5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Is my hon. Friend concerned about not only that but increasing industrial-scale dumping in rural areas and the additional pressures on neighbourhood policing—whether from the increase in illegal immigrants going into hotels and houses of multiple occupancy, or from prisoners being let out of prisons, who neighbourhood police forces have to man-mark because of Labour’s Sentencing Bill?
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing today’s debate. She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, giving a voice to thousands of women who have been let down by the state. I also thank Henrietta Hughes for the Hughes report. Thousands of pregnant women were prescribed sodium valproate between 1973 and 2017 despite growing evidence of harm. In 1972, scientists found in animal studies that it was harmful to foetuses, and in 1984, foetal valproate syndrome entered the medical literature. Studies in the 2000s highlighted the link between valproate and birth defects. I remember, as perhaps you do, Dr Allin-Khan, learning about it at medical school. Yet it was only in 2018 that the valproate pregnancy prevention programme came into force, which was too late for more than 20,000 children with entirely preventable disability. Over 10,000 women in England were harmed by pelvic mesh. Mesh kits were issued in the 2000s to treat urinary incontinence and prolapse, despite a lack of long-term safety data. Women suffered hideous complications: mesh tearing through tissue, bleeding, infection and sexual dysfunction. Shockingly, it took until 2018 for NHS England to suspend the routine use of these implants. I want to raise the case of a lady, now in her 30s, who had a mesh implant put in to prevent a hernia in her abdominal wall, something that is often missed from the discussions about mesh. She describes how she is unable to leave her home because there is a hole in her stomach wall where the mesh has eroded. It cannot be removed. The surgeon described it as being stuck in there like chewing gum. She described her wish for a family. She described the smell of the constant infections. She described the fear of waiting for the next infection and wondering whether the sepsis from it will kill her. Yet there seems to be no way for her to get this mesh removed. The previous Government did not sit on their hands. The former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), commissioned the independent medicines and medical devices safety review after hearing from over 700 affected people and medical stakeholders. The previous Government issued a formal apology to victims and appointed a Patient Safety Commissioner. They began to establish a network of centres to provide treatment, care and advice for those affected by the implanted mesh. I would be grateful for an update on that from the Minister, particularly in the light of the case that I described. In 2022, the previous Government asked the new commissioner to report on options for compensating victims. Dr Henrietta Hughes did so in February 2024, a full 24 months ago, and that report set out what justice should look like for victims: an interim redress scheme and a permanent one to follow. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, it was a package of clear, practical steps to right the wrongs done to so many women. Yet two years on, we are no further forward. After the 2024 election, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked the Government when they would respond to the Hughes report. The response was that the Government would consider the recommendations and meet with the commissioner. In January 2025, when asked by Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, the Government said they were “carefully considering” report and would provide an update “at the earliest opportunity.” In March, in this very room, a Government Minister said that recommendations were being actively considered and that a report was coming “at the earliest opportunity.” In that debate, the Minister suggested that research by Dr Rebecca Bromley was material. Can the Minister update us on that research? In October, when the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) asked whether funding had been allocated for redress, a Minister said that recommendations were being carefully considered and a response would come at the earliest opportunity. In December, when the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), asked whether financial support was forthcoming, the Government said that recommendations were—still—being carefully considered. Last month, when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked whether funding was forthcoming, a Minister said the Government were “carefully considering” the report and an update was coming “in due course”. What we have heard from Ministers is so frustrating. For 18 months, Members have asked what is being done, and time and again, this Labour Government have refused to give a clear answer. I note that the previous debate was responded to by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), and both she and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), have answered questions on the matter. We have a different Minister today, and it is a delight to see her, but perhaps she can confirm which Minister takes responsibility for this issue in the Commons. I have some further questions for the Minister. On which date did work begin on a response to the Hughes report? How many civil servants are working on the response? Have there been any conversations with the Treasury about the costs of the redress scheme? If work has been taking place, why is it invisible? If, in fact, nothing has been done, why have the Government persisted in telling Members that a response is forthcoming? Why, despite Dr Hughes visiting the Department in December, has nothing materially changed? Will the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asked, make an interim payment this calendar year? Over the weekend, the Patient Safety Commissioner told ITV: “This is a disgraceful way that patients and families are being treated by those in power.” She is absolutely right. The state’s No. 1 duty is to protect the public from harm, yet after inflicting harm, the state has failed to make things right. This is part of a pattern under Labour whereby systemic failings, particularly those affecting women, go unresolved. Every day that victims of mesh and valproate do not receive justice, confidence in health professionals is undermined. We know that the Chancellor is fast running out of other people’s money, but it is wrong to balance the books on the backs of those who are suffering. Justice is the state’s duty. It is not optional. It is not something just to be carefully considered for years on end, indefinitely, while women and children suffer. The Government can respect the victims and the work of the Patient Safety Commissioner today by answering our questions, or they can continue their parade of platitudes and evasions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Secretary of State and I will have had long experience of working with Morgan McSweeney during the many days he spent as head of the Labour group at the Local Government Association. I think that influence is reflected in the very political speech we have just heard from the Secretary of State. Despite its political excellence, I am struggling to reconcile his speech with what is actually in the finance statement he has laid before the House to agree this afternoon. We have a high level of agreement that local government touches all our lives in our communities. We recognise its huge potential to develop our economy, improve public health and give children a great start in life, and we know that the average local authority in this country delivers over 800 different services. They are there for us literally from cradle to grave, and are led by democratically elected councillors who run budgets that are bigger than those of many Government Departments, in organisations that are more complex than many a FTSE 100 business. However, having served—like the Secretary of State—as a councillor under the last Labour Government, we see a swift reversion to type. Announcements of funding for social housing may arrive towards the end of the decade; funding for schools from VAT on fees for private education amounts to a real-terms cut in state school funding; and at the heart of what the Secretary of State has set out is a massive diversion of funding away from the legally enforceable statutory duties placed on councils by this Parliament and towards generalised poverty as a driver of those allocations.
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. The analysis produced by the County Councils Network makes a comparison between the funding pressure on statutory services facing the urban councils that are the beneficiaries of the Government’s largesse, which totals £180 million a year, and the budget gap facing rural areas as a result of this Government’s decision, which is a £2.7 billion black hole.
I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but it was not ever thus. The rural services grant referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) was a measure to address those additional cost burdens, including direct costs arising from statutory duties. It was a funding stream that is being removed by this Labour Government.
Without wishing to be parochial, I am sure the hon. Member would also like to join in the apologies for the appalling level of corruption that had taken place under Labour in the London borough of Harrow. As has been covered extensively in the local and national media, it left an astonishing legacy of cost overruns in the local authority’s highways department, which has taken a good deal to recover from. I am sure we would not want the House to be inadvertently misled about the impact of those cost overruns.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. When Ministers talk about additional resources being provided to local government, we need to reflect on the fact that two thirds of the funding in this settlement comes from the maximum possible council tax rise across the country, and a large chunk of the rest comes from a huge rise in business rates.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will be pleased to know that that prompts me to move on to the next part of what we need to say. Let us recall for those who cry austerity at Conservative Members that the last Labour Government spent on average 10% more in every year of its final decade in office than they raised in taxes, which left a colossal legacy of debt that we have scarcely begun to repay. Millions were squandered on projects such as building schools for the future that were cancelled at the tail end of the last Labour Government by Alistair Darling, as they ran out of money. When we look at the reports of what this means at constituency level, councils such as Surrey, which embraced this Labour Government’s devolution agenda, have now lost the opportunity for the mayor that they were promised. They report that they have been left £60 million a year short. Members will be ill-served by the consequences of the Budget.
One of my tasks in the world of local government was to engage with that last Labour Government and the disastrous consequences of their overspending. They were completely clear with authorities such as mine that stopped work on BSF that they did not have the money to see through the promises that they were making to the public. We were told that by the Department for Education. I am very confident that my constituents understand the consequences that a Labour Government have on their politics.
I appreciate that he knows rather more about Camden council than he does about Hillingdon council, but let us reflect a little further on the history. Our constituents last had a Labour council in 1998. I went to that budget meeting at which our constituents were faced with an 18.7% council tax rise—£60 million of unfunded efficiency savings by a Labour council. I think they understand where their political priorities lie and who has their interests at heart.
I will make a little progress, because I know that Madam Deputy Speaker will want others to have time. History is repeating itself. Let us not forget that this is a statement that leaves two thirds of councils in England worse off, from the analysis that has been done by the Local Government Association. That piles additional costs on top of things such as last year’s national insurance contributions rise, which left councils £1.5 billion net worse off. This settlement tightens ringfencing, removing the ability of local leaders to deploy homelessness funding flexibly to meet local needs, for example. It also comes at a time when this botched reorganisation of local government has created chaos across the sector, with a hokey-cokey of elections promised and then cancelled, sometimes within 24 hours, from that Dispatch Box.
My hon. Friend draws attention to another significant issue facing local authorities: the level of uncertainty. Money has been promised, then withdrawn. Budgets have been allocated, then reduced. In that context, I am sure that her constituents will be as concerned as I am that so much of this money is simply built into massive tax rises across the country. I will turn briefly to business rates. We know, including from the question that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) asked at Prime Minister’s questions, the pressure being felt acutely on our high streets, especially in hospitality and retail. A business owner in my constituency told me yesterday that across his food franchise, the business rates rise alone is an additional £100,000 a year. That is a lot of entry level jobs at risk. It means price rises for consumers, fuelling inflation. The rise is a barrier to investments in our high streets, and that situation is replicated across the country. Let us not forget that under the previous Government—this is one of the things of which we are most proud—an average of 800 new jobs were created every single day we were in office. Let us never cease to remind those on the Government Benches that unemployment has risen in every single month of this Labour Government. They are a Government who clearly do not respect our local colleagues. They refer to leaders as mere community convenors. They seek to reduce our councillors’ level of discretion. They create uncertainty through a lack of clarity on reorganisation, on special educational needs and disabilities deficits and on whether mayoral elections are going ahead. That comes at a time when thousands of voters are being denied a say by this Government through the cancelling of elections. That situation is caused solely by the Secretary of State’s abject failure to deliver the Government’s devolution plans to the proposed timetable. It is one thing to cancel elections in a council that is about to be abolished, so that voters can instead choose its replacement. It is very much another thing to defer elections indefinitely while we wait for the Secretary of State to get his act together. Our councils and our communities deserve a better settlement than this. I will conclude with some points that I hope the Minister will address in the summing up. One of the most striking things about this settlement is that the Secretary of State has come to the Chamber and said that the key priority for this Government is addressing poverty and deprivation. Poverty and deprivation do not feature in this local government funding settlement. They are not part of this formula that the Secretary of State is asking us to agree. What is striking is the things that he says are important. He talked about vulnerable children in education, but it is cash flat, same as last year. Virtual schools are cash flat. The revenue support grant for local authorities is cash flat. Personal advisers to care leavers are cash flat. Money for supporting local authorities with social care, which was specifically described as a priority, is cash flat. Buy one, get one free campaigns intended to reduce obesity in the public health environment have a 50% reduction. Even Awaab’s law, which was championed at the Dispatch Box just a short time ago by the Minister for Housing and Planning sees a cut of £26,000 from its paltry beginnings. Perhaps the Secretary of State will reflect that what he is announcing is essentially a massive shift of funding away from the statutory duties and obligations that this Parliament has placed on our local authorities to those favoured political areas that the Government see as their priorities for the future.
I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the Labour leader of Sheffield council, who says: “Cost pressures continue to outstrip increases in funding, both specific inflationary pressures in major service areas, particularly for care, accommodation and construction, and the increasing volume of demand in housing and care.” Is the Labour leader in Sheffield correct?
The Prime Minister said that there would be no tax rises on working people. I imagine that the working people who are about to receive a £500-a-year increase in their council tax, the working people in Westminster expecting an 82% rise in their council tax, and those in Wandsworth expecting an 87% rise in their council tax as a result of this settlement will wonder if “working people” was a phrase that applied to them. Those in our business community who heard the Prime Minister say to them that a Labour Government would introduce “permanently lower business rates” will wonder where the massive rise in their business rates bill has come from. There are things in the reports before us that give us the opportunity to make tweaks and changes, and make progress. I am grateful to the Minister for the interest that she has shown, for example, in the way that the local growth fund—the method of distribution of which is having a huge impact, particularly on colleagues in Northern Ireland—offers scope for some adjustment. However, it is very clear that the recovery grant that the Secretary of State spoke about still bears little or no relation to the pressures arising from the statutory duties on local authorities. As we have heard from Member from across the House, it leaves councils tens of millions of pounds short of the money that they need to do the minimum required of them by this Government, and that is before addressing some of the broader, more general issues. We have two motions before us. One of them is on the report on local government finance, and the other is on the report on the referendum limit. I am sure that we have all noted the complete absence of any Reform Members in the Chamber. I pay tribute to the champions of Worcestershire, my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who spoke up for residents against an authority that, having been part of a party that promised no rises in council tax and cuts in office, is now looking to top the league table with the largest council tax rises in the country this year. It should be ashamed of its misinformation to residents during election campaigns. Let me mention some of the things that I hope the Minister will address in her summing up. The first is what the measures in the report do to support housing delivery. We know from the recent report by Savills that 23 of London’s 33 boroughs report that the net figure for new homes being commenced this quarter is zero. Lambeth council has been very public about that, and has reported net zero new social homes. The Secretary of State and the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), are particularly familiar with that. It is clear that housing delivery is collapsing at a time when lofty ambitions are being set, and at a time when the grants for homelessness are cash-flat, as are care costs, and costs relating to vulnerable children and care leavers. It is clear that for all the bluster, the smoke is clearing, and the mirror is not particularly shiny. The impact of the relentless rises in national insurance contributions and business rates, as well as an additional £750 million of costs to local authorities from changes to the emissions trading scheme, will put huge pressure on the ability of local authorities to deliver. It having been said that the Secretary of State wanted to move away from a bidding process, we now hear that the funding that has been announced, without any detail, for special educational needs deficits will be the subject of a bidding process to the Department for Education, and there will be a requirement for a reform plan. It will be interesting to hear how that plan differs from the safety valve agreements that many authorities already have in place, which are reducing SEND deficits year on year. What is clear in this settlement is that the Government are not meeting even their own standards on local government. Local democracy is paying the price, with elections cancelled and taxes relentlessly rising. This statement must be seen for what it is: it is a council tax bombshell; it is a business rates bombshell; it is part of a picture of a Labour Government who simply cannot manage the money.
7. What steps he is taking to help ensure adequate accountability for troubles-era violence for members of the IRA.
Some 2,058 people died at the hands of republican paramilitaries during the troubles—2,058—but despite that fact, only 19 IRA members are currently in prison. The Secretary of State laughably claims there was no amnesty under the Good Friday agreement, and he gives us only the few he has just mentioned. Can he tell the House how many prosecutions of IRA members he expects to arise under his troubles Bill, and how many families of people murdered by the IRA will find out what happened to their relatives?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the inadequate response that I received from the Secretary of State on Question 7, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Policing Minister, who is my constituency neighbour, has referenced the different kinds of people in the police workforce and how police chiefs should have flexibility. However, over the past year, not only have police officer numbers fallen by 1,300, but police staff numbers have also fallen by 529. The number of PCSOs has fallen by 204, the number of special constables has fallen by 514, and even the number of volunteers has fallen. Every single number has fallen—is the Minister proud of that?
The last Government left office with record police numbers. In March 2024, at the time of the last recruitment intake, there were 149,769 officers by headcount, the highest number in history and 3,000 higher than the number in 2010. The Minister asked about outcomes. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, overall crime fell by about 50% under the last Government. I was about to say, before I, perhaps foolishly—
Goodness me, this is already becoming very congested, but I cannot possibly resist my right hon. Friend’s entreaty.
It is true that Labour Members forget to mention the record police numbers in March 2024 or the reduction in crime—which was, in fact, more than 50% over the period.
I will happily give way quite a lot, but I have not even started, and I have given way a couple of times already. I was going to start by echoing the Minister’s tribute to police officers up and down the country who, every day, put themselves in the line of danger. I have attended the annual police memorial service and met the families of officers who have tragically lost their lives while keeping us safe, and I think they should remain at the front of our minds during the debate. The Minister threw around some big numbers earlier in respect of the increase in police funding that has been announced, but the 4.5% increase for frontline police forces—the increase being given to police and crime commissioners—is not enough to meet the funding and cost pressures that they face. Earlier today I spoke to Roger Hirst, the Essex police and crime commissioner, who is, as the Minister knows, the finance lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. He told me that, according to his assessment, this funding settlement is about £100 million short of the cost pressures that police forces will face, which means that they will have to find cuts—but it is not just Roger. The National Police Chiefs’ Council, the body that represents chief constables, said on 28 January: “Many forces are planning service reductions, with consequences for officer numbers, staff capacity and…resilience.” In other words, both police and crime commissioners and the NPCC say that the settlement is inadequate to maintain police resources. But it not just them either. The Labour police and crime commissioner for Avon and Somerset has just had to cancel the recruitment of 70 new officers because of “lower than expected” Government funding. The Cambridgeshire police and crime commissioner says that the settlement falls short of what is required. The chief constable of Cleveland says that his force faces a £4 million funding gap. The Essex police and crime commissioner, whom I mentioned a moment ago, says that “the Government…settlement…is insufficient to cover rising costs”, and Greater Manchester police say that they face a £32 million funding gap. In summary, this settlement is not enough to enable police forces up and down the country to maintain their level of service. They will shrink, and their services will be diminished. The Minister mentioned the money being provided for the 1,750 neighbourhood policing officers, but did not say how much it was. In fact, the Government are providing £50 million for that purpose. If we divide the one number by the other, we find that it comes to £29,000 per officer. As the NPCC has pointed out, the cost of an officer is, on average, £68,000, so the Government are funding only 42% of the cost, leaving the other 58% completely unfunded. The Minister also forgot to mention that the Government are cancelling the funding for antisocial behaviour hotspot patrolling, which was introduced by the last Government and should have been continued. As for the way in which the money is distributed, it remains the case that the funding formula is deeply unfair. Changes are long overdue, and I ask the Minister to introduce those changes to make the formula fairer. The Metropolitan police receive by far the highest amount in the country. Even if we account for the national capital city grant and counter-terrorism funding, they receive £439 per head. As for the lowest-funded forces, Dorset receives £255 a head, Essex £236, Cambridgeshire £237 and Wiltshire £235. They are inadequately funded, and the formula urgently needs to be updated. I ask the Minister—or her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), when she sums up the debate—to address that point. The consequence of this inadequate funding settlement is just the same as the consequence of last year’s inadequate funding settlement, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), my shadow ministerial colleague, stood at the Dispatch Box and warned the Minister’s predecessor that the settlement would lead to reductions in police numbers. We now know that that has come to pass. The most recent figures, published only a few weeks ago, show that in the year to September 2025—an entire year in which Labour was in government—the number of police officers fell by 1,318. Numbers are being cut under this Labour Government. The Government say that they want to hire staff instead, to do jobs behind desks, but the number of police staff fell as well, by 529. They talk about police community support officers. Well, the number of PCSOs fell by 204. Special constables are down by 514 and police volunteers are down by 429. That is a reduction of 3,000 in the police workforce in just one year under this Labour Government. They are not funding the police properly, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Only uniformed or warranted officers can make arrests, and that is why the fall in police numbers under this Labour Government is so shocking. They talk about neighbourhood police officers specifically, but that, of course, ignores activities such as crime investigation, 999 responses, and specialist officers who investigate, for example, sexual offences. When total numbers are falling, they focus on only one part of policing.
The point is that the Minister has cut other areas to do that. She has cut 999 responses and crime investigations. She can use smoke and mirrors by focusing on only one part of the police world, but the fact is that total police numbers are down, police staff are down, PCSOs are down, specials are down and police volunteers are down—all under this Labour Government.
Roger Hirst, in common with many police and crime commissioners, has done a valiant job in the face of inadequate funding. However, as he said himself: “The Government settlement is insufficient to cover rising costs.” Let us look at outcomes, which the Minister mentioned. It is a matter of deep concern that, under this Labour Government, shoplifting has gone up by 10%, to record levels, robbery from business premises is up by 66% in the past year, antisocial behaviour has gone up, rape has gone up by 7%, and sexual offences have gone up by 8%.
That is not what the hon. Lady was saying when the rape figures were going up under the last Government.
Once is enough. Reported rapes are going up, which reflects increased levels of offending. That is a serious concern.
The hon. Lady will know that the change in the rape charge rate followed the disclosure rule changes after the Liam Allan case back in 2017. The last Government set up Operation Soteria and a rape taskforce, which were designed to increase rape charging rates. Indeed, they were increasing prior to the last election, and I very much hope that this Government are continuing the work of Operation Soteria, which was started by the last Government. On the police reforms that the Minister referred to, some functions, such as counter-terrorism and fighting serious and organised crime, may well be better provided on a national basis. However, we oppose the creation of approximately 10 regional mega-forces, which will see county forces essentially abolished and merged into enormous entities that are far removed from the communities they serve. That will inevitably see resources drawn away from towns and villages and given to large cities, and there is no evidence that large forces are either more efficient or better performing. In fact, the two arguably worst-performing forces in the country, the Met and West Midlands, are also the largest forces in the country. The history of Police Scotland, which was created by merging eight police forces into one, has not been a particularly happy episode, and it is certainly not a good case study for what is being proposed. I ask the Minister to think again about the creation of mega-forces, given that the examples of the West Midlands, the Met and Police Scotland indicate that large police forces do not perform well. There is one area where I agree with the Minister, and where I actively support what she is trying to do: the use of technology in catching criminals, and in particular the use of live facial recognition. She and I have both seen that being used very effectively in Croydon town centre, and indeed across London, where 963 arrests have occurred in the past year as a result of using live facial recognition of criminals who would not otherwise have been caught, including a man wanted for a double rape dating back eight years. He would not have been caught, but for the use of live facial recognition. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s plans for rolling out this technology across the country and accelerating its use dramatically. I would like an assurance that the Minister’s consultation on the use of the technology will be carefully calibrated, because there is a risk that people on the fringes—left and right—who do not like it will lobby her and try to persuade her to introduce all kinds of rules, regulations and red tape. If she gives in to their requests, she may end up inadvertently creating a bureaucratic system that, in practice, is very difficult for the police to operate. I urge her to think about the mainstream majority, who strongly support this technology. In Croydon, the public certainly support the technology, because they understand that it catches criminals and that if someone is not on the watch list, their image is immediately and automatically deleted. I ask the Minister to make sure that if she does change the rules, she does so in a way that is quite light-touch, and that it does not end up strangling what could be one of the most promising and effective crime-fighting technologies that this country has seen for many decades. I really hope that is the approach she plans to take.
My right hon. Friend puts it brilliantly. He has articulated exactly why the forced creation of regional mega-forces is likely to be a backwards step.
I am almost done. The hon. Gentleman may find that a matter of considerable relief. In conclusion—sometimes “in conclusion” are the most popular words I utter in a speech—
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it was disappointing that the Minister did not substantively respond. Spending money on loads of communications officers, instead of police officers to catch criminals, is a misallocation of resources, and my right hon. Friend is right to call it out. This police funding settlement is not adequate to meet the funding pressures. It will lead to continued reductions in police numbers across England and Wales, which will leave our constituents and our countries less safe.
The hon. Member is focusing on the events of 14 years ago, when that Government were fixing the financial mess that Gordon Brown had left behind. I would remind him that the last Government left office with record police numbers, and I suggest he reserves his ire for the falling police numbers we are seeing under this Labour Government.
I just want to pick up two points the hon. Gentleman raised, which I looked into when I was Minister for Policing. First, he raised allegations of racial disproportionality, which arose in 2017 or 2018. The system has subsequently been updated significantly. It was tested by the National Physical Laboratory two or three years ago, and, at the setting the police use it, there is now no racial disproportionality at all. It is a historic problem that has now been fixed. Secondly, on data retention, the system operates in such a way that if a member of the public who is not on the wanted list—like me or the hon. Gentleman, I assume—walks past the camera, our image is then automatically and immediately deleted. I hope that addresses his concern about data retention.
The increase in national insurance contributions is having a devastating impact on the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland, with over a quarter of businesses reporting losses and a further 20% only breaking even. How is the Northern Ireland Executive expected to achieve their target of doubling tourism in the next 10 years if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting pubs, restaurants and hotels out of business?
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
I will keep my comments brief, and they will be focused on council tax. The reason they will be brief is that I was hoping to intervene earlier on the Secretary of State. He said that he did not want to dodge difficult topics and wanted to talk about promises, but he did not take an intervention from me, probably because he knew what was coming. I will talk about broken promises and about difficult topics. The primary one affecting my residents right now across Bromsgrove and the villages, as well as people across Worcestershire, is the Government’s collusion with Reform to hike council tax by a staggering 9%. That will be the highest council tax increase that Worcestershire county council has imposed on its residents. It will likely be the highest increase in council tax across the country this year, and it is reprehensible, because prior to the general election in 2024, the Labour party stood clearly on a manifesto that said it would freeze council tax. Labour Members know as well as I do that they have no will to deliver that.
I will not give way, because the Secretary of State would not give way to me. I will not give way and be lectured to by Labour MPs who are not upholding their promises. The Government stood on a manifesto to freeze council tax, knowing full well that they would not be able to deliver that. Worse still, last May, prior to the local elections, the Reform party stuffed leaflets through the doors of residents across Worcestershire and across the country pledging that it would cut council tax. Reform spoke about this DOGE—Department of Government Efficiency—programme for local government. It is interesting that not a single Reform Member of Parliament is here in the Chamber today to defend their record. Where is this DOGE programme? Why has it revealed nothing? Reform thought that it could turn the sofa upside down, give it a good shake and £100 million would fall out. Well, that did not happen. Instead, I can tell the House what has happened in Worcestershire. Since last May, the overspend by the Reform administration has been £100 million. As a result, it has come cap in hand to the Government for emergency funding and for a council tax rise way in excess of inflation and of the 5% threshold for a referendum.
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour; he is far too generous. I was leader of Wychavon district council in south Worcestershire for five years, and we proudly froze council tax for five years consistently without cutting a single service. Local government is lean. It can be run efficiently and effectively without duping the taxpayer. But let us return to that dupe. The Reform administration on Worcestershire county council went cap in hand to the Government, and the Government have granted it emergency funding. They have agreed and, in effect, colluded with Reform. Two parties have agreed to put up council tax for residents when both had promised that they would not do so, and Worcestershire residents are paying the price. My message to the Minister is very clear: if we want to maintain trust and integrity in politics at all levels, it is important for such promises to be stuck to and abided by, or else not to be made in the first place. Most importantly of all, in the last 48 hours more than 1,100 Worcestershire residents have signed a petition opposing this increase. It is crucial that the issue goes to a referendum, and that the people of Worcestershire have their say.
Residents across the country knew ahead of the general election that the Prime Minister had made various very public pledges that the Labour party would freeze council tax should it come to office. If there is a mistake on my part and those words were not in the manifesto, I apologise for that, but—here I return to my point about trust in politics—if we want residents across the country to have faith in the political system, it is important for politicians to stand by their promises, whether they are written in a manifesto or uttered on television.
I thank the Prime Minister for raising the stabbing at Kingsbury high school yesterday. It is absolutely right that we allow the police to get on with their job of investigating this terrible atrocity; indeed, the police are out there now, providing reassurance to parents and people in the community. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and those who witnessed the atrocity. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Will the Prime Minister now look at what needs to be done to combat knife crime across the country? It is absolutely wrong that people are carrying knives in the first place—they do not need to—and that they are drawn into such terrible atrocities. We owe it to the victims to ensure that that happens.