House of Commons

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 11 February 2026

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

1. What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on improving public services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)]

Public services in Northern Ireland can and should be better. The Government are backing the Northern Ireland Executive every step of the way, starting with a record £19.3 billion settlement. Of course there is more to do and we will continue to work with the Executive to do it.

[Mr Dhesi]

Like my Slough constituents, the good people of Northern Ireland deserve the best possible public services. This Government promised to cut the sky-high NHS waiting lists. Indeed, those lists are coming down for the first time in 15 years thanks to an extra £26 billion investment. That extra money is part of why the Northern Ireland Executive have a record funding settlement. Does the Minister agree that it is now crucial that the Executive and this Government work collaboratively to share knowledge and best practice so that we improve outcomes for patients?

[Matthew Patrick]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight that, just recently, England had the second best monthly fall in waiting lists for 15 years. In Northern Ireland, the 70,000-appointments target has been surpassed and we have hit 200,000 additional appointments. I am pleased with the work of the Northern Ireland Health Minister Mike Nesbitt on that. The UK Government are committed to sharing best practice with those in the Northern Ireland Executive to continue that work.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Health is a devolved matter, but the fight against cancer is not. Will the Minister join me in praising the work of the All-Island Cancer Research Institute, which is led by Queen’s and others, and ensure that our efforts to address cancer are done not just in Northern Ireland or the four nations, but between these islands?

[Matthew Patrick]

It was my privilege to see some of the work being done there. Any efforts to bring down waiting times for cancer patients should be adopted. I will encourage this Government to do anything they can to share best practice from their own 10-year cancer plan.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Over the past 10 days we have seen a number of revelations about the procurement of services and goods and the provision of sensitive information during Peter Mandelson’s time as a Government Minister and as an ambassador in Washington. Given that Mandelson was, for two years, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, can the Minister assure the House that his Department will comb its records to identify any possible wrongdoing?

[Matthew Patrick]

I can absolutely give the shadow Secretary of State that assurance. That work is under way and we will update the House on anything that may emerge.

[Alex Burghart]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that direct response. Will he also commit to return to this House before Easter to update Members on the work that his Department has done and what it has found?

[Matthew Patrick]

I believe that work will be published by the Cabinet Office. I will ensure that, through that, the House will receive an update on the records.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, the Secretary of State and his officials for their constructive engagement in preparation for a reserve claim for the Executive. Through that work, I know that the figure has doubled and rightly so. May I also highlight the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report on the frailty within our Northern Ireland civil service? In the past six years, out of 23 recommendations, only five have been progressed. We have 5,000 vacancies, 3,000 temporary promotions and a rising sickness level. Does he believe that it is sustainable for the Northern Ireland civil service to ignore such changes for reform if we want to see the delivery of good public services?

[Matthew Patrick]

This Government are committed to civil service reform here. We have said that we wish to move fast and fix things. We will share our learnings with the Northern Ireland civil service. The right hon. Member also mentioned the reserve claim. He will have seen in yesterday’s supplementary estimates that £400 million has been given to the Northern Ireland Executive. That is exceptional. It will be repayable over three years and accompanied by an open-book exercise looking at the Executive budget.

[Gavin Robinson]

One constraint, as the Minister knows because I raised it at the last Northern Ireland questions, is the potential requirement, as a result of EU legislative change, of an additional 60,000 GP appointments for antimicrobial-resistant drugs. That would decimate the delivery of health services in Northern Ireland. I ask that he and the Secretary of State engage with this to ensure that Northern Ireland is not a casualty as a result of the imposition of EU regulation. Can he update the House on that?

[Matthew Patrick]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter powerfully last month and again this month. We raised his concerns with the European Union, and I am pleased—I hope he is, too—that the latest draft of the EU regulations includes a full exemption for Northern Ireland regarding the prescription status of antimicrobial-resistant medicines. That shows the benefits of a grown-up working relationship with the European Union, so that we can address issues as and when they arise.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Government policies on the economy in Northern Ireland.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Government policies on the economy in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

The Government are supporting Northern Ireland through the four city deals, the local innovation partnerships fund, an enhanced investment zone and greater economic stability. Economic activity in Northern Ireland increased by 2.9% over the year to quarter 3, and it has the lowest unemployment in the UK.

[Joe Robertson]

The Government are giving a 50% reduction to the emissions trading scheme levy on ferries crossing between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in an apparent effort not to negatively impact the economy there. Scottish islands are getting a 100% reduction, yet the Isle of Wight is getting no reduction. What economic assessment has been done to arrive at those figures, or are they simply plucked out of thin air?

[Hilary Benn]

The figures are based on the assessment that there are particular requirements for the Scottish islands in terms of services, access to essential care and so on. That is why that exemption has been applied for Scotland. The impact of this measure on trade between GB and Northern Ireland will be very small in light of the overall costs of moving goods and transportation.

[Blake Stephenson]

While the rise in the agricultural property relief threshold to £2.5 million is a welcome step for farmers, does the Minister recognise the broader economic concern shared by the Ulster Farmers Union that inflation and steadily rising asset values will over time pull more family farms into inheritance tax liability, even when their real wealth and income may not increase?

[Hilary Benn]

As the hon. Member will be aware, the Government announced that the allowance for 100% rate relief will be increased from £1 million to £2.5 million. That means that a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million tax-free between them, on top of the existing allowances such as the nil-rate band. The president of the Ulster Farmers Union, William Irwin, welcomed the changes. In fact, he said:

“We are in a better position today than we were yesterday”.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

The local growth fund was a UK Government policy that had been working to support some people outside of the labour market into decent work, helping to address Northern Ireland’s low productivity rates. The UK Government have changed that policy and the capital revenue split in a way that works for the Treasury, but not for organisations in Northern Ireland. Funded groups are being directed to PEACEPLUS, but its funding criteria does not work for most. Why are voluntary and community sector groups being asked to distort Special EU Programmes Body rules, rather than UK Government policy adapting to local needs?

[Hilary Benn]

I met the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action and CO3 last week to talk about this matter. It is a difficult situation because of how capital and resources have been allocated through the local growth fund. Of the £12 million of available resource funding, we agreed with the Executive that £3 million would go to Go Succeed at their request, and £9 million would go to economic inactivity programmes. We are exploring other potential sources of funding, of which PEACEPLUS is one. Another source is the Northern Ireland Executive’s record settlement. They had £9 million yesterday in additional Barnett consequentials. They could choose to invest some money in these programmes.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland, like Scotland and Wales, shares the benefits of a united United Kingdom and its collective spending power, generating jobs and opportunities across the four countries of the United Kingdom?

[Hilary Benn]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. All parts of the United Kingdom derive strength and benefit from being part of that Union. We can see in the figures I quoted a moment ago the benefit being obtained in Northern Ireland in terms of how the economy is doing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

The Windsor framework was meant to give Northern Ireland the best of both worlds: unfettered access to the UK internal market and barrier-free access to the EU. Not so, according to a recent survey conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses, which reports that more than half those trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are having difficulties, with over a third having stopped trading altogether. The figures are stark. Fewer than one in six Northern Ireland businesses say that they benefit from dual market access, while nearly 80% rate Government support as poor or very poor. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to a specific time-bound plan to make dual market access work, or does he accept that Northern Ireland got the worst of both worlds?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept that Northern Ireland has the worst of both worlds. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the issue facing small businesses, highlighted by the FSB report and others, including Lord Murphy’s independent report. As he will have noticed, in the Budget the Chancellor announced a £16.6 million package which will include a comprehensive one-stop-shop regulatory support service to help precisely those businesses to trade more between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the defence industrial strategy 2025 on Northern Ireland.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the defence industrial strategy 2025 on Northern Ireland.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

12. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the defence industrial strategy 2025 on Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)]

The defence of our country is always the first duty of any Government. Last week I met businesses big and small, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and representative bodies, as well as our great universities, to discuss how the defence growth deal for Northern Ireland can pack the biggest punch possible. With £250 million across five deals, including one in Northern Ireland, there is a huge potential here, and I am determined that we will seize it.

[Alice Macdonald]

In Northern Ireland the defence sector offers many opportunities to apprentices, as it does across the rest of the country: I met two apprentices from MSI Defence Systems in my constituency yesterday. Will the Minister join me in celebrating apprentices throughout our United Kingdom, and will he explain how we will support the next generation of skilled workers in this vital industry?

[Matthew Patrick]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in doing that. Just last week I visited Mallaghan, where four apprentices were being given incredible opportunities as a result of taking up their jobs, and I am sure they would agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment.

[Kevin Bonavia]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the defence industry sector is well established in my constituency, where it is building links with its counterparts in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that the defence industrial strategy presents a huge opportunity for businesses in constituencies throughout the country, including Stevenage and most certainly Northern Ireland, where it can help to boost investment, job creation and economic growth?

[Matthew Patrick]

My hon. Friend is right. The strategy is not just about the defence of the realm; there are economic opportunities that come with it. The defence growth deal on which we are working in Northern Ireland will take advantage of that, and will ensure that small businesses in particular can benefit.

[John Slinger]

The Government are doing good work to encourage young people into their careers via apprenticeships, and this week is National Apprenticeship Week. In my constituency we have GE Vernova, which is ramping up its apprenticeship scheme, while Rugby college, part of Warwickshire College Group, is getting apprenticeship programmes under way for 750 young people and adults. Does the Minister agree that the Government must go further to support apprenticeships in the vital defence sector, in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland?

[Matthew Patrick]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Some of the apprentices whom I met just last week told me that, over four years, they were more than £100,000 better off as a result of taking their apprenticeships. It is good for them, good for businesses and good for the country.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Yesterday I met two apprentices who were engaged in firms delivering defence contracts in Northern Ireland and were enthusiastic about the skills and their prospects, but Northern Ireland benefits minimally from defence contracts across the United Kingdom. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that more contracts are awarded to Northern Ireland, and will he ignore the comments of the First Minister, who does not want that to happen?

[Matthew Patrick]

This Government are supporting businesses in Northern Ireland. The work that I am doing with them on the defence growth deal is designed specifically to ensure that this will benefit them and all their supply chains, and I will continue to do that work.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Whatever the defence industrial strategy aims to do, its aims will not be met if we cannot find and recruit people willing to use the equipment and technology that are created. People will be far less likely to risk their lives to keep our country safe and free if they cannot rely on the Government to stand by them both during and after their service. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the military and the defence industry of the Government’s decision to allow our veterans who served in Northern Ireland to be dragged vindictively through the courts?

[Matthew Patrick]

I reject that characterisation. The immunity that was offered by the last Government was false. We do not agree with that in principle, and the veterans we speak to do not want immunity under the law; they want equality before it. It was this Government who gave our armed forces the largest pay rise in over two decades. This Government are backing our armed forces.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a clear need for a stronger role for Northern Ireland firms in the UK defence supply chain, and will he commit to encouraging far greater inclusion of Northern Ireland small and medium-sized enterprises in Ministry of Defence framework contracts and sub-contracting opportunities?

[Matthew Patrick]

I absolutely accept that we can do even more to support such companies. The companies I have been meeting in relation to the defence growth deal have said that the opportunity to showcase the talent and expertise that exists in Northern Ireland is really important, and I want to support them in doing that.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2025 on Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

The autumn Budget provided Northern Ireland with an additional £370 million, on top of the record spending review settlement, and will assist families with the cost of living by cutting energy bills, lifting the two-child benefit limit and raising the minimum wage.

[Sean Woodcock]

The Government’s child poverty strategy aims to lift over 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of the abolition of the two-child benefit cap for families in Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

The lifting of the two-child benefit cap in Northern Ireland will help more than 17,000 children and more than 48,000 people in Northern Ireland households. We are also increasing the national minimum wage, which will benefit 170,000 people, and increasing the state pension will benefit 330,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Cancer is a thief and a home-wrecker. Sadly, Northern Ireland has the worst cancer outcomes across the UK. I recently lifted the lid on breast cancer referrals, with red-flag appointments taking in excess of 14 weeks. Although the autumn Budget has been helpful, can the Minister confirm whether conversations are happening with the Treasury to ask for transformational money to help us transform our health service, so that cancer wait times and medical pathways can be improved once and for all?

[Hilary Benn]

Like the whole House, I share the hon. Member’s wish to improve cancer treatment and cancer waiting times for those who are currently waiting too long. There is the public services transformation fund, and the first phase of projects was funded last year. Decisions are about to be taken on the second phase of funding, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) mentioned, there also needs to be reform of the way in which the health service works. We are seeing progress under Mike Nesbitt’s leadership, and we need to see more.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister—welcome.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

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?

[Hilary Benn]

The increase in national insurance was a decision that the Government took to deal with the inheritance left by the last Government. [Interruption.] That is a fact, and no one can argue that it is not the case. We needed to put the economy on a stable footing. The fact that the Northern Ireland economy is growing, and that Northern Ireland has the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom, is a sign of the fundamental strength of the economy in Northern Ireland.

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on education.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)]

Chances in life are set early. Although education is devolved in Northern Ireland, we must work together. That is why it was my privilege to bring the Minister for Early Education to Belfast recently to visit schools and to present to Northern Ireland Ministers at the East-West Council. We discussed the school twinning programme, the theme of which is “Reading for Pleasure”. As a new dad, I am reading quite a few baby books at the moment.

[Sarah Hall]

As chair of the inclusion and nurture in education all-party group, I welcome the Northern Ireland Department of Education’s independent research showing that nurture provision delivers measurable improvements in pupils’ behaviour, attendance and attainment. What discussions are being had to share this good practice in inclusive education with the rest of the UK, including officials in England, as the Government seek to improve inclusion and educational outcomes for all?

[Matthew Patrick]

Just last month, I went with the early years Minister to visit schools that are really focused on being inclusive and nurturing for pupils, and my hon. Friend is totally right to highlight how this work can have such a positive impact on the children in our schools.

[Jas Athwal]

Does the Minister agree with me about the importance of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government sharing knowledge, expertise and best practice as we all seek to improve outcomes for children in all our schools?

[Matthew Patrick]

I absolutely do. I have always said that this is not a case of cutting a cheque and walking away. There is work we can do with the Northern Ireland Executive, and we continue to share best practice. In fact, just this week I wrote to the Minister responsible for early years, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), to explore further opportunities for collaboration.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

At last year’s spending review, the Northern Ireland Office announced a £2 million allocation to support the integrated education sector. Given that a range of schools in Northern Ireland have been offering an integrated educational ethos for many years, will the Government review that policy to support integrated education per se across a number of schools in Northern Ireland?

[Matthew Patrick]

We support integrated education, and integrated schools are a really important part of that. I was recently at some shared education schools, at the request of the Minister, and I was impressed by some of the work being done there, but I do not think there is just one route for schools in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. The Education Minister in Northern Ireland, Paul Givan, has been keen to introduce restrictions on students using smartphones in schools, and he has a pilot scheme in place. The Government here are happy to do the same thing. Has the Minister had an opportunity to encourage the Education Minister in Northern Ireland to bring in smartphone restrictions in schools? One party in the Executive wishes to stop that, but the will of the people is to make sure it happens.

[Matthew Patrick]

I was with the Minister for Education recently but this topic did not come up. Obviously, these matters are devolved and are for the Northern Ireland Executive, but I would be happy to speak to Minister Givan, as the hon. Member suggests.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to help ensure adequate accountability for troubles-era violence for members of the IRA.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

There are currently six republican paramilitaries facing prosecution for troubles-related killings. The legacy commission is already investigating a number of IRA atrocities, including the M62 coach bombing, the Guildford pub bombing and the Warrenpoint massacre. Under the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, the commission will benefit from information sharing by the Irish authorities.

[David Davis]

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?

[Hilary Benn]

The answer to the right hon. Member’s first question is that it will depend, as he well knows, on the evidence in any individual case, and that decision will be taken by public prosecutors in the normal way. On his second question, he will be aware that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were imprisoned during the troubles for a range of offences, including murder, and the purpose of the reform is to ensure that more families are able to find answers to the questions, which they are still asking, about what happened to their loved ones.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

On the subject of troubles-era violence, this week my Committee published a unanimous report calling on the Government to formally name agent Stakeknife. The Government have said that the Supreme Court judgment in the Thompson case has implications for their decision, but lead officers have said it does not. What is preventing the Government from naming Stakeknife, and when do they plan to do so?

[Hilary Benn]

I have, of course, seen the report that the Select Committee has published. There are ongoing civil proceedings and the Government, as I indicated previously, are still considering the implications of the Supreme Court’s Thompson judgment for this decision. I have promised the House that I will return when the Government have reached a decision on the request made by Sir Iain Livingstone, and I intend to honour that promise.

[David Davis]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has put that decision on the record. I am not going to extend Northern Ireland questions, so we will move on.

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the President—the Speaker—of the Parliament of Estonia. I thank him and his delegation for being with us today from Estonia.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 February.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not think that the Prime Minister was so popular on the Opposition Benches.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Mr Speaker, may I start by saying that my thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with the two children stabbed at Kingsbury high school in Brent? My heart goes out to everyone affected by this appalling attack. We thank the police for their rapid response. It is important now that we give them the space to pursue their investigation.

This morning I conveyed the UK’s deepest condolences to Prime Minister Carney and the people of Canada after the devastating shooting in Tumbler Ridge.

Mr Speaker, I am determined to fix the broken SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—system. No parent should have to fight for the support their child needs. Today we announced a 10-year plan to fix the crumbling school estate that we inherited, delivering more modern and inclusive classrooms that meet the needs of every child.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues—there have been quite a few of those this week. [Laughter.] In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Mr Perkins]

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks.

The Prime Minister’s commitment to 1.5 million more homes will require 48,000 new entrants to the construction industry every year. In Chesterfield we are doing our bit: our construction skills hub brought 70 new entrants into the construction sector. We saw a welcome increase in numbers across the country last year, but we need a step change and we need numbers to double. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to get more people to commit to construction industry careers and get those numbers up where we need them to be to deliver on his housing ambitions?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: the task of rebuilding our country is a huge opportunity to give young people a brilliant career. We are backing apprentices with a record £3 billion budget, and we are making sure that companies that bid for major contracts commit to high-quality apprenticeships here in the United Kingdom. We are creating 13,000 new opportunities for young people as plumbers, engineers and bricklayers, securing their future and rebuilding this country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

May I associate myself, and those on the Opposition Benches, with the Prime Minister’s words on the horrific stabbing in north London yesterday, as well as the shooting in Canada?

When he was Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said, “I never turn on my staff. When they make mistakes, I carry the can.” What changed?

[The Prime Minister]

I have accepted responsibility and apologised for the mistakes that I made. But let me say this: Morgan McSweeney helped me change our party and helped me win a landslide election victory, which delivered for the Conservatives the smallest Tory party in over 100 years. And what is the right hon. Lady’s great achievement? To make it even smaller.

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Whips have done a great job today—[Interruption.] Labour Members say, “Yes, exactly.” The Whips have done a great job today getting them cheering. We all know that they have been sick for the last week. Let us remember that just last week the Prime Minister told us he had “full confidence” in his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. On Sunday he sacked Morgan McSweeney—[Interruption.] Oh, “He resigned.” Last week the Prime Minister was defending the Cabinet Secretary. Now he is sacking him. What changed?

[The Prime Minister]

In January the Leader of the Opposition said that she had full confidence—“100% confident”, she said—that there would be no more defections from her party. Forty-eight hours later, her shadow Foreign Minister defected. Eight days after that, the former Home Secretary defected. The only question now is: who is next? She needs to wake up—her party is dying.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is demonstrating stratospheric levels of delusion if he thinks the problem is on the Opposition Benches. He did not say anything about why the Cabinet Secretary is going, but we know the truth: it is because he is throwing everyone under the bus except himself.

The Mandelson episode was not an isolated incident. A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced a peerage for one Matthew Doyle, his former director of communications. Immediately after that, The Sunday Times published on its front page that Doyle had campaigned for a man charged with child sex offences. Despite the Prime Minister knowing that, he gave Doyle a job for life in the House of Lords anyway. Why?

[The Prime Minister]

Matthew Doyle did not give a full account of his actions. On Monday I promised my party and my country that there will be change, and yesterday I removed the Whip from Matthew Doyle. I will tell you what other actions we have taken, Mr Speaker: along with the Safeguarding Minister, I and this Government have introduced the most far-reaching violence against women and girls strategy. This Government have also introduced a pay rise for millions of working-class women. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She opposed it. This Government are introducing greater protections for women at work. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She opposed it. I will tell you what else she opposes, Mr Speaker: this Government removing the disgusting rape clause that her Government put in place.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister pretends not to know about Matthew Doyle, but it was on the front page of The Sunday Times. He cannot explain why he gave this man a peerage—I think Labour Members should be wondering why they are still cheering for him after that. The Prime Minister sometimes likes to claim that he cares about violence against women, as he just did, but the truth is that he cares about the victims only when he is trying to save his own skin. Labour Members can shake their heads at that, but we saw it with grooming gangs, we saw it with Mandelson and now we see it with Doyle. Is that not what a former prosecutor would call an established pattern of behaviour?

[The Prime Minister]

I will take no lectures from the Tories on standards in public life. The Leader of the Opposition defended partygate for months and months, and even now she says that it was overblown. The shadow Foreign Secretary broke the ministerial code by bullying, but Boris Johnson kept her and the Leader of the Opposition promoted her, and now she sits on her Front Bench. Her former shadow Justice Secretary complained about not seeing enough white faces in Birmingham, and the Leader of the Opposition was too weak to sack him for racism.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Nobody buys it, Mr Speaker—not even the Labour women, because they know that the Prime Minister always puts the Downing Street boys club first. How dare he criticise us? The Conservatives were not the ones stuffing Government with hypocrites and paedophile apologists. He cannot build a team and he has no plan. He cannot even run his own office, let alone the country. He is now dealing with a new scandal of appointing someone who campaigned for a man convicted of having indecent pictures of girls as young as 10. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that that will be his legacy?

[The Prime Minister]

My legacy is changing my party and winning a general election. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition this: I kicked my former leader out of my party, while her former leader, Liz Truss, broke the economy and has descended into bonkers conspiracy theories. I kicked her out of Parliament, but the Leader of the Opposition is too weak to kick her out of their party.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister has not apologised for appointing Matthew Doyle, because he will not take responsibility—he never does, and Labour Members know it. The Prime Minister is now telling everyone that he has never lost a fight, but that is because he will not step into the ring. He has never lost a fight because he has walked away from welfare reform, he will not stand up to the unions, he will not stand up to China—he cannot even stand up to Mauritius. He has had three Cabinet Secretaries, four chiefs of staff and five directors of communications in just 18 months, and now he is mired in yet another scandal. Does he ever look in the mirror and ask himself if the real problem is staring him in the face?

[The Prime Minister]

I delivered a landslide victory for our party. Only four people have ever led the Labour party to victory at a general election, and I am one of them. The Leader of the Opposition talks about numbers. Let us remember what the Conservatives had: five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, eight Home Secretaries, eight Foreign Secretaries, and 16 Housing Secretaries—all were completely useless; all failed Britain. This Prime Minister is cleaning up the mess. The right hon. Lady comes here every week desperately fighting to save her dying party. I am fighting to change our country. Interest rates—down. Inflation—down. Waiting lists—down. Child poverty—down. And I can tell her another thing that is down: the number of Tory MPs.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Q3. The Government have delivered the funding needed to rebuild the new Frimley Park hospital after the Conservatives made empty, unfunded promises to my constituents. Now we urgently need to get on with announcing the preferred site, along with the investment needed to improve public transport, road access and parking. Will the Prime Minister urge NHS England to make this a priority and help give much-needed clarity to Bracknell Forest residents?

[The Prime Minister]

Delivering the new Frimley Park hospital is a priority. Under the Conservatives, my hon. Friend’s constituents were given totally empty promises. They failed patients and they failed staff. We put forward a proper plan and the funding to match, and the trust is making real progress on the business case. I want to see spades in the ground as quickly as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the dreadful stabbing of two children in Brent and the horrifying shootings in British Columbia? Our thoughts and prayers are with the children’s parents and the people of Canada, especially those grieving the loss of loved ones.

To appoint one paedophile supporter cannot be excused as misfortune. To appoint two shows a catastrophic lack of judgment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman once told this House that when a Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility, it

“only serves to convince people that things cannot get better, that Government cannot improve people’s lives, and that progress is not possible because politics does not work.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 44.]

Does he still agree with himself, and does he share my fear that that is exactly what is happening now?

[The Prime Minister]

Millions of people in this country have been let down for years and years, and one of the reasons for that was austerity, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party supported. He should take accountability and responsibility for what he has inflicted on this country! [Interruption.]

[Ed Davey]

Mr Speaker, I think I touched a raw nerve. I think the whole House will agree that the Mandelson scandal has shown yet again why we need a duty of candour for anyone and everyone in public office. There should be no more delays in putting the Hillsborough law on the statute book, after a long fight by the bereaved families and so many others, such as the Mayor of Greater Manchester. The Prime Minister once said that it would be one of the first things he did in No. 10. Will he finally do it now, even if it is the last thing he does?

[The Prime Minister]

The panel report on the Hillsborough case was when I started working on the Hillsborough case. That was in 2012, when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. They could have passed this law a long time ago and saved a lot of grief. I am proud that this Labour Government are bringing in a Hillsborough law—something I have committed to for a very long time.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

Q5. As the Prime Minister will have heard me say, the Isle of Wight is a fantastic place to live, work and learn, despite the Leader of the Opposition trying to give us to China. He will also be aware of some of the challenges we have in cross-Solent transport with reliability, frequency and price. The emissions trading scheme, which ironically applies only to hybrid vessels, might increase fares further. Exemptions have been granted for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the lack of grid capacity means that we cannot fully decarbonise. I am deeply concerned about the impact on our island community. Will the Prime Minister urgently ask Department for Energy Security and Net Zero Ministers to review this issue?

[The Prime Minister]

I know how important affordable ferries are to my hon. Friend’s constituents’ everyday lives. The ETS scheme will make journeys cleaner and we are working with ferry companies on the grid connections in ports that enable greener vessels. I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

If I have just heard the Prime Minister correctly, he has essentially rolled the same pitch in relation to Matthew Doyle as he did with Peter Mandelson, in saying that they were not clear with him. He appears to be the most gullible former Director of Public Prosecutions in history. But he has a slight problem, because some of us do read the newspapers. Towards the end of last year, on 30 December, having written to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, I received a response from the chair, who advised me that as part of their vetting, they

“provide confidential advice to the Prime Minister on the propriety of the proposed nominees”.

Will the Prime Minister release that advice?

[The Prime Minister]

I have made my position clear. The right hon. Gentleman knows how the system works. He says he reads the newspapers. He will have read that in nine days, his party’s former chief executive goes on trial for embezzling money. He will have read that in the Queen Elizabeth hospital, we see one of the worst failures in Scottish public life, with vulnerable children and adults put at risk. Evidence of serious warnings to the SNP Government was ignored. He should have been looking at those warnings, not looking at the newspapers. The First Minister should act, because families deserve accountability.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just remind the Prime Minister that we do not discuss live cases because they are sub judice?

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Q7. Last week I met Lleyton, a T-level construction student at Bradford college. He was working on the remediation of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete at Airedale hospital. In the last few years, Bradford has made tremendous progress in reducing the rate of young people not in employment, education or training, so will the Prime Minister reconfirm his commitment to vocational and skills training and set out how this Labour Government are ensuring that young people like Lleyton have career opportunities in construction and other critical industries?

[The Prime Minister]

Lleyton’s success is a testament to what young people can achieve with the right support. We are creating technical excellence colleges and delivering training places for 60,000 skilled construction workers. Labour is creating opportunities for every young person while building the homes, schools and hospitals that our country needs, and that is what I am fighting for.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Q2. Last year, Plymouth was named the national centre for marine autonomy and given a defence growth deal. However, the small and medium-sized enterprises in the unmanned surface vessel sector, many of which are based at Turnchapel Wharf in my constituency, are having their work held back because of out-of-date regulations from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Last week, I was told that draft regulations exist, but that they require primary legislation. Without those new regulations, many of the vital SMEs developing autonomous vessels that have dual commercial and defence use are at risk. Will the Prime Minister show some backbone and consider finding a slot for primary legislation as a matter of urgency, or at least consider adding this to the King’s Speech later this spring, assuming that he is still in charge of the legislative programme by then?

[The Prime Minister]

We are taking action, but if the hon. Lady sends me or my team the details of the particular case in her constituency, I will see if there is anything we can do to provide support on what is obviously an important issue.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

Q8. The Prime Minister will be aware of Lorraine Cox, a resident of Exeter who in 2020 was murdered by a man whose asylum claim had been denied but who was not removed from this country. Will the Prime Minister set out what more this Government will do to speed up deportations of people who have no right to be here and who have committed criminal offences? Will he meet Lorraine’s father to discuss the family’s campaign for justice for Lorraine?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an awful case, and my thoughts and those, I am sure, of the whole House are with the loved ones of Lorraine. Tackling violence against women and girls is a critical mission, and I will ensure that a Home Office Minister meets the family. I want to be absolutely clear that illegal immigrants who commit such appalling acts should not be in this country. That is why we have already removed nearly 60,000 people with no right to be here, and deportations of foreign criminals are up by a third. We are also reforming human rights law to allow us to swiftly remove those with no right to be here.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Q4. My Oxfordshire constituents are sick of widespread potholes, particularly at Milton interchange, in Didcot and along the A417 serving Challow and Stanford in the Vale. Yet the Government are cutting funding for Oxfordshire county council by £24 million over three years, which is equivalent to its annual highways maintenance budget. The Prime Minister is of course entitled to dig a pothole for himself, but why is he cutting funding for Oxfordshire’s roads?

[The Prime Minister]

We have put a record amount of money into dealing with potholes. The hon. Member needs to ask his council, which is run by his party, why it is not using that money.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Q9. It is a source of great pride to Scottish Labour MPs that, as Chancellor, Gordon Brown lifted more children out of poverty than any other Chancellor before him. It is also a source of great pride that—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Flynn, you don’t need to cover your mouth—I can still hear you. Your voice is louder than mine!

[Douglas McAllister]

It is also a source of great pride that the torch has now been passed to our Government. By removing the two-child benefit cap, we will lift more children out of poverty in a single Parliament than ever before—2,260 children in West Dunbartonshire and 95,000 children in Scotland. Does the Prime Minister agree that this demonstrates true Labour values in action across Scotland and the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

In Labour, we know the damage that growing up in poverty does to the life chances of children. The Tories put hundreds of thousands of children into poverty, and they will live with that for the rest of their lives. We are undoing their damage. Our decision will benefit almost 100,000 children in Scotland as we deliver the largest reduction in child poverty in any single Parliament.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Q6. The manslaughter of baby Gigi Meehan at a nursery in Cheadle; 21 counts of child cruelty at Riverside nursery in Twickenham Green in my constituency; 56 charges of sexual assault and creating indecent images at a nursery in Camden; and, just this week, 21 counts of sexual abuse at a nursery in Bristol. CCTV was critical in convicting the criminals in most of those cases. Will the Prime Minister ensure that no parent ever has to fear for their child’s safety while they go to work by introducing mandatory CCTV in nurseries and a childcare workers register?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising those cases—they are harrowing cases for everyone in this country. The safety of children is of course paramount, and we are acting to keep them safe. We are implementing all the proposals consulted on to strengthen safeguarding as part of our early years foundation stage framework. An expert group is developing guidance on the effective use of CCTV—the point she makes—and considering whether it should be mandatory in early settings. I will ensure that she is updated as we take that work forward.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

Q10. This House legislated 126 years ago to make Alexandra Palace“available for the free use…of the public forever”, and last year Luke “the Nuke” changed darts forever by rewriting the record books. Today Ally Pally plays host to world championship darts, Masters snooker, Haringey Huskies and Haringey Greyhounds ice hockey, plus music, comedy, drama and more. Will the Prime Minister keep the palace competitive as the international venue for darts by supporting my campaign to raise a one-off public-private £500 million investment for urgent capital improvements?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. The people’s palace is an iconic British venue—a home for darts, snooker and world-class music. It is vital that we support brilliant venues that give so much to our cultural life. That is why we are providing almost £200 million to preserve heritage buildings across the country, so that venues like Alexandra Palace can have a bright future.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Q15. Last week, Start bay was devastated by storm damage. Homes and businesses were wrecked, and an important A road was severed. The thousands of people who use it to commute to school and work, and to get to healthcare, are stranded. Bus routes are broken and emergency vehicles are blocked. The presence of the 300,000 visitors who come annually and underpin our fragile tourism economy is now in doubt. That place stepped up twice to defend our country: once when 1.5 million cubic metres of shingle were dredged out of the bay to build to naval dockyards in Plymouth, and again when it was used as the training grounds for the D-day landings, at a cost of 750 American soldiers’ lives. It is also the site of a unique national nature reserve, with rare species found only there. This storm damage is of national significance. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the myriad Government agencies and Departments will work together with experts to find and fund a sustainable long-term solution to the coastal erosion that is inflicting so much—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is an important question but I am sure that the Prime Minister got it in the first two minutes.

[The Prime Minister]

I know that communities have been badly affected by recent storms, and the damage to the A379 is very concerning. I am pleased that the hon. Lady is meeting the Roads Minister and the Floods Minister today. We are investing £10 billion to improve coastal and flood defences. I thank the Environment Agency staff who are working hard right now to put extra protections in place and support people ahead of further wet weather.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q11. For too long, communities like mine in Bartley Green felt that decisions were made about them, not with them. Fourteen years of austerity did not just close neighbourhood offices and youth services; it broke trust. Through the Pride in Place initiative, the Government are helping residents to restore the Woodgate Valley café and so much more. What is the Prime Minister’s message to my constituents about how politics can be a force for good, and about how he will never walk away from my community and the country we love?

[The Prime Minister]

My message is that I have always believed that those with skin in the game make the best decisions about their communities. I know just how much her constituents want Woodgate Valley visitors centre back open. Together, we can make that happen. Hope in Britain is found in our communities. That is why we are investing so heavily in our Pride in Place initiative.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

My constituent’s mum, sister and stepfather were killed in a horrific dangerous driving crime for which a foreign national offender was sentenced to 10 and a half years. However, the family have just been told that he may be released imminently in order to be deported, having served just three years. Will the Prime Minister look at the case and at what steps can be taken to prevent that release? Such a pitiful time served—three years for three lives—would be the final insult and undermine public confidence in our justice system.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what is obviously a terrible case. If he provides further details, I will ensure that it is looked into as quickly as possible.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

Q12. Our democracy, in this House, relies on the spoken word, but many with speech disabilities are left without a voice. I have a speech impediment, and so do 2 million adults and one in 12 children. It can rob people of their confidence, lead to discrimination and limit our opportunities in work and in public life. It is time to tear down those barriers. Will the Prime Minister share what this Government are doing to help people with speech disabilities to get the support they need, so that their voices can be heard?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is an inspirational and powerful campaigner on this issue. By doing what he is doing, he will give great courage to other people to take the same steps. I am proud that we are increasing the number of NHS speech and language therapists. We are trialling new ways of identifying and supporting children with speech and language needs in their early years, because I agree that every child deserves the help they need to reach their potential.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My Surrey Heath constituent Christopher was discharged from the RAF in 1966 solely for being gay, but—despite the Government committing to restoring the medals and the berets, and indeed acknowledging the injustice of those who were discharged from our armed forces prior to 1967 for that reason—his case has been dismissed out of hand, with only a letter that contained the tracked changes from the template that the Ministry of Defence issued. Can I ask the Prime Minister to take a personal interest in this case to ensure that it is resolved swiftly, and to allow Christopher to march on Remembrance Day, as he wishes to, with his medals and his beret, and his dignity restored?

[The Prime Minister]

I will do everything that I can to ensure that that happens, which is absolutely what should happen. This was an absolute scandal—the gays in the military ban—and it is absolutely right that it was overturned, but we must follow through on that. I will do everything I can to make sure that we deliver on what the hon. Gentleman has asked me to deliver on.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q13. Last week, the Government launched a consultation on establishing a growth development corporation for Cambridge. In the meantime, Peter Freeman, the chairman of the Cambridge Growth Company, is on the record as saying that Cambridge should aim to be“the most liveable city in Europe”.That is a fantastic ambition with which I entirely agree. Given that this will be good for growth, not just for Cambridge but for the region and the wider economy, will the Prime Minister set out what more the Government can do to help us, not least to help the generation of young people who can barely afford a home?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend’s constituency is already home to brilliant research, innovation and economic growth, and through a Greater Cambridge development corporation we will put in place the powers and resources to unlock its full potential. I want to let local people have their say. We will make sure that we create a fair plan, with attractive, well-connected and thriving new neighbourhoods.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister share with me the concern that while some ambassadors retiring in disgrace get tens of thousands of pounds in pay-offs, many other civil servants are failing to get the retirement that they are due and are expected to turn to their old Departments for bridging loans? This is clearly a scandal. Will he put all his effort behind making sure that those who have served with integrity are treated with the dignity that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes; we are taking steps, and the right hon. Gentleman is right that we should take further steps. I think there will be agreement about that across the House.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Q14. The announcement that pubs and music venues will receive a much-welcome reduction in business rates is a positive step. However, in our manifesto we did promise root-and-branch reform of business rates. Hospitality and leisure businesses in my Stourbridge constituency are facing a projected £20,000 increase in business rates over the next three years, along with employment cost increases and energy costs. Hospitality and leisure play a vital role for our communities, providing jobs and spaces to socialise in, so will the Prime Minister consider a similar rates relief package for hospitality and leisure?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that we need the conditions for flourishing high streets. That underscores the importance of six interest rate cuts, the £5.8 billion that we have put into Pride in Place, and the work to put money in people’s pockets. I am pleased that we have delivered a 15% cut and a two-year freeze for pubs and live music venues. That comes on top of the £4.3 billion to support businesses, and permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

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.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this case: it is one of the most powerful and important things that we do as MPs in this place, particularly when there are such awful cases. He is absolutely right; we must everything that we can to reduce knife crime. There are initiatives and steps that we have taken to remove the accessibility of knives, in relation to where they can be bought. We need to do much more work with our schools and young people to ensure that people do not carry knives, and we need to work with the police and law enforcement to make sure that these incidents are investigated as quickly and effectively as possible. I think that is an endeavour shared by Members from across the House.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

In my constituency, the beautiful grade II listed Chetwynd bridge on the A513 between Edingale and Alrewas has been restricted to cars and light vans since October 2023, so farmers face a 25-mile diversion. With severe flooding hitting Edingale multiple times a year, this vital route risks being cut off for emergency response times as well. Bridges like this one, with a clear economic impact on communities, should be the focus of the Government’s new structures fund, which I welcome. Will the Prime Minister encourage his Ministers to meet with me so that we can find a solution to this issue for my rural constituents in Tamworth?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Just hearing her makes it absolutely clear that we need to find a solution, so I will make sure that she gets the meeting that she requests with the relevant Minister so that we can move as quickly as possible.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Rubbish is building up right beneath my very nose. [Laughter.]

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Easy tiger!

[Ayoub Khan]

It is becoming a serious problem. In Birmingham, bin strikes have now been running for close to two years. May I gently ask the Prime Minister to intervene? Will he perhaps speak to the leader of Birmingham city council to see if he can re-enter negotiations with Unite the union?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. We are doing everything that we can to resolve the situation, which absolutely needs resolving.

Point of Order

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

12:34

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, a Reform UK MP visited a synagogue in my constituency and failed to notify me; it was a political visit. This is part of a pattern that has been observed. At a time when we need to work together in our communities to tackle antisemitism, a terrible form of hate, I would like your guidance on the correct procedure for Members on when they should—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Tice, it is very important that I hear this point of order—[Interruption.] No, I need to hear it; I will make a ruling in a minute.

[Rachel Blake]

I would like your guidance, Mr Speaker, on the correct procedure for Members. When should they, or when should they not, show the courtesy of letting the sitting Member of Parliament know of their intention to visit a constituency?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very clear on this matter. When Members of Parliament go into another Member’s constituency, they should let that Member know in advance. This is not about one party; Members of all parties continue to do it. These are the courtesies that we expect of others, so please remember the rule: let other Members know when you are going into their constituency. The point has been raised, and I will leave it at that.

Short-term Let Accommodation (Data Sharing Requirements)

1st reading
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:37

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require certain persons or organisations to share specified data relating to the short-term letting of accommodation with regulatory authorities; to amend the Data Protection Act 2018 in connection with that requirement; and for connected purposes.

I am honoured to represent the Cities of London and Westminster in the heart of London; it is a truly unique constituency in a number of ways. How many can say that they have the Tate Britain, Ronnie Scott’s and Abbey Road Studios in their patch? How many can boast 78,000 businesses and 2 million jobs? How many can point to having been the home for a unique wealth of historical figures, such as Mary Seacole, Millicent Fawcett and Olaudah Equiano? However, this centrality comes at the cost of one of the most competitive housing markets in the world, where long-term residents are forced to compete against commercial real estate, luxury developers and foreign oligarchs.

Chief among the forces hollowing out our communities is the unchecked proliferation of short-term letting hosts on Airbnb, Booking.com and other sites. These individuals turn our homes into hotels, our communities into commodities, and our neighbours into night-time nuisances. My inbox is full of such stories: fire services being called because of guests leaving cookers on; families with children being kept up with drug-fuelled James Bond-themed parties taking place right next door night after night; and even organised crime outfits renting out apartments for a weekend to harass Londoners, snatching phones and wallets before leaving with their ill-gotten gains.

Amidst this bad behaviour is the flagrant breach of the London-wide regulation that short lets can operate for no more than 90 nights per year without planning permission. This is operationally impossible to enforce because of how difficult it is to get accurate information on how many nights a short-term let is being used. In some parts of my constituency, as many as 30% of homes are being used as short-term lets, in the process making the homes that are left less affordable for long-term residents. Research from King’s College London shows that doubling the density of short-term lets is associated with an 8% growth—or more than £4,500 per year—in per-bedroom rental prices. This overheated housing market has become unaffordable for locals and hollowed out communities like those in the west end, which was historically the beating cultural heart of London, home to William Blake, Shelley and Constable. The average one-bed flat in Soho costs £2,400 a month to rent privately, That is over double what it would have cost at the turn of the millennium. At the same time, average prices have tripled from £300,000 to nearly £1 million.

When non-residential forces crowd into a residential market, it is working people who are the losers. It is no coincidence that Soho’s population has shrunk by two thirds over the same time period and that the knock-on effects of these changes are felt. Since my election, I have had to fight for institutions used by local residents, including schools and community facilities such as the Jubilee Hall gym and the Central YMCA, to stay open, and frequently their landlords have complained about a lack of footfall.

London is not just special because of its landmarks or its economy; it is special because of its people—its historic communities living and working together, and generating some of the greatest cultural and social achievements produced by this country. If we want to keep London a world-leading city, we need to ensure that its people can afford to make a home here, and that they feel safe and at ease living here. We have to fight for this city, and that is exactly what I intend to do.

I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the City of Westminster’s pioneering short-term lets team, who work day in and day out to enforce existing rules around illegal subletting, the 90-day rule, and antisocial behaviour in problem properties. Since coming into power on the council in 2022, Labour has doubled its size and I have been working with it in launching a short-term lets commission, directly reporting properties flagged by my constituents to council officers and ensuring they are taken off the sites for good.

The Government are on the side of my constituents too, pushing forward with a mandatory short-term lets registration scheme. This will for the first time give us clear, uncontested data on where the short-term lets are and who is operating them. Hosts will have to enter their property’s address and will receive a unique reference number, which will then appear on all sites where it is let, and they will have to confirm that they are following existing regulations that apply to short-term lets, such as fire, gas and electrical certificates. This will be transformative for how we enforce short-term lets in London. With a unique reference number, teams like those in Westminster will be able to pinpoint problem properties much more easily and take them off major sites for good.

But there is a piece of information that the scheme must collect, yet which right now we cannot: the number of nights for which homes are being let out. Without this crucial data, enforcing the 90-day limit will remain an elusive task to local authority planning enforcement teams. Data from AirDNA indicates that nearly 6,000 short lets in the Cities of London and Westminster are being let out for over the 90-day limit. These are almost certainly the worst offenders when it comes to the other community disruptions I have mentioned. If we simply made these actors follow the law, or better still took them off the market entirely, we would significantly reduce the disruption caused by short-term letting.

Why can we not record this data? The Data Protection Act 2018 currently prevents such information from being shared. While the Act is crucial for ensuring that our personal data is more secure than in comparable countries outside the EU, in this case it stands in the way of effectively regulating short-term lets. A number of exemptions exist in the legislation, however, and the Bill would extend them to include the number of nights for which short-term lets are used.

However, that is not the only action needed to tackle short-term lets. Time and again, my constituents bring up licensing as a possible solution to the spread of short-term lets, backed by reams of research from policy experts. Just as a business must apply to open a bar or café in a local area, so too should the host of a short-term let have to apply to their local authority before opening what is, in essence, a micro-hotel in the middle of a residential block.

While every local authority should be able to undertake its open approach to this issue, local authorities such as Westminster and the City of London, where concentrations are so high, need to have the power to decide where homes can be let out and under what conditions. The Government’s upcoming database is a crucial step in this direction because it can, for the first time ever, provide an authoritative dataset on the extent of this problem, which will benefit Members of Parliament and their constituents across the country.

My constituents are ready to engage with that database and report poor practice, and the local authorities I work with are on hand to upscale their work and the benefits that it can bring. All we need now is this final piece of the puzzle: knowing how many nights homes are let out for. That piece is well within our grasp, and it is up to us in this House to deliver it.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Rachel Blake, Lizzi Collinge, Florence Eshalomi, Dame Meg Hillier, Alison Hume, Jayne Kirkham, Joe Powell, Anna Gelderd, Will Stone, Noah Law, Tony Vaughan and Dr Scott Arthur present the Bill.

Rachel Blake accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 382).

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice on how I register my utter disgust at the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) scoring a cheap political point about me visiting a synagogue in this constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

First, that is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record. A point of order was made earlier, and this ruling is where I stand: if you are visiting a synagogue for prayer or in a private capacity, the relevant Member should not expect to be told. However, if you are visiting in an official capacity following an invite, it is only right that we must ensure that the relevant Member of Parliament is aware. I will leave it at that. I will not continue the debate, but I just reaffirm to all Members—whether shadow Ministers, Ministers or Back Benchers—that they should ensure that the relevant Member of Parliament is aware of a visit. When I say “visit”, I am talking about one made not in a private capacity but a political capacity.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised a previous point of order regarding the Royal Mail and postal delivery services, and I mention that because I recently wrote to some constituents about that very point of order. However, that letter, which was sent first class from the House of Commons, took 12 days to arrive. Many Members across this House are writing about important issues on House of Commons paper, in House of Commons envelopes, and they are taking many days to arrive. As a result, many of our constituents might be ill-informed about the speed with which Members of Parliament are responding, which—as you will know, Mr Speaker—can be raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is certainly not a point of order, but you have rightly put your point on the record. I am sure your constituents are well aware that you are diligent in your replies, and that the delay is down to Royal Mail hanging on to your letter for 12 days. Royal Mail quite rightly has a duty of care. If it says first class, we expect a first-class delivery service. With the price of postage, the Royal Mail should be embarrassed by what you have raised today, but that still does not make it a point of order.

Business of the House

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on

(1) the Motion in the name of Secretary Shabana Mahmood relating to Police Grant Report not later than three hours after the start of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, and

(2) the Motions in the name of Secretary Steve Reed relating to Local Government Finance not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion or no later than six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, whichever is the later;

proceedings may continue, though opposed, until any hour, and may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Police Grant Report

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

12:50

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I beg to move,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026–27 (HC 1638), which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.

Before I come to the detail of the settlement, I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister’s Question Time following the stabbing at Kingsbury high school in Brent yesterday, and add our condolences and our thoughts. We all hope that those who have been injured will be able to recover, and that justice will be done in a very difficult situation.

I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women who work to protect the rest of us from harm. I did not need to become the Policing Minister to appreciate the debt of gratitude that is owed to those dedicated public servants, but having the honour of serving in this post has given me a daily insight into the remarkable work of our police. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing gratitude to the officers, staff and volunteers who, as we speak, are performing their duties with professionalism, skill and courage. We are all fortunate to have so many brave individuals dedicated to keeping us safe, whether they be first responders turning towards danger, police community support officers immersed in their neighbourhoods, or staff working behind the scenes to track the latest threats to the public. That is why our record cash investment in the policing system for England and Wales is so important. We are determined to provide our police forces with the resources they need to continue their vital work, as well as support to invest in their future.

In 2026-27, overall funding for the policing system in England and Wales will be up to £21 billion, an increase of £1.3 billion compared with 2025-26. Funding available to local police forces will total up to £18.4 billion, an increase of £796 million from 2025-26, or 2.3% in real terms. Of this funding increase, £432 million will come from additional Government grant, while £364 million will come from police precept, assuming that police and crime commissioners choose to maximise the £15 limit. Furthermore, we have worked with a small group of forces that evidenced particular financial pressures to agree additional precept flexibility. The settlement also includes at least £1.2 billion for counter-terrorism policing to preserve national security and guard against the most severe threats, as is the primary duty of any Government.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

As the Minister is getting into the detail of the funding package, will she accept two broad points? First, the overall number of police officers in England has fallen on Labour’s watch. Secondly, because of cost pressures on police forces from other decisions taken by her Government, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has said that there is a £500 million shortfall in the allocation of funding from this Government to police forces.

[Sarah Jones]

With £21 billion going into policing overall and £18.4 billion going directly to our police forces, I do not accept that there is a shortfall in funding. More money—hundreds of millions of pounds—is going into policing this year than last year.

Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, which I suspect Conservative Front Benchers will also try to make, we have worked with police chiefs not only to introduce a big package of reform, but to remove the arbitrary headcount targets for officer numbers that local forces found so difficult to navigate. Those forces were pushed into recruiting officers and putting them behind desks to do jobs that staff could do. We are not going to judge our police on the numbers of people in different roles; we are going to judge them on their outcomes, which is why we are setting targets, driving productivity, and focusing on tackling crime rather than arbitrary numbers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for the report we are debating. I think she mentioned that the figure for counter-terrorism was £1.2 billion. Obviously, we in Northern Ireland have a particular, critical role when it comes to addressing the issue of terrorism. It is still active in Northern Ireland—in a minor way, but still active—and we also have a border that we have to patrol, addressing issues such as immigration and theft of agricultural machinery. All those things come into the picture, so will extra money be coming to the Police Service of Northern Ireland through the Barnett consequentials to help us?

[Sarah Jones]

Of course, policing itself is devolved, but addressing the risk of terrorism involves working across the whole of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Security Minister will ensure we are working very closely across all four parts of this United Kingdom to offer the support that is needed.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

As the Policing Minister knows, West Mercia police—which covers Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire—is a very good force in many ways. However, is she aware that West Mercia is about to see the first fall in police numbers in over a decade, with approximately 20 frontline police officers likely to be removed as a result of what the local police and crime commissioner calls a “shortfall in Government funding”, and that this will affect The Wrekin constituency?

[Sarah Jones]

To repeat, every force in the country has had an increase in its funding this year, and we are making sure we have the right funding to support our objectives. On police officer numbers, what we saw under the last Government was a reduction of 20,000 officers and then a rush to recruit 20,000. The result was, for example, a 60% rise in retail crime in the last two years of the Conservative Government—that arbitrary focus on numbers did not result in the right outcomes. We are interested in police outcomes. We are interested in driving down crime and preventing it, and we believe that we should give our chiefs the flexibility to understand what roles they need within their local workforce. Police staff are exceptionally important in many different roles.

Under the last Government, the number of PCSOs halved. That was not even Government policy; it just happened because they did not have a proper workforce plan and did not think about these things, and then in the latter years they did not allow flexibility for local officers. We believe chiefs can make the right decisions about their workforce locally, and for the first time—the Conservatives failed to do this—we will establish a national workforce plan, to make sure we have the right resources in the right places at the right time.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

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?

[Sarah Jones]

Knife murders have fallen by 27% and knife crime has fallen by 8%—there were nearly 4,500 fewer knife offences in the past year than in the year before that. We are focused on outcomes. The right hon. Gentleman will know that proper police reform involves looking at the staff, the workforce and new technology. He is a big fan of live facial recognition, as are we, and we are taking out of the system inefficiencies to the tune of £350 million during this Parliament. Money was being wasted by the previous Government, but we will strip those inefficiencies out of the system. Our reforms will focus on outcomes, and on delivering a local police force that will tackle the epidemic of everyday crime and a national police service that will tackle complex crime.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I apologise for the fact that I cannot stay until the end of this debate, because I have a debate in Westminster Hall, but I need to ask the Minister a question. She talks about outcomes. Is she as shocked as I am that the Labour Cheshire police and crime commissioner has already spent £200,000 on two listening exercises, and is expected to spend another £400,000 on more listening exercises? The precept is going up by 6.7%, but the police force will have to make redundancies. Does she not agree that the money should go not on vanity projects, but on frontline policing?

[Sarah Jones]

I suggest that the previous Government would have benefited from listening to the public. There is no harm in listening to the public. Indeed, it is our role as elected representatives to do so. One challenge that we are grappling with through the police reform White Paper is how we make sure that there is accountability at the hyper-local and national levels. We need to make sure that we listen to our constituents and target the crimes that they care about.

[Esther McVey]

Following on from the Minister’s point, I noticed today that the same Labour police and crime commissioner has put up an advert for a senior public relations officer on £45,000 to £55,000, and there are other vanity projects. Surely that money should be spent on PCSOs and police on the ground, not on the PCC himself.

[Sarah Jones]

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady has anybody in her team to help her with communications.

[Esther McVey]

indicated dissent.

[Sarah Jones]

Nobody? I suspect that she does have somebody who helps with communications; most hon. Members in this place do.

[Esther McVey]

No, I don’t.

[Sarah Jones]

Ensuring the public know what is happening is also a good thing. The right hon. Lady will know that we have said several times in this place that we are abolishing the role of the police and crime commissioner. That is not in any way because of the work that they have done. Indeed, they have done a lot of brilliant work. I have some fantastic colleagues that I will continue to work with until 2028.

[Esther McVey]

On a point of clarification—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Is the Minister taking the intervention or not?

[Sarah Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Well, continue, Minister.

[Sarah Jones]

I suggest that we carry on that conversation over a cup of coffee another time.

We are also investing £1.4 billion in the wider policing system to continue our progress on adopting modern, cutting-edge technologies that will better enable the police to perform their most critical function of keeping the public safe. The Government are supporting the police in their ongoing fight against knife crime by maintaining funding for serious violence reduction activity in every force area. Alongside that, there is £28 million, through our county lines programme, to disrupt organised crime and protect vulnerable and exploited children. A total of £119 million will go towards our ambitious programme of police reform, in which we will establish a new national centre to support the use of artificial intelligence across policing, enable the national roll-out of live facial recognition and strengthen the way that data is used to support operational policing.

[Mark Pritchard]

The Minister is being very generous with her time, as she always is. I hope that she will also be generous in her reply. AI is already playing a part in policing, and I would hope that everybody who wants crime reduced supports that, but as far as I am concerned, that support comes with caveats. There needs to be legislative oversight to ensure that AI is regulated and not abused. When will the Government come forward with the legislation that was mentioned by the Home Secretary? Just very briefly on police reform, does she recognise that West Mercia oversees a rural and semi-rural area? In any reconfiguration, restructuring should recognise the unique challenges of rural police forces, as opposed to, let us say, those of the neighbouring force, West Midlands.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the two points that he raised in one question. On AI, he is absolutely right that we need to ensure—I hope this is now the policy of the Opposition; it was not when they were in government—that there is an understanding of what AI is and is not used for. Importantly, we are consulting on how live facial recognition is and is not used. On AI, a huge amount of work is going on in different police forces, and most areas have ethics committees and other such structures that consider and talk about the use of AI. For example, there are certain rules around the use of AI. It should never be used to make a decision or to pass a judgment; it should be just for giving information. That is very important. We saw in the recent West Midlands case how easy it is to end up making a mistake, and we want to avoid that.

On the reform point, we are baking into our structures the idea that, at the hyper-local level, everybody in the ward will have a named, contactable officer, and that there will be targets for 999 response times, 999 call-answering times, and response times for non-urgent calls. I have heard from several MPs that rural areas are concerned that where there is a larger force, they will get fewer resources. That is not the intention—indeed, it is quite the opposite. Instead of having 43 forces making 43 decisions, and 86 decision makers spending money in 43 different ways, we will make savings that will mean that we can put more money into frontline policing in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am reassured to hear the Minister’s words, but I am not hearing how what she describes will happen. We have all seen what happens with a larger force. The big cities and metropolitan areas have a political way of pulling resources to them; it is almost like gravity. Something structural is required. The Minister may not have an answer today, but will she consider ways of backing up her hope, to turn it into something on which rural communities in my constituency can rely?

[Sarah Jones]

As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), has just said to me, the two of us are from cities and we quite often feel the same way—that we do not always get the resources that we are pushing for. Everybody here will be interested in ensuring that their constituents get the funding that they need. We are about to set up an independent review on what the structures will be. The right hon. Member can also read the White Paper, which sets out some of these ideas. The independent review will be completed by the summer, and that will set out how many forces there will be and how they will work.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Sarah Jones]

I will make a little bit of progress, if that is okay.

Let me say a little more about policing reform. Last month, as I said, we released the White Paper, which sets out how we will create a policing system fit for the future. Taken together, our plans amount to the biggest reforms for almost 200 years. They will see improvements to police governance, forced mergers to unlock greater efficiencies, and the creation of a national police service, capable of fighting sophisticated criminals at a national level. Those reforms are overdue. They will not be easy, but they are necessary. Our overarching aim is clear: to establish a new policing model, in which local forces protect their communities and a national police protects us all.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the challenges that we have always had in Staffordshire is that, because of a manufacturing site in Tamworth and because of the politics of Stoke-on-Trent, we have often had to deal with complex national issues around far-right activism and Hizb ut-Tahrir activism. With the increases for police forces, and given their national responsibilities, how will the Minister ensure that the local specialisms that we have built up in Staffordshire will continue to be deployable there? Sometimes, our neighbourhood policing is the first barrier—the first way of dealing with problems that can escalate further down the line. How will that knowledge transfer carry on?

[Sarah Jones]

Several people have raised similar concerns. My answer is that creating a much simpler system will make the movement of information, resources, people and specialisms easier, and that will be easier to maintain. We will be bringing together lots of different national bodies. We have the regional organised crime units, which do not have a legislative basis and are funded in a range of different, slightly peculiar ways. We have specialist units sitting in different forces across the country looking at different things, whether that is modern slavery or funding helicopters. We have this peculiar system that does not make much sense. By streamlining things, so that we have a national service, a regional service and local police areas, we can enable that flow of information and specialisms to be clearer. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, which has been raised by several people. We will certainly be mindful of it.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way. I met the chief constable of Humberside last week. As the Minister will know, it is the leading force in the country and has the best results, so local people are concerned about a reorganisation that could be expensive, and could draw resources away from a successful police system. How will those making preparations for these changes engage the chief constable in Humberside and others who are helping to set very high standards now? We do not want those standards diminished in the future.

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman points to a challenge, which is that some police forces perform brilliantly, and others perform less well. There is only one force in Engage at the moment, but in the main, forces will be good at certain things and bad at others, and that will vary across the country. Our aim is to ensure that we have brilliance everywhere, and we are working closely with police chiefs.

I think this is the first time that a reform programme has not had the criticism that we might expect from different aspects of policing. It was almost to the point that we sat back and wondered, “Have we got this wrong? Everybody is agreeing with us.” It is powerful to sit with police chiefs and with rank and file officers, as I did last week, and hear about the challenges they face and their solutions. We are suggesting the same solutions. It will be a difficult journey—no reform programme is not—but we are making sure that we engage with policing every step of the way.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sarah Jones]

I will make some progress, I am afraid.

Many hon. Members have talked about the funding formula. In opposition, I regularly called on the previous Government to review the funding formula. As part of this reform journey, we will have to reform the formula, because we are changing the structures. I can reassure Members that we will do that. This year’s settlement represents a first step in our reform journey. We have streamlined the way that we distribute funding and have put flexibility back into the hands of police chiefs, allowing them to focus on the priorities of their communities and of this Government.

One of those priorities has to be neighbourhood policing, as it is the bedrock of the British policing model. A central aim of this Government’s agenda has been to restore neighbourhood policing after it was catastrophically eroded in the years before the general election. Our efforts are already having an impact; there are nearly 2,400 more neighbourhood officers already in our communities, and the neighbourhood policing guarantee is delivering named, contactable officers in every area, but we must and will go further. Through this settlement, we will build on the progress made so far.

Having listened to feedback from police chiefs, police and crime commissioners, Select Committees and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and others, we are removing arbitrary headcount targets for overall officer numbers. We believe that success should be judged not just by numbers, but by how the police deliver the outcomes that the public want. Our focus is on putting police where they can make the most difference, which is often in our communities, tackling the crime and antisocial behaviour that blights cities, towns and villages. We are therefore ringfencing £363 million of funding to get 1,750 more police officers and police and community support officers into neighbourhood policing roles in the next year.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Jones]

I will carry on making some progress.

Through the continued growth in neighbourhood policing, we will restore the vital link between police forces and the communities they serve. We also believe that there is significant potential to revolutionise police efficiency and productivity. We are continuing to work with forces through the efficiency programme towards the target I mentioned earlier of £354 million of cashable savings by the end of this Parliament. As set out in our White Paper, we must explore further avenues to bring policing into the modern age and deliver better value. Meanwhile, new structures will remove duplication and the national police service will allow us to deal with the biggest threats nationally. This Government believe in doing things right once, not in 43 different ways, and not a single penny of taxpayers’ money should be wasted. By investing in new technology, taking away administrative burdens and moving officers out from desks and into our communities, we move closer to that goal.

In 2026-27, we are continuing to invest in the police, supporting them with a record level of funding to do what they do best: keeping us all safe. That is the first duty of Government.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Jones]

I will not on this occasion.

Keeping us all safe requires a highly effective and efficient police service that is both equipped for the crime-fighting challenges of now and prepared for the future.

Ultimately,

“the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.”

Not my words, but one of Robert Peel’s principles of policing, as laid out almost 200 years ago. Those principles are just as relevant today. We believe that policing should be about keeping people safe. The visible presence of police officers on our streets is vital, and this settlement aims to get officers away from desks and back on the frontline.

[Esther McVey]

I thank the Minister for giving way; it is most generous of her. My chief constable has raised a point about Labour’s new Sentencing Act 2026, where criminals will not be sentenced for less than 12 months. My chief constable says that their force will now be man-marking criminals on the street, which will cost them approximately £1.6 million a year. Can the Minister explain how she plans to address that issue in costs and man hours?

[Sarah Jones]

Significant investment is going into probation alongside those reforms. As the right hon. Lady would expect, colleagues in the Home Office and I are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure we are equipped to respond to any changes. It is absolutely true that it is often right for people to have non-prison sentences, whether that is tagging or other punishments. We can do some innovative work on that going forward, but we are having regular meetings with our police colleagues to make sure we are ready for the changes.

Equally, we cannot forget the staff essential to our policing system, such as the PCSOs working with vulnerable individuals, victim support staff helping people through the aftermath of crimes, or tech experts working in police headquarters to track stolen phones. This settlement recognises that and puts power back in the hands of local forces, allowing them to prioritise the right mix of skills for a modern workforce. We are giving the police the resources—up to £18.4 billion—to invest in this workforce and to supply them with the tools and powers they need to do their jobs.

We know that to people across England and Wales, what matters most is not what we say but what we do. We are backing up our words with action—restoring neighbourhood policing, driving down harmful threats and equipping forces for the challenges of modern crime fighting—but we will not stop there. We will maintain momentum this year and beyond, reforming policing and striving to give law-abiding citizens the safety and security they deserve. This settlement will aid us in delivering those aims, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

13:19

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me—

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

Go on. This will be good.

[Gareth Snell]

I just wanted to say this before the right hon. Gentleman got into his speech. In 2010 the number of police officers in Staffordshire was about 1,000, and it only returned to that level this year. We have never had a police and crime commissioner who was not a Conservative, and we have only ever had a Conservative council and a Conservative Government during that period. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell me whom I should hold accountable for that decimation of neighbourhood policing under the last Government?

[Chris Philp]

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—

[Graham Stuart]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

Goodness me, this is already becoming very congested, but I cannot possibly resist my right hon. Friend’s entreaty.

[Graham Stuart]

I am extremely grateful. My right hon. Friend is being most generous, and he has barely begun his speech.

I must have misheard, because I have listened to so many speeches about law and order from Labour Members, and my right hon. Friend must have misspoken. He has suggested that not only did the last Conservative Government leave a record number of police officers, but overall crime fell by 50%. Have those words ever been issued by the Ministers, or do they try to mislead the public at every opportunity?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to stand up and correct the record? Go ahead.

[Graham Stuart]

I mentioned no individual, Madam Deputy Speaker, but “inadvertently”, of course, in any Minister’s case.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Let us mind our language.

[Chris Philp]

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.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

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.

[Mark Pritchard]

It is true that a huge number of police staff are never seen—support staff, admin staff and call centre staff, for instance—and they play an important part in delivering police services to all our communities, but is it not the case that visibility in policing is needed, and only police officers who are warranted can make arrests when crime is committed? Notwithstanding all the wonderful people working in the back offices of all our police forces, we still need police officers in our communities, tackling the antisocial behaviour that my right hon. Friend mentioned and turning up at least occasionally at the parish council, where the local police officer still has a reference in the agenda. Visibility is critical to deal with the fear of crime, and a police officer with a warrant is critical in enforcing the law and making arrests.

[Chris Philp]

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.

[Sarah Jones]

Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the 2,400 more police in our neighbourhoods than at the start of this Government?

[Chris Philp]

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.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for lobbying on behalf of Essex. Obviously, I want more funding for Essex as much as he does. I should declare an interest at this point, as I have stood against Roger Hirst in two elections, but I want to make it clear that I have a great deal of time for the work that he does as police and crime commissioner. On his website, he says that he welcomes

“another 69 new recruits into Essex Police, making the force bigger and stronger than ever before.”

That does not quite fit with what the shadow Secretary of State said earlier.

[Chris Philp]

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%.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

When the right hon. Gentleman says that rape has gone up, does he mean that the recorded crime of rape has gone up? Does he recognise that all Members of this House should celebrate when women feel more comfortable in coming forward?

[Chris Philp]

That is not what the hon. Lady was saying when the rape figures were going up under the last Government.

[Jess Phillips]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

Once is enough.

Reported rapes are going up, which reflects increased levels of offending. That is a serious concern.

[Jess Phillips]

What is actually going up is rape charging. To put the record straight, I never criticised increased reporting of rape. What I criticised was the decimation of rape charging under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, which led to the worst record in history.

[Chris Philp]

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.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend will have noted, as I did, that the Minister failed to answer on the “how”. She said that she wishes to ensure that the creation of massive new police organisations does not lead to policing becoming more distant, remote and hard to influence, not least for rural communities, but she could not tell us how it will be done. Does he share my concern that we will end up with a larger, more bureaucratic system that is remote from ordinary people? People in rural East Yorkshire are going to feel far away from decision making.

[Chris Philp]

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.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

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—

[Esther McVey]

Will my right hon. Friend give way before concluding?

[Chris Philp]

This is the last time.

[Esther McVey]

At a time of great pressure on police budgets, my Cheshire police force is having to make redundancies. Was my right hon. Friend as concerned as I was that the Minister felt that our Labour police and crime commissioner could spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on vanity projects? She accepted it, rather than condemning it, and that money should go to frontline policing.

[Chris Philp]

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.

13:36

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her remarks. She will find very considerable support for the broad thrust of what she said, especially on streamlining and the new policing models. I know that she is thinking very seriously about how to get the best return on the reorganisation in order to tackle serious and organised crime, and she is alive to the regional specialisms and expertise that already exist. I thank her for that, and for her commitment to delivering better funding for our police force following the disastrous period of austerity under the Conservatives.

I want to put some challenges to the Minister, because I have some local concerns. However, after hearing the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks about police numbers, I have to say, in all candour, that the reduction of 20,000 police officers in the name of austerity was one of the most reckless and stupid things a Government could ever do. I would like him to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for that gross dereliction of duty. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) chunters and laughs from a sedentary position.

[Mark Pritchard]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

I will in a minute.

Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State would like to apologise to the country for the damage that was caused. I can tell him that removing so many officers at a stroke had a devastating impact. Looking at the raw numbers—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member chunters, but he fails to comprehend.

[Chris Philp]

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.

[Andy McDonald]

The penny has not dropped for the shadow Secretary of State, who cannot for one minute understand how that translated in our communities. That is the issue, because he simply does not take into consideration that loss of expertise. We cannot replace those police with recruits overnight. It was the stupidest thing a Government could do.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes my point for me, which is that the devastating thing was ripping the experience out of our police force and then dressing up new recruits as somehow a replacement. That led to higher crime in my constituency and, I know, in his.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Those were the lived experiences of our constituents, and those were the consequences they had to live with. Opposition Members may say that was because of the financial situation they were left with, but austerity was of course a political choice. The Conservatives deliberately ploughed this furrow with disastrous consequences, and they should have the humility to get up and acknowledge the error they made.

[Graham Stuart]

I have never heard someone so passionately misinformed in my life. The Labour Government left a massive, gaping overspend. In other speeches the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the national debt going up under the Conservatives, but we brought it down every year, and we fought and reduced crime as well. Having ensured that the country recovered, we left record levels of police officers and a 50% cut in crime. He puts on this faux outrage, but the lived reality for his communities and mine was an improved service and balanced books.

[Andy McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman should not consider it to be faux outrage. I lived in my constituency throughout that period and saw the damage it caused.

[Graham Stuart]

So did I.

[Andy McDonald]

Yes, and we should acknowledge the damage that was caused. I am going to be challenging my own Government, and I am trying to be objective about these issues, but what has to be understood in this place is the consequences of the terrible decisions that were made.

I will now move on, because I want to ask the Minister to address the real issues involving Cleveland police. There is more to be done in improving funding, which remains uneven, and some local areas continue to miss out. I hope to explore this in an objective and rational way with those on the Front Bench.

I want to draw attention to the urgent and growing concerns of Cleveland’s police and crime commissioner about the funding of our local force. Despite serving one of the most deprived and high crime areas in the country, Cleveland police remains the force with the lowest number of officers compared with 2010—a reduction of some 12%—leaving the community more vulnerable and officers overstretched. With the greatest respect, the recent funding settlement compounds the problem. Cleveland received the smallest increase in the country—just 3.3%—and after accounting for inflation and pay awards, that leaves a real-terms shortfall of about £2.4 million, which is equivalent to 40 officers. The Government continue to expect this deficit to be met through local council tax, and I just respectfully suggest that is unreasonable.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman was practically spitting with anger when he talked about the Conservatives’ record of increased numbers of police officers and a halving of crime, but now he “respectfully” makes suggestions to the Minister. Is it his understanding that, as a direct result of the settlement that this Minister has brought to the House, there will be a cut in service level in his deprived communities, making them less safe? Is that his understanding, and if so, perhaps his passion could rise up a little?

[Andy McDonald]

The difference between me and the right hon. Gentleman is that I am capable of being objective when facts are put in front of me, whereas he appears to be completely myopic and in total denial about his own Government’s record of decimating our police forces and the consequences of that. I am perfectly content with making proper representations to the Government on the settlements that have been devolved. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and it is a shame that he could not participate in a more sensible discussion.

With almost a third of our neighbourhoods in the top 10% of the most deprived nationally, local residents cannot shoulder a £90 increase on band D properties to restore staffing to safe levels. The police and crime commissioner has written three times to the Minister seeking urgent clarity about how the settlement was calculated. Each time, he has not had a response, and I ask the Minister to reflect on that and come back to me. Our communities and their elected PCC deserve answers. It is not just a matter of fairness; it is a matter of public safety. Without adequate funding, Cleveland police cannot meet the Government’s own objectives of reducing knife crime, tackling violence against women and girls, and maintaining effective neighbourhood policing.

The people of Cleveland, their PCC and officers on the frontline have done everything asked of them—exceeding recruitment targets, investing in neighbourhood policing and achieving crime reductions above the national average—and of course they made incredible efforts in response to the riot on 4 August 2024. It was the most remarkable response by the police and the community, banding together in the wake of the most violent attack on our community. I must pay tribute to the incredible work the police did, because they have never had to deal with anything like that. They did it with such incredible dedication and professionalism, and we cannot ever be thankful enough to them for their efforts. Again, I just ask the Minister to reconsider this settlement, because I am not convinced that it reflects their efforts, and it redistributes scarce resources to other forces with less need.

I therefore urge the Government to revisit the settlement urgently; to properly resource Cleveland police based on need, deprivation and demand, not on population alone; and to provide the answers that the PCC and our communities deserve. Our officers deserve the support they have earned, and our residents deserve the safety and security that only properly funded policing can provide.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

13:47

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I would like to start by declaring an interest, in that my father-in-law is the police chaplain for North Yorkshire police and my brother-in-law is an inspector in North Yorkshire police. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Hear, hear, indeed, and I would like to segue from thanking them to thanking Inspector Steve Benbow, who leads the policing team in Cheltenham and does a terrific job in difficult circumstances.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing. Unfortunately, community police numbers fell under the last Conservative Government, and it is clear to me from speaking to people in my constituency and elsewhere that they want a visible and trusted police presence in their community to focus on preventing and solving crimes. Far too many crimes—shoplifting, bike theft, tool theft and so many more—go unsolved at the moment, and ordinary people pay the price. Police stations and front desks are disappearing at an alarming rate even under this Government, leaving people with nowhere to go.

Labour has promised the public 13,000 more police officers, but instead frontline officer numbers have fallen. By September last year, we had 1,300 fewer officers than the year before, and in March 2025 the number of frontline police officers was down by more than 4,300 compared with March 2024. That is why it is so important to get these police reforms right, and we must see an improvement in frontline policing numbers as soon as possible.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I would like to highlight one case from Flamstead, where David, who was a toolman and a tradesman, had his van broken into 10 times. On the 10th time, he called the police while the thieves were there, but it still took officers many days to arrive, and he has now decided to retire because it is too expensive to keep going. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why it is so important to have a frontline community service from the police?

[Max Wilkinson]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. When we call the police, we expect them to turn up. I do not blame the police officers for not showing up. If there are simply not enough of them to do the job, that problem is a hangover from the previous Government. This Government must go faster to solve that problem.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman may have inadvertently suggested that there was a reduction in police numbers. There was a record number of police officers, the highest in this country’s history, when the Conservatives left power. That number has been reduced—frontline, back office and PCSOs; each and every one of them—by the Policing Minister and the Government opposite. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is always an honest and straightforward Member of this House, would not want to suggest that the Conservatives left us with reduced numbers, when, in fact, they had increased.

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention—[Interruption.] I also thank Government Members for the many communications that are coming from the other side of the Chamber. When I hear the Labour party and the Conservative party arguing about police numbers, I just think it is an excellent advert for voting for one of the other parties.

If the Government are serious about restoring neighbourhood policing, they need to step up, get this reform right and get more officers back on to our streets. Ministers have suggested that the numbers will increase. We do not doubt their good intentions, but they will ultimately be judged on results.

We cautiously welcome the Government’s suggestion that they will assign a police team to every council ward, but the devil will be in the detail. So I ask the Minister—I am happy to take an intervention if she would like to put me straight, because we have asked a written question—will each council ward have its own policing team? Will it be unique to that ward, or will it be assigned en masse to several wards?

[Sarah Jones]

At the moment, we have a situation where each area has its own named, contactable officer. We are going even further, so that each ward will have its own named, contactable officer. These are hyper-local police.

[Max Wilkinson]

Based on the Minister’s answer, I assume that each ward has its own police officer and that that police officer has only one ward to deal with.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

No, they will have multiple wards.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Member suggests from a sedentary position that each police officer will have multiple wards. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify that.

[Sarah Jones]

To be clear, by the end of this Parliament there will be 13,000 extra neighbourhood police. The hon. Gentleman can divide that by—[Interruption.] Yes, police.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The Minister is making an intervention on Mr Wilkinson, not continuing the debate. Please make the intervention, so the hon. Member can respond.

[Sarah Jones]

To be clear, PCSOs are police officers. They are not warranted, but they are police. We will have 13,000 extra police in our neighbourhoods. I would have to do the maths to divide that number between each ward, but there will be a named, contactable officer in each ward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before I call Max Wilkinson, I note that the Front Benchers will have an opportunity to respond at the end of debate.

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the Minister for intervening.