PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Police Funding: Cambridgeshire - 6 January 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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because the police allocation formula that underpins the funding is based on population data that is now hopelessly out of date.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?

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point about the reality of policing in a rural area. My constituency has one of the most consistently underfunded police forces in the country. Two misconceptions are that there is no crime in rural areas, and that if it does exist, it does not require the same manpower as other areas. Both those assumptions are absolutely wrong. The reality is that crime in rural areas is down to county lines, trafficking, cyber-crime and organised crime. Can my hon. Friend attest to the changing nature of crime in Cambridgeshire that we experience in Suffolk, and to the fact that rural crime is not easy to police?

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.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue. One of the major issues in the rural countryside that I, he and others represent is the theft of farm machinery, often in the early hours of the morning. The Police Service of Northern Ireland works alongside the Ulster Farmers’ Union. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the police in his constituency work alongside the National Farmers Union to mark all the machinery so that if it is stolen, they can trace where it goes? I know that in Northern Ireland, it goes south towards the Republic and then comes across to England. Perhaps the police and the NFU could look at that together.

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.

My hon. Friend highlights an important point about rural crime. He has powerfully set out how Cambridgeshire is underfunded per capita compared with other forces, and he has explained how that is more acute in areas such as Fenland and rural constituencies. Can he also see the irony in the Prime Minister launching his housing strategy in Cambridge, and in the fact that the Government say they want to see much more housing in Cambridgeshire, yet their per capita funding discriminates against Cambridgeshire as an area?

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.

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.

As we have just had a debate on child sexual exploitation, it is worth mentioning that we are seeing the nature of crime in rural areas change very quickly, and that the challenge faced by police forces five or 10 years ago is not the challenge that they face today. In Suffolk, the reality is that we have a massive problem with trafficking and a massive problem with prostitution. We have problems that were just not there 10 years ago. It is all very well for Labour Members to say, “What did you do about it?”, but we are debating how to meet the challenges of today, not yesterday. Will my hon. Friend speak to that for a moment?

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?

Rural crime is a major issue in Cambridgeshire and in my constituency. Yes, we can mark big farm machinery, but people are stealing parts from farm machinery, and those parts are much more difficult to track. Hare coursing is also a major problem. The hon. Member has mentioned the sheer size of the area of Cambridgeshire that the tiny number of police we have are expected to cover. Will he ask the Minister to ensure that when the Government are diverting police, as they are talking about doing, they do not divert them from the rural crime unit, and indeed look to bolster that unit?

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.

Let me begin by wishing everyone a very happy new year, especially you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who secured this important debate, and all the Cambridgeshire MPs present in the Chamber. I must also wish a happy new year to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is starting the year as he finished the last one: by contributing to every Adjournment debate held in this place.

I thank all the police, police staff, police community support officers and specials who were on duty over Christmas and the new year, keeping us all safe. I had the privilege to see that at first hand in Birmingham city centre, when I accompanied West Midlands police, and also in Bedford with Bedfordshire police, just before the Christmas recess.

Quite understandably, the hon. Member for Huntingdon is focused on police funding for his constituency and his police force, and I will shortly come to the specific questions on Cambridgeshire constabulary. However, I will start by referring to the provisional police funding settlement for England and Wales, which was laid before the House just before the Christmas recess.

The headline is that overall funding for policing will rise to £19.5 billion in 2025-26. That is an increase of up to £1 billion from this financial year, and we are investing in key areas. We have listened to what the police have to say about the challenges they face, and we have secured a settlement that seeks to address those concerns and provide the building blocks for our programme of reform. Included in that figure is £100 million to kick-start our commitment to neighbourhood policing and put officers back into the heart of communities. We are also covering the cost to the police of the changes to employers’ national insurance contributions and the police pay awards.

Turning to the points raised in the debate, and particularly to funding for Cambridgeshire constabulary, I remind the House that it is for police and crime commissioners to set the annual budget for their police force area, including the level of the police precept. It is for the operationally independent chief constable to decide how to use the resources to meet the police and crime commissioner’s priorities. Having said that, funding for Cambridgeshire will rise by up to £11.1 million in the next financial year. This is a cash increase of up to 5.6% compared to the current year, and it is a 3.1% real-terms increase. On funding for employers’ national insurance contributions, I confirm again that the distribution will not be based on the funding formula shares. I hope that provides some reassurance to the force.

We understand that comparing funding between forces will result in highs and lows. I commend Cambridgeshire’s leadership in running an efficient force that has maintained officer numbers and worked to keep the community safe in a very challenging financial environment. The financial shocks of recent years, as well as the position that we inherited from the previous Government, have meant taking some tough choices, but we believe that we have secured a balanced settlement for policing while still driving forward with our key commitments.

In return, we have been very clear that we expect police forces to look for ambitious ways to drive efficiency and productivity and to make real improvements. We are supporting this through our recently announced commercial efficiencies and collaboration programme, which will have its early focus on procurement frameworks and working to use the full advantage of police buying power, alongside the potential for greater cost recovery. December’s announcement was the provisional police settlement, which is now open to consultation until 10 January, and Cambridgeshire constabulary has the opportunity to make further representations during this period.

On the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Huntingdon about the funding formula, I note that population change can vary across the country. I note what he said, and I recognise that forces that have seen bigger changes will be keen to ensure that the funding that they receive keeps pace with demand. In the provisional police settlement, we have delivered a real-terms increase in funding for Cambridgeshire constabulary for next year.

Will the Minister give way?

I will just finish this point, as it is perhaps pertinent, given who wishes to intervene. The £1 billion overall increase in the police settlement next year comes at a time when the Government are having to make tough decisions on budgets after inheriting a £22 billion black hole. We are working to fix the economy.

The Minister is making a separate point; my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) was talking about the share of the existing pie—the proportion that Cambridgeshire gets—not about whether more funding is being put in. I wanted to pick up on her interesting point about the consultation being open until 10 January, which is not very far away. What criteria will she apply, when it comes to making adjustments to that provisional allocation? Are those criteria published? A lot of hon. Members may not be sighted on the changes that may be made to the allocation, or on how the Government will reach that decision.

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, so he will know that this is the normal process. The provisional settlement is announced before Christmas, and then there is an opportunity for police forces to make further representations or to query figures. That has always been the case; there is nothing new about the process that we are using. However, as I said, it is important to note that we are having to make difficult decisions because of the inheritance we have.

Government grants are not the only source of income available to police forces. In 2025-26, PCCs in England have the flexibility to increase the precept by up to £14 for a band D equivalent property, or to go further, should they wish, by holding a local referendum. I note that the Cambridgeshire PCC has chosen to maximise precept in previous years, and subject to the decision for 2025-26, 44% of Cambridgeshire police’s settlement funding will be raised locally via the police precept.

I know the hon. Member for Huntingdon is concerned about the additional demand that a population increase may create for Cambridgeshire police, but I ask him to consider the positive impact that such an increase may have on the council tax base and, as a result, the income that will be generated locally by the PCC. In response to his question about reviewing the funding formula, and on the delivery of this Government’s safer streets mission, we have been clear that broader policing reform is necessary to address the challenges faced by policing, and to help the system deliver effective and efficient policing to the public.

I note the contributions that have been made about the changing face of crime in this country, and the challenges that police forces face. That is why we have clearly set out a reform agenda. The allocation of funding to police forces remains an important consideration in that reform work. Phase 2 of the spending review will give us an opportunity to consider police funding in the medium term, ensuring that it aligns with our programme of reform and delivery of the safer streets mission.

I really welcome the increase in police funding for Cambridgeshire. I understand the concerns being raised. A lot of growth is happening in and around Cambridgeshire. Can the Minister reassure me that her Department will have the relevant conversations with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and others, to ensure that we show residents how we are supporting police growth as the population expands?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

I will quickly address the issue of neighbourhood policing. I am sure that we can all agree that public confidence in policing is always better when the police are visible, and when there are officers in the heart of communities, building real relationships with the people they serve. There are many ways for the public to contact the police, but we hear consistently that the public value a local, visible policing presence. That is why we are committed to rebuilding neighbourhood policing after it was decimated over the previous 14 years. A named, contactable police officer for every community will be a key part of the neighbourhood policing guarantee. We will set out exactly what the public can expect from their neighbourhood policing teams. As I said, we have kick-started our commitment with £100 million of funding next year to start the work of putting 13,000 police back in our communities.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon again on securing the debate, and all Members who contributed to it. Whether we look at this through a national or local lens, policing resourcing matters. It matters to the brave and hard-working officers and staff who work every day to keep the rest of us safe, and to the communities they serve, whether in Cambridgeshire, with its rural and urban areas, or anywhere else. That is why we set out in the provisional funding settlement our intention to make a very substantial investment in policing, and it is why we are working closely with forces to equip them for the challenges that they face, and to deliver our safer streets mission. We are already making progress, and will drive it further with our investment in neighbourhood policing in this settlement.

Question put and agreed to.