Ben Obese-Jecty MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 20 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. I recently spoke to Chris Dodson, a local thatcher in Sawtry, who raised with me the shortage of thatching straw, and particularly long straw thatch. With Historic England insisting that grade II listed properties should use like-for-like materials in replacements and the chance of listed building consent to change from straw to water reed unlikely to be granted, will the Minister confirm what the Government are doing to ensure that thatchers are not hindered by the current guidance and the shortage of thatching straw?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Community Spaces · Hansard source

  More

  Community spaces are crucial hubs for so many people, and our churches play a key role in providing such spaces. All Saints parish church in Hertford in my constituency has been in its beautiful riverside location for almost 1,000 years. Over the past six years, it has been able to reclaim £50,000 of VAT using the listed places of worship grant scheme, including for repairs to the tower, refurbishment of the bells and rebuilding the church organ. Will the Government extend the scheme beyond 2025, and if so, what will the allocation be?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q5. Since becoming the Labour leader, has the Prime Minister ever discussed or communicated with Philippe Sands KC about the Chagos islands?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Children’s Social Media Accounts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing this debate. I would like to start by thanking Ellen Roome for her determined work in fighting to highlight this issue. Her courage and her stoicism in pursuing this cause have been hugely impressive, and Parliament would not be debating this today were it not for her impassioned commitment. This e-petition has garnered some 126,000 signatures in support of calls to give parents and guardians the right to access the social media accounts of their children. We have heard many important contributions from Members this afternoon, and I am sure that parents across their constituencies will be grateful to them for doing so. The hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) paid tribute to Ellen Roome and have shared her own words. The hon. Members for Sunderland Central and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) spoke about the refusal of social media companies to release data, citing legal restrictions. The hon. Members for Worcester (Tom Collins) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) spoke of the impact of harmful content on children’s development, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke about how current legislation gives control to children as young as 13. With the vast majority of children now having access to a phone or tablet by the age of 12, children are exposed to an enormous range of content online. Many children are being exposed to social media content that is inappropriate and dangerous and poses substantial risks to safety and development. There has been a growing crisis in children’s mental health, with recent research highlighting that 32% of eight to 17-year-olds state that they have viewed worrying or upsetting online content in the last 12 months, yet only 20% of parents with children and teenagers in that age group report their child telling them they had seen something online that scared or upset them during the same timeframe. Evidence has shown that the widening of access to the internet has seen more children moving away from social interactions, with the subsequent detrimental impacts on mental health and social development. We welcome much of the work that this Government are doing on protections for children by building on the foundations laid by the previous Government, but could I ask the Minister what is being done to increase mental health support for children? In January last year the Labour party pledged to introduce specialist mental health support for children and young people in every school, as well as open-access children and young people’s mental health hubs in every community, as part of the child health action plan. Although I appreciate that it is not part of her brief, could the Minister outline what progress the Government are making towards the delivery of those pledges, as they relate to this topic more broadly? Keeping children safe online in the current media landscape is a challenge that will require agile and adroit legislation that simultaneously keeps pace with technological developments and reflects cultural usage of media platforms. We also need to recognise the power that social media giants now hold, and ensuring accountability will be a key aspect of any legislation. We must ensure that parents have the right to be able to ensure that their children are safe from harm on platforms, especially in circumstances where children may be being mistreated. I have previously heard Ellen describe how social media companies have abdicated responsibility in assisting in the disclosure of messages that could help to identify how a tragedy has occurred. In Jools’ case, TikTok has not released any of the messages on his account, and Instagram Meta has released some but not all. Any parent should be concerned that they will not have the right to access details of their child’s online life, even if it is suspected to have contributed to their death. Parents like Ellen are currently required to take legal action to pursue the release of such information and, even if they have the financial resources to do so, why should any parent be forced to go to such lengths just to find out what may be, at best, critical information and, at worst, closure? The majority of parents do not even have access to such resources. As a newly elected Member, I will not stand here and pretend that the previous Government got everything right, but the Online Safety Act was a crucial and positive step forward to keeping more children and young people safe online so that fewer families have to face situations like those we have heard and spoken about in this debate. Under section 101 of the Act, Ofcom has the power to support the investigation of a coroner or procurator fiscal into the death of a child via the data preservation measure. The measure came into effect under the previous Government in April last year, and it is under this section that the amendment that would be Jools’ law would sit. Although the current iteration of section 101 is a step in the right direction, it is not an easily accessible outcome and it can only be put into effect following a tragedy. In many instances, parental access to social media accounts could prevent tragic outcomes. Do the Government plan to introduce legislation to give parents and guardians the right to access their child’s social media accounts and the messages contained within them? If they do, would that build on the Online Safety Act? There are further considerations that must be taken into account, such as safeguarding. Though parental access to children’s social media accounts may sound like a simple and prudent solution, not every child has parental figures who have their best interests at heart, and that includes vulnerable children in a family with an abusive parent. A child who is seeking help in communicating domestic abuse to friends or organisations may find their only avenue of escape is compromised. There may also be instances in which a parent could use their child’s social media account to gain access to information about other children and teenagers. There are therefore wider implications to granting parents unrestricted access to the information of children other than their own, as that could unintentionally make unsolicited and inappropriate contact easier. Would the Minister consider how parental access rights could be designed to give parents the ability to monitor their children’s safety and to ensure children have the privacy they may need to facilitate their own safety, and how such measures could be designed so as not to be exploited by any of the parties that are subject to them? I was reassured to see the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology meeting bereaved parents who have lost children after being influenced by harmful content online. I also welcome the publishing of the Secretary of State’s “Draft Statement of Strategic Priorities for online safety” in November last year, which provided clarity on the framework that the Government will expect the independent regulator to work within. The Secretary of State has stated that the Government will be “implementing safety by design to stop…harm occurring in the first place”, and we should consider whether the expectation should fall on users themselves to take precautionary steps to avoid severely harmful content. Given how instrumental algorithms are in pushing themed content to users’ feeds, what plans do the Government have to give users the ability to opt out or reset these algorithms? We support parents in raising concerns about content they do not want their children to see by requiring sites to take measures to remove content as soon as it is flagged. Since the introduction of the 2023 Act, we have seen many cases in which the response from platforms has been far quicker than before, and we would welcome a detailed plan that lays out how the Government will ensure that all companies act quickly and the cost of their not doing so. It is right that services must assess any risk to children from using their platforms and set appropriate age restrictions to ensure that child users have age-appropriate experiences and are shielded from harmful content, such as pornography or content relating to violence, self-harm, eating disorders or even suicide. That is why the last Government tightened up age restrictions by requiring social media companies to enforce their age limits consistently and protect their child users, but many parents still believe that these age limits are too easily circumvented by children lying about their age. The Government talk of ensuring that age-assurance technology to protect children is being effectively deployed, but how do the Government intend to ensure this? How do they intend to ensure that companies are investing in the most up-to-date technology to facilitate that? Will the Government proactively stress-test that capability and, if so, how? For all of this, Ofcom plays a vital role. As an evidence-based regulator, its task is to regulate the trust and safety systems and processes. Its role is not necessarily to police individual pieces of content; it is to ensure companies have the correct measures in place to minimise harms to users. At the end of last year, we heard about how the Government had informed Ofcom that it would need to build more safety measures into these systems. I would welcome the Minister’s outlining how the Government will aid Ofcom in its aims and ensure that any Government support needed will be supplied. These regulations would not be anything without empowering Ofcom to take action, which is why we gave it powers to issue fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global revenue, whichever is higher, or to pursue criminal investigations into senior managers if they fail to comply with enforcement notices. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to make sure that Ofcom brings forward its children’s safety codes and guidance in April? As we have all seen, technology keeps moving and advancements are constantly made, so the risk of digital progress outstripping the pace of legislation is an all too real prospect. We must embrace technology and understand that the internet and social media, embedded in our daily lives, can be a force for good, but we must also understand that checks and balances are essential if we are to ensure a safe online environment not only for today’s users but for those newly entering the online world. It is for the Government not only to guarantee an environment conducive to users of all ages, but to ensure that parents have the confidence that the online environment can be made as safe as they strive to make the home environment.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On those new bus routes, within the last hour, Stagecoach East has issued a statement about the delayed new tiger bus routes, citing the decision by Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority to retender the routes, inconsistencies in the award letter, concerns over the legality of the operation and the increased cost due to the Government’s national insurance increase as reasons for the delay until at least May. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that bus services in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are not being managed effectively by the Labour mayor?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Public Finances: Borrowing Costs · Hansard source

  More

  It has been widely reported that the Chancellor now faces a choice between raising taxes or cutting public spending if she is to stay within her non-negotiable fiscal rules. Given reports that she will now conduct group meetings with Ministers, rather than the less combative approach of one-to-one meetings conducted by the right hon. Gentleman, to discuss departmental cuts, it sounds as if Government spending is being dictated by the Ministers with the sharpest elbows. Can he reassure the House that there will not be any departmental cuts?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard many moving and personal accounts this afternoon from Members addressing the scourge of violence against women and girls. It is crucial that we continue to shed heat and light on this horrendous abuse—not just the horrific stories that make the news, but the hidden harms that we do not hear about. In 2024, domestic abuse-related crimes represented 15.8% of all offences recorded by police, with nearly three quarters of those victims being female. The incident that I wish to highlight involves a young woman who was violently attacked outside a nightclub. The man who was her attacker was also her boyfriend at the time. By his own admission, the young man said he had only pushed her and she fell to the ground and was hurt. Court records subsequently revealed that he had repeatedly kicked her, “around four times”. It was reported in the Daily Mail that the attack was stopped only when two doormen dragged the attacker away from the young woman and then called the police. The man was arrested and charged with assault. The Times reported that he had initially denied the charge, maintaining his innocence, which meant that both his victim and witnesses were forced to relive the attack by giving statements to the police ahead of going to trial. The young woman herself was left with both injuries and lasting mental scars. Speaking to the Daily Mail , the victim’s mother described how it had taken “two security guards to pull him off her”. She explained how he had “left marks on her body” from the violence of the assault, going on to describe her daughter’s attacker as “a monster” and stating: “There is no way he should be an MP in the House of Commons representing people.” As of July, that young woman’s attacker sits on these green Benches as a Member of Parliament. His constituents were made aware of the crime only when the story was reported in the Daily Mail on 12 July. After the story broke, the Member referred to it as a “teenage indiscretion” —even as recently as last weekend, during a fractious Sky News interview. While the Member maintains that the assault was nothing more than an argument followed by a push where his former girlfriend “fell over and…was hurt”, the extract from the Chelmsford Crown court records relating to the conviction explains why the judge awarded a custodial sentence, stating that “the sentence was not suspended in light of the serious nature of the offence”. It states that the offence “requires immediate punishment”, and that a pre-sentence report indicated a “lack of willingness to comply” before the man eventually submitted a late guilty plea. I find it incredible that a Member of this House has a conviction for a violent assault on a young woman, his own partner, receiving an immediate custodial sentence for it. In a previous interview with Sky News, there was a refusal from the very top of the Reform party to acknowledge that female constituents who might have suffered domestic abuse or violence might be uncomfortable with having an MP who had been convicted of attacking a woman. The party leader stated in November that the Member “wasn’t vetted at all”, but in July a party spokesman was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying that the party knew about the conviction because the Member had been “entirely honest with us when he applied to become our candidate”. On-the-record comments from the party leader and the party spokesman appear to contradict one another completely in respect of what was known. The Reform party appears to have knowingly put up a candidate with a conviction for attacking a woman—a party that does not believe that violence against women and girls should be taken seriously if the perpetrator is one of their own. We in this House, constituents and the wider public deserve to know precisely what Reform knew about this conviction; what they were told, when they were told it, and what they chose to disclose in subsequent statements to the media. I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders—I believe that the justice system needs to be rehabilitative in order to reduce the rate of recidivism, and that those who have served their sentences should be free to move on with their lives—but I also believe that being sentenced for such a heinous crime should mean forfeiting some of the privileges that those of us who have never attacked a woman are granted. One such privilege is being a Member of Parliament. If the conviction in question had been related to a sexual offence, would it have been accepted here so comfortably? Justice should not mean that victims are forced to see those convicted of attacking them being elected as Members of this House because there was no requirement to disclose their past. The Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and to provide victims with better support. The presence of a Member of Parliament with a conviction for violently assaulting a woman has never been acknowledged in this House, let alone addressed. Any debate in the House on the subject of violence against women and girls should address the convicted criminal already in our midst. As this Government shape their legislative agenda, I ask the Minister to consider whether it is time to introduce legislation that bars those who have served a custodial sentence for violence against women and girls from standing as a Member of Parliament.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Workplace Pay Gaps · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this debate, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing today’s debate, which marks Ethnicity Pay Gap Day. We have heard from a host of Members this morning on the impact of pay gaps in the workplace. The hon. Members for Brent East and for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) both asked what can be done to hold companies that do not address identified pay gaps to account. The hon. Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) addressed the rights of parents and the motherhood pay gap. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) spoke about the disability pay gap and improving the working lives of disabled workers. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke about regional pay gaps in Northern Ireland and Scotland respectively. These are important topics in an area where there is still work to be done, despite the progress made over the last half a century, first by addressing gender pay discrimination and, more recently, by addressing discrimination based on ethnicity and disability. The Labour party’s manifesto pledged to address the issue of pay gaps and stated that it intended to build upon the existing legislation. Paying men and women different pay for the same work has been prohibited in Great Britain since the Equal Pay Act 1970—legislation that has since been superseded by the Equality Act 2010. Gender pay gap reporting was introduced by the Conservative Government in 2017, through world-leading legislation that made it statutory for organisations with 250 or more employees to report annually on their gender pay gap. Since 2017, the gender pay gap has declined steadily from 18.4% to 13.1% in 2024. I ask the Minister: do the Government anticipate that trend continuing and, to that end, do they believe that the introduction of additional legislation will close the remaining gap more quickly or have no impact on the current trajectory? Data from the Office for National Statistics on the gender pay gap from 2024 show that it was highest in skilled trades and occupations, and lowest in caring, leisure and other service occupations. Although the Government’s new legislation will seek to ensure that gender pay disparities are eradicated within organisations, what plans do the Government have to address the differing pay gaps across industries? The gender pay gap is much higher for full-time employees aged 40 years or over than it is for employees aged below 40 years. There are a variety of reasons for why that might be the case. Although I do not have a breakdown for the rationale for that observation, one reason might be the impact of motherhood on careers and earning potential. What steps are the Government taking to address the gender pay gap within that demographic? It is notable that, in occupations where pay generally increases with age, the proportion of women decreases. Additionally, the difference in pay between the sexes is largest among higher earners. In May 2021, the Labour party pledged to modernise pay laws to give women the right to know what their male counterparts earn, as alluded to by the hon. Members for Brent East and for Walthamstow. Although that detail did not make it into the manifesto—not that that has stopped the Government from implementing some of their other recent policies—do the Government still intend to introduce that right, and if so, will the Minister outline how such a policy would work in practice? Can the Minister provide assurances that private sector pay will remain confidential and not subject to inquiry by co-workers by law? Close to home, we see how this presents itself in our political parties. In 2023, the Conservative party had a mean gender pay gap of minus 1.8%. Labour party reporting shows that it has a mean gender pay gap of 2% and that: “The gender pay gap for men and women therefore shows that on average, men’s hourly earnings are higher than women’s within the Party. There has been a change from the -2% recorded in 2022.” Can the Minister outline what steps have been taken to address the seemingly worsening gender pay gap within the party of Government since the 2023 report was published?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Workplace Pay Gaps · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously, that was before my time in this House, so I am not completely au fait with the detail the hon. Member is referring to, but I will come back to her with some clarification. I was unable to find a Labour gender pay gap report for 2024, nor could I find any ethnicity or disability pay gap reporting, so I ask the Minister whether she can provide an update on the 2024 pay gap figures for gender, ethnicity and disability for Labour party employees. It would be reassuring to see the party of Government lead by example, by placing itself in the vanguard of organisations that voluntarily provide such clear data ahead of the introduction of the legal requirement to do so. On race, Labour’s manifesto pledged to introduce a landmark race equality Act to enshrine in law the full right to equal pay for black, Asian and other ethnic minority people. The Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), pledged 18 months ago that such an Act would form a core part of Labour’s plans in government. The aspect of that Act applicable to this debate is the Government’s commitment to fine companies that do not act on data highlighting a racial pay disparity. The right hon. Lady stated that that was a Labour priority, yet as we approach the six-month point of Labour being in office, I ask the Minister who here today to clarify when that Act will be brought before the House and when companies can be expected to have to implement ethnicity pay gap reporting. Labour first made the pledge to introduce ethnicity pay gap reporting in 2021, in a document that has now been deleted from the Labour party website, but I ask the Minister to say how such a policy is likely to be implemented. In March 2022, the previous Government published “Inclusive Britain”, its response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. Action 16, which directly addressed ethnicity pay gap reporting and responded to recommendation 9 in the report, was to “Investigate what causes existing ethnic pay disparities.” It stated: “We will address the challenges with ethnicity pay gap reporting to support employers who want to demonstrate and drive greater fairness in the workplace.” It also said that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy would “publish guidance to employers on voluntary ethnicity pay reporting in summer 2022. This guidance, which will include case studies of those companies who are already reporting, will give employers the tools to understand and tackle pay gaps within their organisations and build trust with employees.” The previous Government published their guidance to employers in April 2023. I ask the Minister whether this Government will retain the existing guidance and use the measures already in place. Once reporting becomes mandatory, how will the Government ensure that enough workers disclose their ethnicity to make reporting accurate? Can she give assurances that employees will not be forced to disclose their ethnicity on record? How will the legislation improve individual situations if an ethnicity pay gap is identified? Will employees on the wrong side of an identified ethnicity pay gap be informed of their specific circumstances, or will they be left to see the gap identified in the reporting and then have to rely upon the organisation’s action plan to redress any imbalance? In January 2023, the then Labour party chairman, who is now the Minister for Women and Equalities, addressed the reported 9% ethnicity pay gap within the Labour party between its black and minority staff, and its white staff. She stated: “Labour is determined to close these pay gaps, not just among our own staff.” Two years later, and ahead of mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting being introduced, I ask the Minister to say whether the Labour party has now addressed its own ethnicity pay gap. The Guardian reported in November that senior Labour MPs were frustrated that “there were no senior black staff members at the very centre of a Labour Government.” It would appear that the party of Government still has some work to do. Lastly, the disability pay gap receives far less scrutiny than either the gender pay gap or the ethnicity pay gap. As someone with a close relative who is a wheelchair user, it is easy for me to see how disabilities, both visible and hidden, can be overlooked. The Government pledged in their manifesto to introduce a full right to equal pay for disabled people, as well as mandatory disability pay gap reporting for large employers. A TUC report from last November highlighted the current disability pay gap, and we would all benefit if that gap was closed. Can the Minister say when the Government intend to introduce mandatory disability pay gap reporting and also how the mandatory action plans will be used to address identified gaps? A proactive step would be to introduce reasonable adjustments passports to ensure that the impact of employees’ disabilities is documented. Adjustments can be agreed and any future potential adjustments can be identified. An employer then has a clear record of adjustments that have been agreed upon, which can be easily communicated to new managers. I believe Labour also pledged to improve access in its manifesto, so can the Minister outline what progress has been made in that regard? ONS data for 2023 showed that the disability pay gap was 12.7%. Unlike the gender pay gap, the disability pay gap has remained constant for around a decade, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan). That gap is actually wider for men, at 15.5%, than it is for women, at 9.6%. It is also wider for full-time employees than it is for part- time employees. The ONS’s disability pay gap analysis showed that disabled men earn a median hourly pay that is similar to that of non-disabled women. The ONS data also showed that the biggest impact is on those with autism, epilepsy or learning difficulties. Disabled employees with autism had one of the widest pay gaps, with a 27.9% difference, and those with epilepsy had a 26.9% difference. I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to reduce those categories of pay gap with the highest difference. Given the increase in instances of autism in children with special educational needs and disabilities, I ask the Minister: what steps are being taken now to ensure that a better structure is in place for what is likely to be an increase in those disabilities in the workforce? There is still progress to be made on addressing pay gaps in our workforce. I look forward to the Minister’s response and await clarity from her on the steps the Government have pledged to take to address those issues.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Housing: Military Personnel and Families · Hansard source

  More

  Since October 2023, more than 5,000 Afghans eligible for support via the Afghan relocations and assistance policy have been moved into Ministry of Defence service families accommodation—both transitional and then settled service families accommodation—under Operation Lazurite. How many SFA houses in the defence estate are currently being used to house Afghan families? What is the plan for their onward movement once their three-year eligibility for settled service families accommodation has elapsed?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Police Funding: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  I concur wholeheartedly with that assessment, and I will shortly go into more detail about the difficulties posed by rural crime, in terms of both manpower and the specifics that simply do not exist in other parts of the country. No one would consider their neighbourhood to be the same as that of another town 12 miles away. When, in November, I asked the Minister for her definition of a community, I did not receive an answer; I was simply told that more detail would be set out in due course. I therefore hope she will now provide her definition of a community in the context of the size of community that a single officer should be expected to cover. Will she also tell us what additional resources the Government will provide in Cambridgeshire to ensure that their neighbourhood policing pledge can realistically be met by the St Ives safer neighbourhood team and, indeed, safer neighbourhood teams throughout the county? When I speak to residents in some of our rural villages and communities, particularly those west of the A1 in my constituency, the lack of a visible police presence is a constant theme. Many residents complain that they never see a police officer in their community, and that chimes with the Government’s own findings. According to Labour, half the public have said that they never or almost never see an officer on patrol. Will the Minister explain how the Government’s neighbourhood policing pledge will address the paucity of visible policing in rural areas? In villages such as Brington and Molesworth, residents benefit from the presence of Ministry of Defence Police. Nearby RAF Molesworth is operated by the United States Air Forces in Europe and, with the vast majority of United States air force personnel living in the local community rather than on base, the MOD Police patrol in the surrounding villages to ensure the safety of US personnel. While that provides a police presence of sorts, local residents should not have to rely on the nearby presence of the US military in order to see the presence of the police. As a result of the lack of confidence felt by some residents given the lack of a visible police presence and deterrence, those in some local villages have turned to private security firms such as Blueline, which covers the area from Catworth to Hail Weston with monitoring and response to calls or alarm activations from those who pay for the service. For local residents who know that their village will be without any sort of visible police deterrent, that is a sensible option for the peace of mind that it brings, but it should not even be a consideration.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Police Funding: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed; my right hon. Friend makes a good point. The Prime Minister launched his housing campaign in Alconbury Weald, which is in my constituency. It currently has around 1,500 houses, with another 4,000 homes to be built in that location. It is indeed a great irony that we are talking about per capita funding in an area that is growing as quickly as it is. We need to address that as a matter of urgency.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Police Funding: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. I asked a local farmer a few weeks ago how he would tackle hare coursing on his land, and at what point he would feel emboldened enough to stand up to those individuals. He explained to me that that was simply too dangerous, even though they were farmers and big, burly blokes. He said a friend of his was doused in petrol and had a match held to him by those responsible for hare coursing. It is simply not worth people risking their life to take them on. In fact, hare coursing means a 999 call. If you see a vehicle that you suspect is involved in hare coursing—a 4x4 with no plates and a couple of lurchers in the back, for example—that is a 999 call, and you will get an adequate response. That is a perfect segue to rural crime. Rural crime is a specialist area, and requires officers who understand how to tackle it. We see hare coursing and the theft of machinery, equipment, GPS, fuel and livestock, with the influence of organised crime. These crimes require a specialist team, and Cambridgeshire’s rural crime action team is one of the best. Having joined it recently on an operation, I saw at first hand how effective it is. It punches above its weight, despite being under-resourced. Just over a year ago, it was awarded the rural initiative of the year by the NFU for Operation Walrus, spearheading a national crackdown on GPS theft. In April, the now Home Secretary pledged: “Labour will crack down on these criminals, establishing a dedicated Rural Crime Strategy to restore order to our rural areas, backed up with tougher powers and increased rural police patrols.” I ask the Policing Minister how this pledge will apply to Cambridgeshire. How will the Government’s pledged rural crime strategy restore order to a county that is 90% rural? How will the Home Secretary’s commitment to increase rural police patrols translate into increased support for an under-resourced specialist team such as the rural crime action team, as well as an increase in visible police presence? In October last year, Cambridgeshire county council passed a motion that directly addressed the issue of fairer police funding. The motion was brought by Councillor Alex Bulat, the Labour candidate in Huntingdon during the last election, and my opponent. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, fighting for fairer police funding for Cambridgeshire was one of my election pledges to my now constituents. While Councillor Bulat never addressed the issue of police funding during the election campaign, I am hugely pleased to see her taking up that fight now, and raising the issue at county council level. The motion called for this Labour Government to ensure that Cambridgeshire has its fair share of the new neighbourhood police officers, and that they are fully funded by the central policing core grant. It asked Cambridgeshire MPs to lobby for a fairer funding deal for our county, through changes to the Government’s police grant allocation that better reflect population data and local factors. The Policing Minister knows well that I have been campaigning for fairer funding. This debate is not the first time I have addressed the issue with her—I have done so in person and via written questions—and I appreciate her tolerance. Can she respond directly to the requests in the motion from Cambridgeshire county council, and explain to the council why it has not yet received a fairer funding deal? With that, I give the Policing Minister the opportunity to respond to these questions, but lastly, will she and the Home Secretary meet me, other Cambridgeshire MPs and our police and crime commissioner to discuss the steps required to update the police allocation formula, so that funding for 2025-26 is based on Cambridgeshire’s current and future population size, not on the population as it was nearly a decade and a half ago, and to discuss redressing the imbalance that sees Cambridgeshire residents contribute 10% more than average across England and Wales to make up the Government’s shortfall? Our constituents in Cambridgeshire deserve to feel safe. They deserve to receive the full protection that the Government can provide, and they deserve to not pay over the odds to receive that.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Police Funding: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the manner of the rural crime that takes place. I will come on to talk about the rural crime action team that we have in Cambridgeshire and how they deal with the specific threat of that type of rural crime.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Police Funding: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that, and he is right about the nature of the threat that is now faced. Aspects such as modern slavery go unseen in rural communities. I can think of countless examples in my own constituency, where individuals have been found in isolated warehouses and barns out in the countryside, usually at somewhere like a cannabis farm. I even attended a cannabis farm right in the middle of St Ives with members of Cambridgeshire constabulary. A number of individuals had been living and working there, presumably under duress. Such activity goes unseen, and increasing the police’s ability to reach unseen areas will be hugely important. To that extent, I ask the Minister how the Government’s neighbourhood policing pledge will restore confidence in Cambridgeshire’s rural communities, who feel that their needs are not necessarily a priority. In April, the Prime Minister pledged that “Britain’s rural communities will be protected with the first ever government-backed rural crime strategy.” Will the Minister confirm when that rural crime strategy will be published and how it will benefit Cambridgeshire specifically, given that we have already established that there will be little in the way of additional resource for the county’s police force?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Police Funding: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this important debate on police funding in Cambridgeshire. It has taken a number of attempts to secure this debate and I am extremely grateful that it will now be the first Adjournment debate of the year. I am extremely pleased to see so many of my fellow Cambridgeshire MPs in attendance and I welcome their timely interventions. Having spoken to several of them about the subject, I know that this is a topic that concerns us all and transcends party politics. Police funding continues to be an issue throughout the county. I made it a cornerstone of my election campaign and pledged to fight for a fairer funding solution. Last year, Cambridgeshire experienced significant political change, not only in the make-up of its Members of Parliament but in the make-up of its constituencies, with the necessity to add a new parliamentary constituency owing to the increase in the county’s population. Cambridgeshire is the fastest-growing county and, as such, it is vital that its growing population is properly protected. The subject of police funding in Cambridgeshire has been a growing issue in recent years. Indeed, the way in which our police forces are funded, via the Government core grant allocation and the policing precept element of the council tax bill, has long since led to an unequal distribution of funding across the police forces of England and Wales. Cambridgeshire is the fourth worst-funded police force. The discrepancies between the funding available to Cambridgeshire constabulary and other similar-sized forces becomes apparent when we look at their per capita allocation. In Cambridgeshire, it is only £217.80 per person, whereas in Durham it is £265.17. The national average is £275.20. Cambridgeshire currently receives a raw deal because the police allocation formula that underpins the funding is based on population data that is now hopelessly out of date. The current formula was introduced in the 2013-14 financial year and is based on the population size of Cambridgeshire in 2012. The county has, as we all know, grown significantly in the intervening 13 years. When the figures are broken down they show that this year, 2024-25, the total budget for Cambridgeshire is £197.5 million. That is split between 56% Government funding and 44% precept. The national average is 66% Government funding and 34% precept. Why will Cambridgeshire residents continue to pick up the slack next year when there was an opportunity to change the formula to better balance that split and reduce the burden by 10%, which would have brought us in line with the national average? Indeed, that £197.5 million is Cambridgeshire’s share of the total budget for England and Wales of £16,575.7 million. It represents just 1.2% of total funding. That correlates with Cambridgeshire’s share of current police numbers. As of 31 March 2024, there were 147,746 full-time equivalent police officers in England and Wales. Of those, Cambridgeshire had just 1,757 police officers, or 1.2%. The Government have pledged to restore neighbourhood policing via an uplift of 13,000 new neighbourhood police. The pledge was first made by the now Home Secretary in February 2023 but, as I understand it, the recruitment of those officers will not begin until the 2025-26 financial year, and they are set to be recruited over the remaining four years of the Parliament. Will the Minister clarify whether the 13,000 was on top of the police headcount in February 2023, or against the projected headcount in March 2029? If it was the latter, what is the projected headcount for police in England and Wales in March 2029? In November, the Home Secretary confirmed that those 13,000 neighbourhood police would be made up of only 3,000 FTE police, 4,000 police community support officers, 3,000 special constables and 3,000 officers reassigned from other duties. On the basis of those numbers and the allocation that I established earlier, Cambridgeshire would, with just 1.2% of those numbers, receive 36 police officers, a figure which, spread over the remainder of this Parliament, amounts to just nine new officers per year. Given that we have eight constituencies in Cambridgeshire that is, realistically, just one new officer per constituency, and assuming that Peterborough and Cambridge, as our two cities, have an increased requirement compared with more rural constituencies, we could easily see zero new officers in some Cambridgeshire constituencies. Additionally, the current plan includes the redistribution of 3,000 existing police officers. As the previous calculation showed, at just one officer per constituency, it is highly unlikely that there will be any discernible difference. While I appreciate that operational decisions are the responsibility of the chief constable, I gently ask the Minister where she thinks that those officers, in an already overstretched and under-resourced force, will be redistributed from? Before Christmas, I spoke to Cambridgeshire constabulary about the impact the Government’s neighbourhood policing pledge would have. This provides a useful illustration of what the pledge looks like for the forces that have not been properly resourced. The Government have pledged that every neighbourhood will have a named officer. As things stand the town of St Ives—a town with a population of 17,000 residents—has a single named officer to cover it, who is also the named officer for the smaller market town of Ramsey in North West Cambridgeshire, 12 miles to the north and just outside my constituency, with a further 6,000 residents. That same officer is also responsible for all the villages that lie between those two towns: Warboys, Bury, Upwood, Wistow, Broughton, Old Hurst, Woodhurst, Pidley and, I believe, even Somersham, Bluntisham, Colne, Earith, Needingworth and Holywell. Conversely, the same area is covered by two Members of Parliament and more than a dozen councillors. How big an area should one officer be expected to cover?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Police Funding: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  My question on funding specifically is about the way that Cambridgeshire is short-changed by the police allocation formula. I explained earlier that the nub of the issue in Cambridgeshire is the fact that the funding is so out of date. On the growth of Cambridgeshire, which was mentioned earlier, adjusting the police allocation formula would go some way towards filling the gap. It is not just about Cambridgeshire; I know that places such as Lincolnshire, which is even worse funded than Cambridgeshire, would also benefit from the formula being looked at.