22/02/2017 House of Commons

aviation Bill. Second reading, what day? Any day! Tomorrow. Tomorrow.

Thank you. We come now, colleagues, to the ten minute rule motion. James

Berry. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move the leave be given for me to

bring in a bill to amend section 48 or the Lee Valley regional park act

1966 to remove the power of the Lee Valley regional park authority to

raise funds by way of levy on any local authority whose local

authority area falls outside the area defined under section 2.2 of

that act and for connected purposes. Like so many people in this country,

I love our parks and open spaces. I enjoy walking in the stunning parks

we enjoy in south-west London almost every weekend, and I doubt that I

can improve on the conclusions of local government committee to Mac'

-- local government committees' excellent reports. Parks are

essential to the lives of their communities, providing leisure,

exercise and also are fundamental to community cohesion, physical and

mental health and well-being, biodiversity and local economic

growth. I would be pleased to welcome any member of this House to

one of our excellent local park in the royal borough of Kingston upon

Thames, to the injured Fairfield in Kingston, fish ponds part, Toloa

court farm, Chessington or Beverley park in new Maldon to name but a

few. All of these parks are open for the public to enjoy, and all are

maintained with Kingston taxpayers' money. The same is the case for

virtually every part of the country, local taxpayers pay for their local

parks. But Lee Valley park is different, it is paid for by local

ratepayers but also by ratepayers of every single London borough, and

this includes my borough of Kingston upon Thames, which is about as far

away from the Lee Valley as one can get within Greater London. Let me be

caveat said. I have no quarrel with the Lee Valley regional park. It is

an excellent facility enjoyed by many Londoners full stop my simple

contention is that at a time when councils are having to reduce their

own parks budgets, it is no longer justifiable that hefty sums are

levied on London borough to maintain a park that is miles away and seldom

used by their resident Mac. S. The Lee Valley regional park authority

was created in 1966 to maintain the valley, it is a 10,000 acres amenity

from Hertfordshire to East India Dock, and as well as the counties of

Essex and Hertfordshire, seven out of London's 32 boroughs have parts

of their park within it. It contains several state-of-the-art Olympic

sporting venues such as the Whitewater venue for the Olympics,

and this was partially funded by the Mayor of London's Olympic precept

which Londoners have footed the bill for. The clause in the act allows

the authority to raise funds for the upkeep of the park by way of a levy

on every London borough as well as three councils immediately outside

London. This unusual funding model might have been appropriate in 1966,

and certainly this House deemed it so 50 years ago, but rather like the

England football team's fortunes, the financial position of local

authorities was rather more favourable in 1966 than it is now.

Local authorities have had to make significant spending cuts following

repeated cuts to their grants, and will have to continue to do so.

Councils are having to retreat to meeting the increasing demand of

statutory services like adult social care at the expense of discretionary

services including parks. The Si Yajie committee's report shows that

92% of local authority parks departments have experienced budget

reductions in the last three years. Kingston's Conservative council has

rightly maintain funding on parks, but that is a political commitment

the Conservative group made in the 2040 local elections and one that

comes at the opportunity cost of funding in other discretionary areas

that other councils have chosen to prioritise, so it is against this

backdrop that there is increasing disquiet, particularly south of the

Thames, at having to pay the Lee Valley park's massive annual levy.

The opportunity to present this ten minute rule Bill is timely, because

local authorities receive their demand from the authority just

before recess on February ten, and the 2017/18 levy is over ?10

million. I should point out this is a small reduction, and a welcome

reduction on last year's levy. But it is out of step with the reduction

in funding for local authorities over the same period. The demand on

my local authority of Kingston is 160,000 pounds, and over the same

period, Kingston Council will be spending ?1.3 million on parks,

trees and ground maintenance within our borough, Sir R ratepayers would

rightly ask me when our own services are under pressure they are being

forced to pay a sum equivalent to 10% of our borough's own parks

budget to maintain apart 20 miles and -- away which most never use and

some have never heard of. A number of arguments will be levied against

me, the first that believe Valley park is there for the enjoyment of

all Londoners, so the cosh should be shared across London. But as would

be expected, there is an uneven distribution of visitors, with the

number of visitors coming from contiguous borrowers far

outstripping the numbers coming from other boroughs, particularly south

of the river, and this is borne out by the visitor statistics for last

year, with show that 6005000 visits were made by residents from Waltham

Forest, yet only 5000 by Kingston resident and 4000 by Sutton

residents. Dividing the resident levied by the number of visitors,

the cost per visit tells an interesting story. A visit from each

Waltham Forest resident costs 32p per visitor. A visit from a Kingston

resident costs my local council ?32 per visitor, and I suggest that is

unreasonable. A visitor from Sutton costs their council ?46.92 per

visit, and the levy bears no relation to the number of visitors

from a borough in the previous year. I suggest even if my bill is not

carried, the funding formula is in need of radical review. Another

point that might be made against me is that the Lee Valley park would

suffer from a loss of funding from all London boroughs, let me be

clear, I do not want to see any diminution in the quality of the

park. There are many other funding models. The levy on local

authorities proximate to the park could be increased, though that

clearly would not be popular with those local authorities. The park

could be funded by central government in the same way that the

royal parks and national parks are. Or the part could find ways to

reduce its frankly very high outlay. Its budget is twice that of the

largest park in the country, the Lake District national park, 58

times the size of the Lee Valley regional park, or it could increase

its revenue, including through the use of the amazing sporting

facilities it has been gifted at the taxpayers' expense. And the noble

lord Trew offered some suggestions to this effect in the Other Place

last March. I do not pretend to have a solution today for the future

funding model of the park. That will be a matter for debate and

consultation in the future. So in conclusion, Mr Speaker, it is my

contention that the Lee Valley regional park authority should have

it statutory power to levy local authorities outside the area in

which it sits should be removed. This is also the contention of

colleagues on the Government benches who have kindly lent their support

to this bill. The contention of London's Conservative council

leaders and of the Greater London authority Conservative group in the

London assembly, and having reviewed reports on the note Lee Valley

campaign, a number of representatives across the political

divide agree, too. The Lee Valley regional Parks act passed through

this House over 50 years ago when the financial position of local

authorities was very different to that today. In straitened times,

when local authorities are being required to cut their own parks'

budgets, it is simply not right that vast sums are being levied

year-on-year by the Lee Valley authority on boroughs like Kingston

to pay for the upkeep of a park many miles away that is seldom used by

their residents. I hope that the Lee Valley regional park has a long

future, but not at the expense of taxpayers in Kingston or across

London. The question is that the honourable member have leave to

bring in the Bill. Stella Creasy. Mr Speaker, I rise to oppose this

legislation, and I hope the honourable gentleman opposite will

give me an opportunity to explain why. Let me declare straitened

foremost as a member Parliament for Waltham Forest I'm a regular user of

the Lee Valley park authority spaces. I have been to the ice rink.

I'm afraid I haven't been on the horses. I certainly walk the

wetlands. I also as a young child enjoyed the parks of Kingston, my

grandparents living in Surbiton. And it is for that reason I believe that

this legislation that the gentleman proposes is fundamentally misguided,

because he misses the point of the value of regional Parks for London

and for all of our constituents, for the benefit of maintaining and

developing beautiful spaces for recreation, nature and enjoyment for

all our constituent Roumat, and I hope at the time available to me

that I can set out the five reasons I believe that white he might feel

he is standing up for the residents of Kingston, he actually may be

selling them short. Even born respect the fact that

London needed green spaces. We referred to Lee Valley's authority

is London's lung. It has 10,000 acres of Greenland benefiting every

single resident of London. Patrick Abercrombie, who argued for the case

of this park never saw it as simply benefiting those who live nearby,

recognising the investment or the regions could make in that park

benefiting every constituents. When he talks about the visitor numbers,

I share his concern, not as many of his residence, as my residents, use

the park. I would encourage them to come to the park and benefit from

the green lung. He talks about citizens in Kingston not having

heard of the Lee Valley Park. Many will have watched and visited the

Olympics. VuliVuli regional Park played a key part in the Olympics.

Many constituents cheering on Joe Clark as the won GB's first medal.

While he thinks he is talking up for his constituents, he may understand

their pride on what the Lee Valley Park delivered during the Olympics

and continues to deliver. When he talks about visitor numbers, we have

seen a 50% increase in people coming to leave early. That is directly

because people saw the benefits of having the Olympic recreational

facilities on our doorstep in London. It is more than that, not

just about whether people are coming, it is the concept of a green

lung. The air quality in our city has never been worse. Constituents

coming to him like they do me about the air quality in London, and their

concerns. The value of green spaces become more paramount, not just to

those living in the area, the member for Richmond jumping up and down.

The same argument comes for Richmond Park. The value of the spaces

becomes bigger, not smaller when we are facing such a crisis with the

quality of air and the quality of our environment in this city. The

fact we have 14 sites of scientific interest in VuliVuli Park identifies

the specialisms we have there. I would like to invite the member for

Kingston, instead of not visiting, come and see the benefits of the

Walthamstow wetlands. A National site of significance. The crucial

pressure for all of us. I would like to invite all the members opposite

to you: see the Walthamstow the herons the cormorants we have in

London. This is the point. Sometimes we invest together because we

benefit together. Lee Valley regional Park authority is exactly

that. Set up in the 1960s to recognise the mutual investment in

green spaces in London. In the 21st 2017, the case for the spaces grows

even bigger. Certainly the member opposite's could ask about the

funding for the Royal Parks. Whether or not, I did listen to what he

said. I did look at his legislation, not suggesting a similar cut in the

Royal Parks funding, reflecting concern about whether residents from

Kingston go to the Royal Parks. That is the point are invest in these

regional organisations for our mutual benefit. I recognise the

point he's making about local government cuts. Maybe he should be

talking to the front bench about the way the funding level for local

government has gone down, rather than skimping in saving on such

valuable regional authorities. If we only ever see Parks is valuable to

people who live directly next to them, of which I am one of them, I

recognise that. We missed the point of the benefit of having these

authorities. Rather than trying to cut corners, he makes the case to

the front bench of that proper investment in local government,

proper funding for local government. Not trying to cut the funding to

this green lung for London that his constituents can benefit from.

Encourage his constituents to come and use the facilities they are

painful. He will find a warm welcome in the north-east corner of London.

While I recognise the member for Kingston may think he is making a

case for the residents of Kingston, I believe the residents of London,

which the residents of Kingston and Surbiton are some, they deserve

better for all of us. To think strategically, invest in regional

parks like this. To see London as potentially an urban green part in

the future. To invest in green spaces, to recognise the benefits

for all of us. Fully small amount of funding entails. To make a case of

local funding for government. This bill does not do any of these

things, I don't believe it should proceed further in the House. There

are others from our part of London and across the country who will come

and benefit from the Walthamstow wetlands, he will agree with me. The

question is that the honourable member have leave to bring the bill.

As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no".. I

think the ayes have it. He will bring in the bill. Bob Blackman,

Neil Stewart. Mike Freer, Victoria Royo. Syriza Villiers, and me, Sir.

Lee Valley regional Park Amendment Bill. Second reading stop 24th of

March. We come to motion number two on the police grant report, England

and Wales. To move, I called the Minister, Brendan Lewis. Thank you

Mr Speaker. I bid to move that the police grant report, laid before

this House on the 1st of February be approved. In addition to seeking

approval, I think it is right to outline the context in which we find

it covers the work around the continuation of the job we have of

seeing through police reform. This funding settlement provides a fair

and stable funding for the police, providing essential policing reform

and tremendous summation to go further and faster, so we make sure

we have support from the vulnerable, supporting crime fighting in our

communities. Today I'm seeking this House's approval for the second

reading. We protected police spending last year, and I'm pleased

to say that the 20 17th funding settlement maintains protection for

police spending. -- the 2017 - 18 settlement. On December 15 Islay

-- I laid before the House the funding, along with a ministerial

statement, after careful consideration of the consultation

responses. We have decided force level allegations will be as

announced in December. I believe providing stable funding is the

right way to allocate. I am concerned that the Minister may have

inadvertently misled the House. He has said here's been able to protect

police budgets, after the precept is taken into account. That is not the

case in greater magister police, they had to cut front line policing

even though they used the whole precept power. Will he correct the

record? Greater magister police is a good example of a police force that

has increased reserves. Across the sector they have increased reserves

by 400 million. The reality is for policing when the precept is taken

into account we are delivering on the spending review statement, the

funding settlement maintains protection for police spending. Our

police forces do a great job, they need funding to support vital work.

So-called traditional crafts the direct accountability and

transparency with the policing crime commissioners.

They are taking ?1 billion of savings. Does the Minister intend to

shift more money away from London, after the level of 700,000,020 15?

Will he say whether he will fund the national and capital cities grant?

The Home Secretary is appointing a new commissioner with the mayor. The

Minister must recognise there are special responsibilities in London

which the government should engage with? This statement is per the

written statement in December. He is referring to the work we are doing

to the police funding formula. That work is ongoing, I was with the

mayor this morning. I do not recognise the figure he outlines.

700 million. I have spent a lot of time with the mayor in the last

couple of days. Not something he has outlined to me. I look forward to

hearing how he is come to those figures. The 2017 and 18

settlement... I will give away. He is making a lot of sense on this

issue. Bedfordshire, from a financial 's point, one of the most

financially challenged police forces. Kathryn Holloway has found

planning to put 100 more officers on the front line. We can do things to

increase front line policing. Can he say more about the timing of the

funding formula? That will make a very big difference in Bedfordshire.

I will not be in position to outline the new funding formula, that work

is ongoing. In terms of timing, I will give a flavour. Police forces

around the country have done some interesting work, and good work

around performance. More officers spending time on the front line is

giving up as a percentage. Gone up 50%. We are using resources

properly, ensuring uniformed police officers are on the front line

working for their communities. There is some good work going on.

Bedfordshire, I met the PCC and the council in Bedfordshire, as I did in

London. Talking about the changes they face. As a county, where they

have real work to do with a urban centre in Luton. Good examples in

Bedfordshire and elsewhere about police forces working with other

forces, as Bedfordshire does, and working with other agencies, the

Fire brigade, ambulance, to see operational benefits, bringing

savings and a better service for communities. I thank the Minister

for giving way, and the engagement with the North Yorkshire PCC, on the

challenges of rural policing. Could I urge to look at recommendations of

his department's technical reference group, including population is the

best predictor of police demand, and should be a key part of any future

funding formula for rural areas? I thank my honourable friend for his

comment. I'm very happy to be engaged with the excellent PCC in

Bedfordshire and North Yorkshire, with Julia Mulligan. There is

another good example of a police and crime commission delivering for the

front line, looking to find savings, to deliver even better and wider

services or the local community. In terms of coming up to my honourable

friends question about the timeline and the technical reference group,

there are two groups working. Academics, police crime

commissioners, and chief constables. I am grateful for the work of all of

them, to be involved in that group. To come and see me. I still have an

open door policy for any he want to come see me to talk through this, to

put forward ideas that they are working through. In terms of

Thailand, I'm clear from the beginning. I will just finishing

answering the previous questions before I give way further. I have

been clear from the beginning, this is a very big piece of work.

Important piece to get right. Rather than setting timelines I want to let

the groups do their work, to report to us. There are decisions we have

to make. I'm keen we get the work done, equally I demand to pressure

them with having a specific time frame. Honourable friends will have

to bear with us. Important rather than rushing this, we take the time

to get it right. I would just like to ask the

Minister weather, although it says within the special areas, sparsity

and rurality are taken into consideration. It is important for

our area. If we go by population, suffered will be 3000 less than

Norfolk -- Suffolk. The Suffolk PCC was in in the last week or two just

making that very point. There is a piece of work to do at the moment.

The technical reference group, the senior group, will be making those

recommendations to us. I'm not going to prejudge the outcome. It is right

to let the experts do their work to see what the fundamentals should be.

This sentiment also includes extra resources for national programmes

including the transformation fund which enables forces to undertake

essential policing reform. Last year, we provided help to PCCs.

Stable funding for the police force. It means every PCC who maximises

their local precept will receive the same direct resource funding in cash

as they received in 2015, 2016. I can also report of the House that

local council tax precept income has actually increased faster than

expected. This means we can not only meet our planning assumptions but we

can also increase our national investment in police reform and

transformation faster than expected. This make sure police officers are

given the tools to perform and able to perform in the change in the

nature of crime. I hope he agrees that the outstanding Labour PCC Ron

Hogg and chief constable who is working hard to make the force more

efficient, which he also recognise forces like Durham are hindered in

being able to raise the amount of precept? In Durham, 55% of

properties adding banned a -- are in Band A so it doesn't generate as

much money as Surrey. I met the police chief constable and PCC

recently, this came to see me to outline some of the points he just

made. It is correct to say there are differences around the country and

we got to make sure we recognise that different areas will have

different abilities to raise money locally based on their council tax

base, he's absolutely right. I represent a constituency were

something like 80% of our property falls into the law tax band so I

appreciate the point -- law, lower. My honourable friend is making

sensible observations on the changing profile of crime and the

rural of crime. It is different in rural areas. Difficult jobs that

require police presence cannot be offset by technology. That must be

understood in this review. My honourable friend makes a very good

point as always and is one of the realities of their time with the way

policing is changing and it's important we have local

decision-making around police and are able to redirect resources to

meet the basic demands of their area. This year, we have created the

police transformation fund because the grant settlement is not the only

source of money for policing. The fund has already provided investment

to tackle cybercrime and other emerging crimes and has created an

uplift in capacity and the fund will increase to ?175 million next year,

a ?40 million increase and we will allocate specific funding to

counterterrorism to make sure terrorism capabilities -- accounts

to combat terrorism capabilities are maintained. This reinforces our

commitment to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. This

House and the public can be in no doubt the police will have the

resources they need to do their crucial work and will be given the

investment necessary to provide a more modern and efficient service.

My honourable friend will agree that we have the most professional armed

police officers in the world and the statistics of fatalities bear that

out but would you agree that forces outside London have two upscale

there aren't capacity to match the level we have in London in view of

the terror threat that affects the whole country? This comes back to

the point when it's important that local Police and Crime Commissioners

are able to insist what is right for them and to work across policing. It

is being nature the police forces are working across areas and coming

together for the benefit of the country. The Metropolitan police has

a big part to play in that as a large part of policing in this

country. This year 's's efficiency report raised a concern that some

forces may have eased up on the pace of reform in the last year so it is

a clear challenge from us to police leaders to ensure this is not the

case in 2017, 2018. Maintaining funding should not mean police take

their foot off the gas. What I can assure this gas is that this

Government will do its part to support forces to make the

transformation more efficient and I want to update the House on the

steps we are taking to give the police the tools they need to

transform. We are increasing the size of the transformation fund by

?40 million and this will enable additional investment in cross force

capabilities, exploring new technology, driving efficiency and

improving how we respond to changing threats. The first year of the fund

has demonstrated that it is supporting and incentivising

policing to meet new challenges. The key to the success of this work is

that it is sent a lead. Through the police reform and transformation

board, the police transforming themselves to meet Japan's, the

demands of the future. But the police presence in place, there is

more that can be done to create compelling investment proposals and

the functional also allowed the best ideas from across policing for

transformational change to be developed and delivered so in 2017,

2018, we will invest further ?32 million to continue major uplift in

firearms capacity so we can respond quickly to any firearms attack. I

expect proposals endorsed by the National crime agency to go further.

Organised crime is a growing and diverse national security threat

that cost the native kingdom at least ?24 billion a year. It leads

to loss of life, praise on the vulnerable, creates negative role

models and communities -- in communities. We need to ensure that

police forces have the right tools to do the job and improve

efficiency. Thank you to the Minister for finally giving way. The

most outstanding police force in the country for efficiency is Durham.

Can you tell me why that has not been rewarded? This year, for

example, the budget in the funding formula will mean the force will

face ?700,000 less than it had last year. What it would say to the

honourable gentleman, I have already accepted an intervention once

already so I'm surprised at his opening comment! He has made a good

case for why it is important we do this funding review to make sure we

get a formula not based on the one that has been in place for decades

that many police forces are unhappy with. We will deliver on our

manifesto pledge to create a fair funding formula for police. What the

public are noticing is a reduction in visibility in terms of policing

in neighbourhoods. They will match what they have seen on the ground

with complacent statements they have heard today. We need to get

transparency. The promise at the 20 15th spending review was wheeled --

real term protection for the police. Has he met that promise or not? We

have met that promise. For the Police and Crime Commissioners who

maximise their precept, the ad in the same positions is no matter how

many times you ask the same question, you will get the same

answer. I thank the Minister for giving way.

Order! I didn't hear anything that was said that was out of order. If I

didn't hear it, I can't act on it, but at this point, the honourable

gentleman is intervening so we will hear that. I can't comment on

something I didn't hear. Intervention. When the Chancellor

announced in 2016 the police budgets would continue to be protected in

cash terms assuming council tax was maximise, I like many others

welcomed the news. Last year's cuts in grant funding were 0.6% and this

year's provisional settlement outlined a further 1.3% cut to

direct resource funding. How does that square with what the Minister

has said? Last year we protected police spending were precept is

taken into account in the overall level of Government funding

allocated to police is exactly as announced in the 20 15th spending

review at 8400 and ?97 million. That's why I am delighted because it

lets us implement provisions that will further help policing in

future. It's better tackles emerging threats, they can go further and

faster and make sure money is spent on the front line delivering for the

communities in which the police work. There is evidence that shows

closer collaboration between emergency services. Can it improve

public safety, secure more proficient services and deliver

better value for money for taxpayers. I strongly support has

efforts to get stronger collaboration and efficiency. Does

he accept however that when these reviews are formally going on, they

often don't take into account the capacity in different kinds of

forces to make change? If you're a large, or an authority you have huge

capacity for change. If you are a small, rural police force, it is

much more difficult. Will that be taken into account? It is a very

good point and we are looking at all of these factors as we work through

that process. The chief constables and Police and Crime Commissioner

you're are doing that work to make sure that it is fully informed when

we come through with the process and no doubt we will be discussing that

in this House in due course. What we have seen is Police and Crime

Commissioners and chief constables up and down the country already

collaborating and pooling resources to improve effectiveness. That is a

credit to them. I think... Thank my honourable friend for his case. I

encourage him to proceed in the way he has outlined because my local

constabulary in Cambridgeshire is working on things that forensics,

fires, dogs and homicide and has become more efficient and the tragic

Joanna Dennehy murders of two or three years ago would not have been

solved as efficiently without cross county collaboration by police

forces. My honourable friend is right and having met his Police and

Crime Commissioner earlier this week, they were able to exemplify

some of the great work being done and also working to make sure they

deliver the opportunities that the act gives them in terms of bringing

together the fire and police force to see even further efficiencies.

Efficiency has increased, but can only take us so far. Londoners are

playing ?61 in their council tax every year to make up the shortfall

that should come from national funding. When the Minister looks at

funding further, will he look at regional and local authorities, and

what they are contributing at the moment? I do agree with the

honourable gentleman, as they go through the work, in terms of the

review work we look at the functions coming in at a capital city, like

other parts of the country. It is true that we do pay extra money into

London. We have to remember the Metropolitan Police is by far the

best funded police force in the country. Accounts for 25% of all

funding. Very well funded police. So I want to make some progress. We

have to make sure we support greater collaboration, and to support this,

the act contains revisions to enable policing crime commissioners to take

over responsibility for local Fire Services where that case is made.

That means we can maximise the benefits of joint working at local

level, and bring the same accountability to fire as does

policing this the settlement for 2017 and 18 is not impacting by the

police called grant distribution review, maintaining the pr cis

distribution we have used in recent years. I give way to my honourable

friend. Would you not acknowledge that it will be different in

different places? Wilts and Dorset went from a consolidation. It would

mean more costs being spent on reorganisation when we just had won

on the Fire Service. It needs to be done carefully, county by county. My

honourable friend makes a very good point, highlighting is important

should be locally driven thing. The actors is an enabling power, not a

regulatory power. I know his own PCC are looking at how they can be more

involved without necessarily changing the excellent work done to

find savings over the last year or so. A number of honourable members

and honourable friends have mentioned distribution reviews,

while I'm talking about the funding formula, it would be remiss not to

answer questions on that review, as there is clearly widespread

interest. We are continuing the process of widespread engagement. I

have been meeting all PCCs who want to discuss the issue. I can ensure

the House no funding regions will be put in place without a full proper

public consultation. I want to highlight, the 2017 and 18 funding

settlement does provide a fair and stable funding for police forces. It

increases funding for the police transformation fund, to make sure

police leaders are given tools to support reforms. And the

capabilities they need to respond to the changing nature of crime. We are

protecting police spending, meeting our commitment to finish police

reform so we can make sure we and the police are helping the

vulnerable, cutting crime and supporting our communities. I

commend this motion to the House. The question is, as on the order

paper. We on this side of the House deplore the approach this government

has taken to police funding. They have broken their promise to

parliament that they would protect front-line policing. They have let

police forces across the country not have the money they need to keep

citizens safe from crime. Funding cuts every single year, there are

now 21,000 fewer police officers than they were in 2010. That is what

this government has done for policing. Moreover, they are

persistently failing to introduce a funding formula linked in any

meaningful way to the different needs for different areas. When they

did try, it literally did not add up, and had to be withdrawn. Now we

see, in the motion we are debating today that for another year they are

salami slicing the budget again. Cuts across the force. Regardless of

need. They decided they could not run their own funding model, because

they said it was broken. They have not been able to build a new one,

despite trying for four years. This is incompetence, the action of a

panicked and out of touch government. Forced to make bad

decisions that bear little relation to the community's needs. Because of

lack of capacity, which is a problem of their own creation. I thank my

honourable friend for way. Would she agree that the 4.9 real percentage

cut in Gwent, and the cuts in south Wales will put front-line policing

at risk in those areas? Does she agree we have spent time with

front-line police officers as part of the Parliamentary policing

scheme. They front-line officers I have met do not recognise the rosy

picture painted by the Minister. I agree with my honourable friend,

appreciating the work he has done with the police parliamentary

scheme. He understands what real policing is all about. No wonder,

Madam Deputy Speaker, last week the outgoing head of the Metropolitan

Police said, and I quote, it is getting difficult, the bottom line

is that there are less cops. I cannot see any other way. Only so

much you can cut and make efficiencies, then you have to have

less police. I am not sure whether that is wise. We do not believe it

is wise either, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would my right honourable

friend agree, the payments are not been distributed equally across the

country? In Durham we have lost 25% of our police officers since 2010.

Nationally the averages 12%. Surrey has only lost 1% of the officers. I

would certainly agree. I think it is shambolic. We believe that this was

unwise. Broken promises, let me give history. In 2011, David Cameron said

there is no reason for there to be fewer front line police officers.

The number of police officers fell by almost 21,000 since he became

Prime Minister. The total for the police workforce falling by over

46,000 since 2010. Following a successful campaign from these

benches, led by the right honourable gentleman for Lee, he told

parliament, now is not the time for further police cuts, there will be

real term protection for police funding. These figures show he has

broken a promise to Parliament. Between 2015 and 16, and going

forward, 2017 and 18, the total amount of grants for police fell by

4.4%. The real turn -- turn cuts come on top of the cuts of ?2.3

billion, a cut of 25% in the preceding five years, as shown by

the National Audit Office. The motion before us today means next

year, after inflation... I'm interesting in the argument that

develop. Is she asserting local taxation is not a form of revenue?

It is. The motion means next year after inflation funding for London

services will be cut by more than ?48 million. The Northumberland

police service will find themselves in a position where they have to

increase the local tax burden by ?6 million. Just to stand still.

Funding for South Wales Police service will fall by over 5% in a

single year. Meanwhile, crime, which they keep telling us is falling, I

will... I'm grateful for her giving way. The promise in the 2015

spending review was real terms protection. Local tax rises have not

made up for the cuts the front bench has given the police. Real terms cut

for police services all over the country. Of all ministers in the

government, the police Minister should tell the truth at the

dispatch box? It will be welcome. Meanwhile, crime which they keep

telling us is falling, is around twice what it was previously

presumed to have been. As we have learned since January, and inclusion

of cyber crime. In London, the proposed settlement does not include

the full costs of policing ceremonial and national events

taking place, because it is our nation's capital. I will. I thank

you, for painting the correct picture, London only get half the

money should get nationally. ?61 every Londoner is paying on its

council tax to subsidise that. One of the biggest cost is in

neighbourhood policing, destroyed under the previous mayor to London,

resurrected by the current mayor. Under huge financial pressures. I

agree with my honourable friend. In London, if you happen to be a

citizen of London, you end up paying more for national events through

your council tax than anyone else. Colleagues in London will be pleased

to note out of their pockets will come the funding for trips, such as

that by President Trump. This underfunding of police services must

stop. Our citizens deserve the police force fit for purpose. Our

hard-working police men and women deserve a government supporting them

to do a job. They minister is being disingenuous trying to imply that

these cuts take place without any negative effect in our ability to

police effectively. Excuse me. We're starting to see real evidence that

neighbourhood policing is suffering as a direct result of the actions of

the party opposite. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in the

latest annual report, and I quote, neighbourhood policing is one area

where the day danger of across-the-board reduction in

resources is apparent. As chief officers reduce workforces, they

would need to include assurances that a smaller police force will not

compromise public safety, and explain any effect there may be

neighbourhood policing. I share these concerns. Neighbourhood

policing matters, not just reassuring local communities, but

crucial for crime prevention. Unfortunately, I fear the damage has

really been done. To continue the quotation from last year's annual

report, we found there are too many forces where there are signs of an

ever larger proportion of the workforce being drawn into

responding to incidents, leading to a reduction in crime reduction

activity. I don't believe the cuts being asked for today will not lead

to reduction in neighbourhood policing. I can only assume that is

a price the Minister is willing to pay. The problem is compounded by

cuts to other front line services, as local authority and mental health

services are also being pegged back. It is forced for the police to pick

up services when preventable problems become major incidents.

This is a problem for police resources. More than that, a tragedy

for the individuals, families and communities concerned. Returning to

the HMIC assessment, they concluded that society should no longer

tolerate these cuts, in a society with disorder, desperation, but

these are tolerated because the government has got their priorities

wrong. As a result police resources are used to respond to individual

cases, that do not count in the crime figures. Forces themselves

estimate the crime any accounts for 22% of the number of emergency and

priority incidents. When the minister says crime is falling, he

is wrong. It is wrong to use that as the justification for funding cuts.

The Minister argues, it is OK to cut, because forces can raise local

precepts to fill the gap. That is missing the point. Raising the

preset, which most forces for understandable reasons are

attempting to do is just asking the public to pay more for a political

decision, taken on behalf of the government, so they can give less

from general taxation. I will make progress. It is passing the buck on

a monumental scale. More than that, it is unfair, because some forces

are on able to raise the same as others. I will make progress.

Depending on local circumstances and the prevailing level of accounting

tax. Neither of which bears resemblance to policing needs. In

fact, initial results from a current research project at the London

School of Economics, which has examined factors driving demand for

policing, suggest in general crime levels are significantly higher

where house prices are lower. If this is correct, it means shifting

towards greater funding through a council tax precept is precisely the

opposite of what is required. The communities with the greatest need

will have the least ability to meet that need through higher tax rises.

All of this suggests the government has a policy on policing is wrong.

My real concern is deeper, it is this. I do not think the government

has any real idea of whether or not it is jeopardising public safety. No

analysis behind the proposals, we are being asked to approve today.

The National Audit Office in its 2015 report on the financial

sustainability of police forces concluded that, police forces have

insufficient funds at Delhi Macca understanding fully the month for

the services affecting their cost. -- police services have insufficient

understanding for services affecting the cost. It is hard to find out if

the service is offering value for money, how can the party opposite

shore us that these cuts are safe? Frankly it is a mess. -- assure

Russ. We need to understand that but that the attack there. Cannot even

come up with a formula funding before is fairly on current need.

And understand our responding to future needs must be beyond the

capability. Worse than that they are ignoring the work already done. In

2014, a group of senior police officers explored how policing

should work in an environment of austerity. The report, entitled

reshaping policing for the public discussed a wide reshaping of the

police force, wide restructuring to get greater bang for the taxpayer's

bark. As predicted, by the policing crime commission for Northumbria,

the report made its way onto a shelf in Whitehall, currently collecting

dust. In summary the government presents

itself of the party of law and order but their policy on policing is in

shambles. They do not know what forces need or where the taxpayers'

money is being spent properly. You cannot see at which point efficiency

gains become a threat to public safety. They promised they would

protect the front line as they take away the cash that is needed to do

so. They passed the Bucks to local taxation even though the areas that

need more resources are those with the least ability to raise funds. In

the absence of any credible policy they keep cutting every year. In the

hope all will be OK. It is not OK. The government's incompetence led

down the taxpayer. The broken promises about further cuts to front

line services lead in the public and it is insulting to the hard-working

and brave police officers across this country. It would be negligent

of me, I shall not be speaking for long, to thank our PCC, the 1200

brave officers who serve other than the 1000 staff who support them so

admirably across Dorset. I would like to pay tribute to the minister

on the front bench who has been given a difficult pack of cards and

is dealing with it as best he can bearing in mind that the state of

our economy, which we inherited, and to run an effective NHS or police

force, we need money. Dorset Police have an overall budget requirement

of ?121.3 million. That sounds a lot of money but for the large county

like Dorset it is not. Dorset still receives the second lowest grants

per head of population. Only surreal receives lest. That has been the

case for some years. The comments I have made have been based on

comments from the Chief Constable herself and the PCC Mr Underhill.

All police forces have faced the same cut in police grant which

equates to a cut of 1.4%. This is higher than last year due to top

slicing for national projects like the police transformation fund and

the emergency services network. In Dorset that 1.4% cut in central

government grants these a reduction of over ?800,000. In a letter to the

police resources unit the Chief Constable and Mr Underhill said,

they are disappointed in the settlement provided to the PCC

Dorset. Each police force can raise funds through council tax. The

elected PCC in each police force area decide the level of preset

levied on the residential council tax bills. It is limited to 2% or

triggers a referendum. After local consultation in Dorset and with the

clear majority of nearly 80% to approve an increase Mr Underhill

agreed to increase the council tax by 1.98% this year. However with a

1.4% cut in central funding this means the overall funding remains

static. Every year the number of people paying council tax in Dorset

increases. Which you would think is good news, it increases the tax

base. However that tax base is a direct result of an increase in the

number of properties in the county. Which in turn places more pressure

on the police service. It is generally accepted and we have here

that a new funding formula is being looked at. The government is to

replace the existing one with a simplified formula and is consulting

on the arrangements. However following the discovery of

statistical errors in the funding proposals last year the formula

review was restarted. It is not yet finished and I believe it is not

clear, maybe he can help, as to when this will be. Dorset still loses

?1.9 million while the formula dampens due to the 2009 - 2010

review and the formula never been properly implemented. To balance the

books this year Dorset Police strategic alliance with Devon and

Cornwall police, which will be welcomed, the fact they are looking

far and wide to create more efficiencies, will be required to

deliver savings of ?3.9 million and ?12 million over the next three

years. These are considerable sums of money. Dorset is way ahead of

many police forces in cutting backroom staff and making more

efficient. The comprehensive spending review of 2010 resulted in

savings. These were due to the fact that the country was in a terrible

state. Cuts had to be made. Thankfully in November 2015 the new

spending review protected police spending. But this was based on the

assumption that council tax would rise every year. The actual

settlement for 2016 with a cast reduction of 0.6% and gave no

details for future years. Future settlements protect police funding

only on the basis that council tax will rise every year. The

provisional police settlement is once again only for a single year

unlike other government departments which give a four-year preparatory

budget. This significantly compromise is the ability for police

forces to plan ahead. The police are facing radical reviews and changes

and different crime patterns, particularly in areas like rural

Dorset. Any new formula needs to provide stability, transparency and

certainty. And recognise the needs of a predominantly rural police

force like Dorset. I listened carefully to the argument he has

been advancing and I agree with much of what he has been seeing. Would he

say that the government has honoured its promise to the police that was

made in the 2015 spending review? He is playing slightly with figures in

the sense that the government has honoured but it depends on the fact

that council tax is not raised every single year which in some cases it

is not and the various different bands raised different levels of

money. He is doing his best. I am grateful. Would he agree that

history suggests that very complicated formally invented by a

very clever statisticians usually go horribly wrong? There is a great

deal to be said in this instance for simplicity and transparency for

tilting towards a formula based on population which we can all

understand. That would help Dorset and the country as a whole. It is

well known that he is an extremely intelligent man. I did not know he

was able to foresee what I was about to see in the very next sentence!

Maybe he wrote my speech. That is the point I was going to make. A

fair settlement would use population, not crime statistics, as

a basis for any formula, and I believe he mentioned sparsity which

is essential for counties like mine. The population measure is fair,

robust, can be monitored, and is not influenced by police action. Crime

statistics ignore things like road safety, fear of crime, and assume

the same police response for every situation. I hear what he is saying

about population but is he saying that any future formula should not

take into account poverty, demand in terms of the issues that are faced

in cities or areas with particular problems? If he is suggesting what

he is suggesting clearly we will get what we have gotten local government

where any type of understanding of poverty which relates to crime and

anything else is taken out of the formula which will benefit his

constituents at the expense of mine. He clearly does not know the make up

of my constituency which probably has as much poverty in it hidden in

the depths of Dorset as hers. Dorset needs a fairer share of the cake.

Whether it be education funding, police funding, any funding. We

suffer from huge rural mass which the police force have difficulty

getting round. People in my constituency do not often see a

police officer and what concerns me are comments that I here if you do

not see a police officer that is a good thing. If someone says that,

the goodies say that, I am sure the baddies see that as a soft touch and

want to go for a day out, which happens all too frequently. Would he

agree that there is often an assumption that rural areas are

wealthy but in fact rural deprivation is very significant and

it often requires to be measured in different ways, and those in rural

areas are often below average income but have higher costs? Absolutely.

In Dorset and her constituency the deprivation is spread over a vast

area. With respect to the member I suspect the deprivation is in a more

compact area therefore easier to police. Dorset is a massive area

which is not easy to police and deprivation is spread across it. A

few points Mr Underhill made in a recent letter to me. Rural

communities already struggle to access services on a par with urban

communities, public transport, affordable housing and the like. The

fear of crime is higher than any urban areas. Confidence in policing

is lower in rural areas although this is not a criticism of Dorset

Police who do the best job they can. People in rural areas do not often

see police areas. -- police officers. They will do not feel the

police understand their concerns. The point was made about her

coursing. And other rural crime that takes place across Dorset like hare

and trespassing. The honourable gentleman talks about

confidence in the police. Just last night and my constituency, a

convicted murderer was taken to the local hospital in a taxi and

absconded because the taxi was called for to return back to prison.

Is this part of the problem that he talks about in regard to confidence

when police numbers are a factor in taking prisoners to and from

appointments outside the prison. Does this need a review of numbers?

I hear the honourable member and the example he is giving. I think I read

about something now he's mentioned it but not aware of the details are

not in a position to comment I hear his concern that he's expressed. All

the above will only get worse if the funding for rural police is reduced

any further. Finally, can I beg the minister on behalf of Dorset Police,

who do a wonderful job for us, please, please, please, when this

review is done that all the factors I mention are taken into account and

Dorset gets not more of the cake but a fairer share. Delighted to follow

the honourable member for South Dorset. We represent very different

constituencies but made a thoughtful contribution which exposed many of

the flaws in the Minister's arguments about police funding. Each

year in the September recess I hold a community consultation across my

constituency. And make that point because 1000 people come to around

50 meetings and 1000 or more completing surveys, it's a useful

time to take the temperature once a year every September on what the

issues are that are concerning people. And what's worrying them

about their communities. each of them there is an issue. In

last year's consultation it came up even more forcefully. People in

areas where between 1997 and 2010 patient work properly supported in

developing community policing and building partnership had a real

impact to reduce crime, Edward enhanced community safety, made

people feel positive about the areas they lived in an proud of the areas

they lived in. It builds trust in the police. That work has been

eroded since 2010 and communities have felt the consequences. South

Yorkshire Police has had its problems over the years and had a

number of particular issues we've had to

confront we now have strong leadership in an outstanding Police

and Crime Commissioner Alan Billings and a newly appointed and

outstanding Chief Constable Stephen Watson. Like forces across the

country, their ability to provide the policing our communities need a

severely undermined by the funding that's been made available by the

government and I'd like to pay tribute to all the men and women in

the South Yorkshire force who do a tough job on behalf of all of us

that live in the region and often at enormous personal risk. But it's a

tough job, Madam Deputy Speaker that's being made tougher that the

cuts they have to do come to terms with. Numbers are key. In 2011 we

had a force of 5849 full-time equivalent staff. For 2017-18 we're

looking at a force of 4967 and break those numbers down further, what

we've seen is an 18% fall in the number of front line police. We've

lost almost one in five of those people serving us on our streets.

It's almost the equivalent of every police officer in Doncaster gone,

wiped out in impacting the force across the region. Civilian staff

are down by 24%. Police civilian staff play a critical role in

supporting people. Police community support officers

who played such a vital role over the preceding years and building up

the relationship between communities and police, in developing that trust

and identifying the source is a crime on dealing with it before

crimes emerged, we lost 27% of those people and all of that has an

impact. Both for the communities that depend on policing but also for

those who provide it and as the acting chair of South Yorkshire

Police Federation told me, she said to me, I represent a talented and

committed group of people and she does. They care deeply about the

communities that they serve. But she said to me, they feel increasingly

that they're doing their job with their hands handcuffed behind their

backs. It's not simply that, we are putting them at risk as well. There

is an increasing reliance on single crewing, where previously officers

worked in pairs in dealing with difficult situations and the

Minister will be aware of the appalling attack on Sheffield PC

Lisa Bates. A vicious, awful axe attack which was felt desperately

across the whole of the community across South Yorkshire. Lisa, in

that situation... If she had been single crewing as we now face

increasingly, she might now be dead. These are the risks that cuts and

numbers are putting, not only on our communities but on the people that

serve them in our police force. There are all the issues that people

have talked about on the Minister acknowledged the growth in serious

organised crime. The growth in cybercrime and there are other

pressures too. Caused by the cuts that other arms of the government

are making on partner organisations who work alongside the police in

trying to build safe and secure communities. Increasingly the police

are picking up the consequences of pressures on social services,

picking up an increasing role from the crisis in mental health

provision. Madam Deputy Speaker, the thin blue line in South Yorkshire,

and I know across the country, is becoming the last line of protection

in ever wider areas. And it's reaching breaking point. Now I know

judging by the only service he didn't mention. This the Ambulance

Service I think that is the single greatest source of pressure on front

line policing and is putting police officers in very difficult

situations belong beyond their training and competence. Does there

need to be an urgent review on the performance of the Ambulance Service

and the pressure it's placing on police officers on the front line. I

think my right honourable friend makes a perfect point and is right

in seeking such a review and we seen the pressure is on the Ambulance

Service in some fairly frightening cases and one that my honourable

friend the member for Sheffield dealing raised on the floor of the

House in terms of response times and the combination of the problems and

pressures that are created. I want to return to the point about the

level of funding which he also tried to pin the minister down on earlier

and judging by the Minister's early responses I'm sure he's going to

argue that arise in the precept to offset the proposed cut in grants

will compensate the South Yorkshire force for the ?2.5 million loss in

funding that we face with this settlement. But that is

disingenuous. And the Minister knows it. Even putting aside the political

double-dealing of forcing local tax increases to fund national tax cuts

for those who don't need them. Flat cash funding isn't real protection

for police and he knows that's the case. To meet the increase in wages

and other pressures within the South Yorkshire, we will still seek cuts

of around ?7 million to the local force so local residents are being

asked to pay more for a further decline in services. Now, we have

seen what short-sighted policies have done to our prison service.

With the government itself now scrambling to overcome the problem

is that they've created. Surely we can't let this happen to the police

service as well. We need the government to recognise the scale of

the problem, to recognise this settlement doesn't address it and to

persuade the Chancellor to take action before it's too late. It's a

pleasure to follow the honourable member for Sheffield Central. As in

all areas of public services, the police service is historically

underfunded in rural areas for too long. This has often been based on a

false perception about the nature of crime and policing in rural areas

when compared to cities and other urban areas. The notion that crime

in rural areas is little more than the occasional break into a garden

shed or something of that nature is a false notion. There is a direct

comparison between the types and nature of crime in urban areas on a

population pro rata basis, the number of crimes are also distinctly

similar. In addition there are many very specific challenges of policing

rural areas. They often require great police presence that requires

boots on the ground. The constituency of St Austell and

Newquay that I represent, it's an area of Cornwall that alongside

routine residential police matters sees record numbers of tourists,

evermore busy roads and many other issues concerning our rural

communities, not least the simple fact that sparsely populated rural

areas have additional logistic costs to bear. Cornwall is after all one

of the longest counties with the longest coast and that is before you

consider the challenges of policing the Isles of Scilly. The cost of

policing rural sparsely populated areas where officers must cover

large areas and deal with on wide variety of issues, not just crimes,

is significant. Rural areas have more than its fair share of remote

and winding roads. Statistically there is a disproportionately high

number of road traffic accidents. I understand that 61% of road traffic

accidents are on our rural roads. That puts additional burden on the

police and other emergency services. I'm pleased to see that deprivation

is a key factor when considering police funding but yet again there

is a myth perpetuated, often by the party opposite, that deprivation

only exists in cities. My constituency of St Austell and

Newquay contains five neighbourhoods that are in the 10% most deprived in

the country. I got to say I'm sure he's obviously not read my maiden

speech but I refer to my constituency as a rule constituency

with urban problems, so I very much recognise the pointy mates. I'm very

grateful to the honourable member for that dimension and pleased to

report that he is an exception of the members opposite to continually

present the image that deprivation is an exclusively urban issue.

Previously when discussing this I was told that the trouble with

Cornwall was that we had the wrong type of deprivation when it came to

attracting police funding. The wrong type of deprivation, I do not

believe that is an excuse even Network Rail could come up with.

Deprivation exists in our rural villages and it is often the people

who live in the most remote parts of our country who are the most

probable. It is time to address the unfairness in funding that has left

our police in rural areas... That has affected our police in rural

areas. I believe that we have a police minister who understands the

issues facing rural areas and is willing to address them. Not only

have I phoned him willing to take on board the points that I and many of

my colleagues have put to him but I am pleased to report the Police and

Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall has asked me to

congratulate the minister for the transparent unconstructive process

that he has dealt with her and other PCCs. The job of fighting crime and

making our communities safe is not just the responsibility of the

police, it is a partnership between all stakeholders. In my constituency

we have a number of examples where this is happening. In Newquay the

new key safe scheme has attracted national recognition, a

collaboration between residents, the council, the business community and

the police, who have successfully worked together to reduce crime and

anti-social behaviour in the town and repair the image of new key as a

world-class family holiday resort. Another town has suffered from a

growing problem of anti-social behaviour in recent years.

Stakeholders have come together to address the problem and recently the

town centre have funded extra security to reduce anti-social

behaviour in the town centre. While it is good that different parts of

the community are working together to address the issues that cannot be

a substitute for front line police. We should not expect the business

community to be finding others to do the job of the police in keeping our

streets safe. I am pleased to report that despite the restraints on

budgets and the comments from members opposite our PCC has

recently announced Devon and Cornwall will be gaining 100

additional front line police officers. The increase is greatly

welcomed and will take the forced's total back-ups over 3000. Another 80

posts are to be created in key support roles, proving once again it

is this party on the side of the house that is leading the way in

delivering value for money for the taxpayer. While we would all of

course like more money for our police I am happy to support the

motion of the police grant that is before the house today. However I am

also reassured by the minister's acceptance that the formula does

need to be reviewed going forward and I trust that we can count on him

to ensure that in future the unfairness towards rural areas is

addressed and we can see our police in places like Devon and Cornwall

receive a better deal in the future. I have listened carefully to what

the member has said and particularly the member from Sheffield Central.

It rings very true what comes forward. Merseyside Police relies on

government funding for 81% of its funding for the police force. That

is due to the low council tax base. Percentage cuts therefore government

grant heads as hard. Since 2010 Merseyside Police budget has been

reduced by 15% and during this period the force has been required

to make reductions of spending in policing of ?91 million. The budget

of Merseyside Police is ?21 million short to restore the 4000 police

officers we need. The police employed 4588 police officers. By

March next year that was 2010. By March next year force will be

reduced to 3580 police officers, losing more than 1000. If these cuts

continue we estimate that by 2020 the force will be operating with

more than 26% less officers compared to 2010, reduced the 3400 police

officers. As the government continues to cut our police grant

ministers are determined, by the maximum allowed 1.95% a year. Our

commissioner has not really been given a choice. Even though we are a

low council tax -based county. Most of our properties around Bandy and

banned bees will be below not well off and therefore ?5 has a

significant impact on them. Before Christmas it was confirmed by the

government that the grant allocated to Merseyside Police would be

further cut for 2017-2018. This equated to 1.4% cut and has left the

force with ?0.3 million less grants next year in comparison to this

year. By increasing the precept by the maximum allowed it raises less

than half the money lost by the grant, it raises 1.2 million. Even

with the extra contribution provided by taxpayers we still have to find

6.8 million of savings in this next financial year in order to balance

the books. The demands on Merseyside Police, 1.2 million calls every

year, between 500 and 700 emergency 999 calls every day, on average

1.234 thousand incidents each day. Over 200 or their covert operations

and events every year including large-scale public orders. One of

the most the mandate of all is organised crime which is a major

priority in Merseyside. There are 83 organised crime groups operating

regionally but identified crossovers or geographic links to Merseyside.

The force analysis highlights the significant national spread of

activity of organised crime. Merseyside in all 43 forces. This

means our police have to cross over into 43 forces. Merseyside has a

significantly higher number of organised crime groups with

international links. The assessments have indicated Merseyside is one of

the three hubs nationally for drugs. The main criminality for 70% of

Merseyside organised crimes is drugs. The other being the

Metropolitan Police Service and West Midlands Police. This is a further

indication of the impact of Merseyside organised crime groups on

national crime trends. Recorded crime, drug offences, 5903

nationally, was only met by record by the Met Police. Gun crime,

2014-2015 162 firearm offences, the sixth highest in the country

reported to Parliament. This indicated there were 277 firearms on

Merseyside, that eight of which were active and had been fired within the

next 12 months -- 38. Since 2010 Merseyside has written a 12%

increase in the number of people killed or seriously injured on the

roads. Recent data, every 12 months more than 500 people are killed or

suffer serious injuries. Merseyside has some of the most deprived

boroughs in the country. The index of multiple deprivation rates

Liverpool as second and fifth local authority districts with the largest

proportions of highly deprived neighbourhoods in England. With

Liverpool being the local authority with the largest number of

neighbourhoods in the most deprived 1% of all neighbourhoods. This issue

is further exacerbated by ongoing cuts to all other public sector

services like love local authorities who have magnificent working

relationships with the police and many joined up issues but they work

together all sadly being disembarked. Youth offending

services who were previously more able to support the police in their

community safety work. Merseyside poll, act -- the ability to assist

other forces as it has done in the past may be compromised making this

as much a national as local issue. Government is currently working on a

new funding formula which must dictate how much each police force

receives from the current funding pot. We deserve a proper funding

settlement from the government. It is sad but I have to say this, the

Conservative government has chosen austerity programme cuts to all

public services valued by everyone in this country has sadly taken the

great out of Great Britain and what we were so admired for in years gone

by. The minister knows that I have sought to work as cross-party is

possible to try to overcome some of the challenges facing front line

policing. My campaign has had support from MPs across the house

and the 11 names on my bill presented to the chamber two weeks

ago represented five different political parties. But I am

struggling to recognise the picture painted by the minister who suggests

that this funding formula is the fastest route to a transformed

efficient and therefore better policing. The Home Office has always

sought to suggest there is no correlation between reduction in

funding and increased vulnerability of officers which he knows is an

important issue to me and the reduced service they are able to

offer. In his statement published with the police grant report he

stated, the government will provide the resources necessary for the

police to do their critical work and prioritise finishing the job of

police reform by enabling the police to transform so they can tackle

changing crime, deal with previously had an crimes and protect the

vulnerable. It is this notion that cuts to policing facility reform and

reform equates to better policing that I am struggling with. Since

2010 West Yorkshire Police have lost 1200 front line officers, 800

members of staff. The impact this has had on their ability not just to

respond to be increased complexity of crime and social challenges that

are the responsibility of the police and to do some of the basics is

undeniable. My experience being out with officers in my constituency, I

welcome investments in technology and advances in forensics which make

the police more effective than ever before, in almost every aspect of

policing the numbers of boots on the ground really do matter. I

appreciate he will stress that the allocations are protected at flat

cash levels compared with the previous financial year however West

Yorkshire Police have faced cuts of 140 million since 2010, 20 5% of

their budget. Does she is sure the concern that the funding formula

review taking place first of all has been shrouded in mystery, the

minister has not given any details of the main indicators that are

going to be implemented in the outcome of that, and also many

police authorities I am sure will be on the receiving end of that funding

and he is not able to tell us when that review itself will be finished?

Even if police forces are scratching their heads about the future. You

are right in that there was confusion about whether this was the

formula for next year or the year after because we have not had that

level of detail about what is coming up in the future. You are right

about the uncertainty that fosters within forces up and down the

country trying to respond to challenges. Faced with those cuts

efficiencies alone simply cannot offset cuts like that. We know the

amounts that PCCs can collect will very greatly with the poorest unable

to finance the shortfall in the grant required to meet the grant.

West Yorkshire is the fourth-largest force and takes in Leeds, Bradford,

Wakefield and others. The Leeds district itself is bigger than some

forces. We have diverse communities, lots to offer, but sometimes that

challenges as well. We have socio economic characteristics in pockets

of deprivation that increased policing demands. We taken some of

the urban areas, big urban areas, in the north like Leeds and Bradford

uncovered some of the sweeping rural areas in the Pennines. We have heard

from members this should be a formula based on population size but

I do not believe the police grant recognises the pressures of complex

evolving crimes such as cyber crime, human trafficking, preventing child

sexual exploitation and missing persons inquiries.

The resources allocated have not changed. I was able to see during my

time with West Yorkshire Police the difficulties of having to divert

cruised into locating missing people which is compromising policing work

and eating into officers available for 999 calls. Leading up to the

shift I did, they had safely recovered nine vulnerable missing

people and were involved in looking for an additional seven the

following day. It is picking up the pressures to cuts to services that

is having an impact on policing at the same time they are facing

financial pressures. The weekly average for called Ollie is 43

missing people. West Yorkshire Police responded to over 20,000

occurrences of missing people last year which is staggering and

completely unsustainable. We have had a safeguarding uplift to meet

this demand but those officers have come from policing so numbers are

down across the vital teams I work so closely with in my role. The

conversations I've had. Having spent time with out of hours mental health

services, I spent all night sad with two police officers who were unable

to leave somebody detained under the Mental Health Act. They had to

listen to call after call but could not believe a young nurse on her own

mother gentleman who didn't agree she should have been detained and

becoming increasingly aggressive. I've been out with history Dane

Nielsen my community which is a great initiative were volunteers

seek to ensure that people on a night that have a safe time. That

alleviates the pressures on the police and the notion of the big

society in action was that they have expressed concerns to me that when

the encounter fights or potentially violent individuals and demands on

the police are such they can't get involved and organisations like them

start to lose confidence in the police, should they be able to

respond to them if they needed and that starts to undermine some of the

great partnership work that we are seeing. The minister is well aware

of my concerns as we have heard from my honourable friend the member for

Sheffield Central that reduced numbers mean that officers

themselves are particularly vulnerable to assaults when they are

on their own. I hope the Minister will consider any and all measures

to protect officers including those measures outlined in my ten minute

Bill. I'm asking the Minister ahead of the publication of the funding

formula that we're expecting in the spring that he looks to factor in

the different demands placed on forces beyond simply population and

geography. From there that recognises there is an imbalance

between the amounts that different forces can harvest through the

precept and adopt a formula that genuinely meets the demands on

policing and allows officers to do the job that they do so well.

It's a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Halifax and a

very thoughtful and well considered speech. I'd like to use the

opportunity to initially raise some general points about the funding of

Welsh police forces. On my skull and Northern Ireland, policing is not

yet devolved to Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland policing is done

via the Barrett allocations and Welsh policeman are reliant on a

funding formula from Westminster. Usual ballot allocations were

applied and Welsh police forces would benefit from an extra ?25

million investment per annum on policing services in my country if

the money was ring fenced by the Welsh government. The wheels are

Naidin formula has not been historically kind to Welsh policing.

My police force has faced cuts of ?30 million over the years. This is

one of the primary reasons for the controversial loss of our dedicated

police helicopter and I will resist the temptation to re-raised those

issues today. The aborted funding formula review read by the previous

minister last year would have led to a cut of ?32 million for Welsh

police forces funding. A further 7.9 million pounds, a staggering 16% of

its budget. The aborted formula aims to concentrate on social economic

data in terms of criteria for funding allocations. These

determinations cannot reflect the true cost of policing rural areas

like the ones I represent and it's vital that the Minister before he

publishes his new formula takes a broader view. Due to Westminster

underfunding, local residents have had to make a greater contribution

for police services by the annual precept. It's a typical trick

whereby the burden moved from general tight-lipped taxation onto

local taxation and the Tory manifesto pledging to not increase

income tax, the UK Government has to look at other forms of taxation to

make up the numbers. The sort of fiscal strategy is completely

regressive and we have had that point made by several honourable

members. There is no operational reason why policing is not devolved

to Wales and it's disappointing that the last wheels built like the

ambition to equalise powers not to mention cities like Manchester were

policing powers are being devolved. With all four Welsh police

commissioners and a clear financial dividend is clear that its narrow

ideology driving policy in Westminster as it relates to Welsh

policing. May I now turn my attention to other points raised by

police commissioners relating to the cost.

The area cost factor the police each users is skewed in favour to the

south-east of England are salaries are higher. This might be necessary

but is not including... The Department for environment and rural

affairs reported in 2014 outlining how the cost of service delivery in

rural areas is higher than average. Mentioned in this report of travel

costs and travelled downtown, evidence shows travel time for

police forces in rural areas is 25 times longer than in metropolitan

areas. The issue concerns the size and shape of various forces police

and particularly the distance they have to travel to deal with public

safety and welfare and transport. The point made by the honourable

member for Cornwall. Population in the small compact police forces make

less demand on travel time than one in a large irregular police force

area with multiple population focus. It serves less than 8000 people in

290 hectares. The police serves a resident population over half a

million people spread across over 1 million hectares of largely

dispersed towns and villages. The UK Government report also has the

difficulty of channel shift. As you have also heard from other members

of the party, digital infrastructure is a major problem in our country.

Too many of our communities, they are without broadband. The police

forces have to rely on other ways to communicate with their service

industries which are more time intensive. Call handler can deal

with one collar at any one time but may deal with several simultaneously

using web chat. Another example is holding cells, due to its

geographical territory, there are three holding cell units in our area

and these must be manned simultaneously in 24 hour basis.

That's more expensive than a police force who has one central holding

unit. I could go on and on to make several other examples. The area

cost adjustment factor for the City of London is 1.52, the area cost

adjustment for vivid palace is less than one. I would urge the Minister

to review the factors that review area cost to take into account the

unique and more difficult circumstances that rural police

forces face. If I may now turn my attention to the national and

international capital city ground. It is difficult to conceive of a

simple police grant formula that could encompass such a range of

circumstances for stubbornly the specific needs of the City of London

Metropolitan Police forces have long been recognised, primarily through

the national and international capital city ground. Cardiff is also

a capital city and does not receive this grant. What consideration has

the Minister given to awarding Wales with a proportion of the national

and international capital city grant to adequately address the unique

challenges the police forces face in the capital city of my country. I

would like to conclude by saying that when it comes to the funding of

release services my country, the devolution of policing to Wales as a

political and financial no-brainer. I would finish by saying that this

is probably the only time you'll ever hear me and this house saying

something positive about Barnet formula.

Lancashire's been one of the top performing police forces in the

country for many years and in some ways it's been a victim of its own

success. I say that because despite the improvements in performance and

efficiency, it still be on the receiving end of cuts from this

government for quite a number of years. Given its success I would

like to pay a particular tribute to the county council, our police and

crime commission but especially to chief Percival Cisse in his retiring

nature after many years service to the people Lancashire. -- Chief

Constable. The pressures police are facing and their partner services

are cut as well as the challenges that we face through future

uncertainty of the police. The financial uncertainty caused by the

return of the police formula funding review means forces like Lancashire

are particularly affected. Last time around mistakes were made in the

process that suggested Lancashire would lose around ?25 million a year

on top of the ?76 million worth of savings that have been made since

2010. However, even when the figures were revised over ?8 million a year

would be taken out of Lancashire's annual policing budget on this man

that Lancashire face savings over four ?100 million a year by 2020

compared with 2010 that is the equivalent of more than a third of

Lancashire's budget. Reform of the police funding formula is overdue,

as has been stated by the home affairs select committee and indeed

mentioned here today and it's vital that the new formula actually

represents the demands on police forces. All forces me to be

adequately resourced but this must happen without disadvantaging other

areas where already making tough choices to deliver necessary

savings. My constituents repeatedly tell me that they do not want to see

resources taken out of policing and they have supported increases to the

policing precept to see this happen. But further cuts will impact on

officer numbers is around 80% of the constabulary total budget is

staffing and other costs. When the Chancellor announced in 2016 that

police budgets would continue to be protected in cash terms, assuming

council tax was maximised, I, along with many others, welcomed the news.

Last year's cuts in grant funding where a uniform 0.6% and this year's

provisional settlement outlined a further 1.3% cut to direct resource

funding. While these cuts are considerably better than originally

expected in 2015, they do still mean that Lancashire has to absorb normal

inflation and other government imposed cost pressures such as the

national insurance changes, national living wages and introduction of the

apprentice levy. As a result, in Lancashire, it still has to deliver

?4 million worth of savings in 2017-18 with a further ?40 million

to be found by 2019-2020. I'm also disappointed to see a further

reduction in police capital grant for 2017-18. The cost of regular IT

replacement cycles are a significant cost for the force but this

investment is vital to ensure improved productivity and efficiency

in future years. The reduction in grant means that the burden on

scarce revenue resources is increased as borrowing increases to

meet these costs and it's an unattractive option given the

relatively short life cycle of IT assets. I'll talk a little bit about

top slicing because the Minister didn't mention that in his speech to

the House. The value of top slicing has increased significantly in 2017

- 2018 by over ?100 million. This increases more than the assumed

year-on-year increase in precept income from the 2016-2017 level

nationally. It could therefore be argued that this means that local

taxpayers are in effect funding the There is no detail of the plans for

the transformations fund set up for 2017-18. The Treasury of my health

or it is unable to gauge how much of this funding might be coming back

into the service. In recent years there has been a shift by government

towards creating ports of funding for the police service to bid for

and that bidding process can be laborious and possibly fruitless at

the time and resources are thinly stretched. We would also like an

assurance that the proposed increase of this transformation fund of ?525

million in 2018-19 to give total fund of ?700 million will not be met

by further top slices to the police grants distributed to PCCs as a

further reduction of this magnitude in direct funding for policing would

have detrimental effect on the ability of forces to deliver their

services to the public. The top slice taken to fund the emergency

services network programme has increased significantly at the time

in the implementation of the new network is consistently being pushed

further back. I am concerned that the report of the Public Accounts

Committee into the new programme that the December 2019 cut-off point

may not be met. This may mean that the existing error with contract

being extended at the potential cost of almost ?500 million. This is at

the time and resources for policing are stretched to an unprecedented

level. It does not seem prudent to remove funding from forces to pay

for a programme that is not really moving forward. I would be grateful

from the minister for any information or the assurances the

department can provide about the ability to meet the timescales in

question or protection of individual force budgets for many of our costs

arising from the emergency services network or the extension of airwave

contracts. I would also appreciate more certainty in general about the

future level of top slicing that will take place as this has

increased each year but at inconsistent levels. This makes the

forecasting of future levels of resources extremely difficult and

the government is making financial planning and prudent management of

public funding considerably more difficult than it needs to be. I

would appreciate certainty in general about the future level of

top slicing that will take place as this has increased each year at

inconsistent levels and it makes resources extremely difficult to

allocate in particular with financial planning and the

difficulty that comes with that. There has been a great deal of media

attention recently on mental health services. It is widely understood in

the sector that mental health is a key driver of the man for policing.

When I met with my Chief Constable couple of weeks ago I was told that

80% of incoming calls to the police, not even crime related, many of the

calls relates to problems related to mental health. While the police have

received relative protection from this particular round of the

government's austerity the same cannot be said for many of our

bluelight partners. Local government has been affected severely. Despite

additional resources the pressures on health are well documented and

have been made clear by other members speaking in this debate

today. As a result the services facing increased pressure from cuts

to other services funded and I would ask the Home Office and ministers

present and other government departments to ensure that

investment in other sectors such as the health service, the courts,

prisons and other relevant departments are maintained in order

to generate benefits for the police service themselves are caused by

cutting these other services it is having an indirect effect on the

operation of the police service. I ask that the minister speaks to the

Chancellor and makes representations on the budget because I hope that