money? They may just be right. There may be those demands on service

:58:40. > :58:42.provision that can't be met by the funding settlement that has been

:58:43. > :58:47.agreed to. All I would say to the Secretary of State and the Minister

:58:48. > :58:53.is, please think very carefully when the position comes for decisions to

:58:54. > :58:58.to be made about the scheme for 100% business rate retention and extra

:58:59. > :59:01.?11 to ?13 billion that are going to be allocated. The Local Government

:59:02. > :59:05.Association is saying very clearly, the first call on those resources

:59:06. > :59:10.should be the existing services that can't be funded with the existing

:59:11. > :59:13.money be that local government has. That is a very fundamental point. I

:59:14. > :59:17.hear what members are saying opposite, about the need to get the

:59:18. > :59:20.needs assessment right and the Select Committee, I see one of my

:59:21. > :59:26.colleagues on the Select Committee is nodding in agreement. She is

:59:27. > :59:35.looking at needs assessment, we are commissioning work on that as well.

:59:36. > :59:39.No good getting that right if you get wrong the overall needs of local

:59:40. > :59:43.government as a whole at the beginning of this process. That is

:59:44. > :59:46.why we need to take particular account of that demand. My only

:59:47. > :59:55.authority, Sheffield, has challenges next year. It's saying to me,

:59:56. > :00:01.another ?23 million cut in revenue support grant. Savings are needed to

:00:02. > :00:06.make inflation and demands like the council have to make, to deal with,

:00:07. > :00:11.particularly around social care. And, they are saying, again, this is

:00:12. > :00:14.going to mean reductions in the standard of provision of servicesle

:00:15. > :00:17.right across the board. They will try and protect social care. That

:00:18. > :00:22.does mean less money for other services such as parks and open

:00:23. > :00:26.spaces where the Select Committee has done a report showing the stress

:00:27. > :00:29.and strains occurring in those particular services as well. I want

:00:30. > :00:34.to pay particular attention now to social care. It's been given a lot

:00:35. > :00:39.of attention, rightly so. Along with the Chair of the Health Select

:00:40. > :00:42.Committee and the Chair of the Public Accounts Select Committee I

:00:43. > :00:48.wrote to the Prime Minister and asked for a review of the long-term

:00:49. > :00:52.care needs of - long-term needs of funding for social care and asked

:00:53. > :00:58.for that to be done on an all party basis. I still think that needs to

:00:59. > :01:01.be done. We need to reach a new settlement, clearly the currentsome

:01:02. > :01:05.system does not work. We have to make the best of it for the time

:01:06. > :01:08.being, but we need something, reached by general agreement, of a

:01:09. > :01:12.more substantial nature for the longer term. Something that will

:01:13. > :01:17.stand the test of time. That review still needs to be done. But

:01:18. > :01:26.immediately, let us look at the situation. Again, there will be ?2.6

:01:27. > :01:33.billion of deficit in social care funding by the end of this financial

:01:34. > :01:39.settlement in 2020. Of which ?1.3 billion is here and now. They are

:01:40. > :01:45.saying that next year, despite the Government's proposals on the

:01:46. > :01:51.increase in preset up to 3%, despite the cut in the new homeless bonus to

:01:52. > :01:54.allow for extra social care grant, despite those things, the Local

:01:55. > :01:58.Government Association are still saying a ?1.3 billion deficit. The

:01:59. > :02:02.Select Committee are doing an inquiry into social care at present.

:02:03. > :02:07.I won't pre-judge the outcome of that. We will be producing reports

:02:08. > :02:12.in due course, that will be wrong of me to do so. What I can say,

:02:13. > :02:19.however, is that we have evidence from the King's Fund, the nut field

:02:20. > :02:25.Trust from IFS, very similar figures about the gap which currently exist.

:02:26. > :02:29.They may disagree by a few 100,000. Essentially, they are all saying

:02:30. > :02:33.there is a current gap in terms of the provision of adult social care,

:02:34. > :02:36.a gap in the money that local authorities have available to meet

:02:37. > :02:42.their leads. Of course I will give way. Grateful. He talked ermier

:02:43. > :02:49.about a long-term solution to adult social care. He and I went to

:02:50. > :02:54.Germany to look at the care system. We were both impressed I think about

:02:55. > :02:58.their achievement of a cross-party consensus about a future solution

:02:59. > :03:02.for adult social care. Is that something he would advocate when we

:03:03. > :03:10.look at it in the long-term and cross-party? Absolutely. I think

:03:11. > :03:15.their system may not be immediately transferable. They did this on a

:03:16. > :03:19.cross-party basis, 20 years ago. They got cross-party agreement and

:03:20. > :03:23.they are having to put their rates of contributions up now. They have

:03:24. > :03:26.done so with cross-party agreement and with general public support

:03:27. > :03:30.because they have the system in place standing the test of time.

:03:31. > :03:35.There is an example of about how to do it if we come up with a different

:03:36. > :03:38.solution we should look at the method they used to reach that

:03:39. > :03:43.agreement and put a system in place that stands the test of time.

:03:44. > :03:47.Absolutely right op that point. The Government has given local

:03:48. > :03:51.authorities the right to increase presets by 3% in the next financial

:03:52. > :03:55.year. I welcome the fact that most local authorities have chosen to do

:03:56. > :03:58.that. There are problems with council tax, it isn't the most

:03:59. > :04:01.progressive of taxes there could be reforms we could make to improve

:04:02. > :04:07.that. Nevertheless, in the end, local authorities faced with a

:04:08. > :04:11.choice of having not enough money to care for elderly people and going to

:04:12. > :04:15.council taxpayers and say why the increase is necessary. They have

:04:16. > :04:22.done that and I think that is right and they should be congratulated for