First and foremost, I would like to express my appreciation to all the hardworking police officers across the country, and in particular, those serving in our constituency - I do recognise the pressures on, and expectations of, the policing role have changed in recent years. Without their dedication and bravery, we would all be worse off so ensuring our police officers can work as effectively and safely as possible must be a top priority.
Police officers should have access to the support, protection and recognition they deserve, so I was pleased that Police Covenant was enshrined in law as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. As you know, the Covenant aims to provide recognition by Government, policing and society as a whole of the sacrifices involved in working in policing, with the intention of ensuring that members of the workforce suffer no detriment as a result of their role.
I know that initial priority areas for the Covenant, identified through a public consultation were: health and wellbeing, physical protection, and support for families. I am pleased that the last Government made significant progress on these, and I welcome that a permanent Chief Medical Officer was appointed to work to bridge the work of the NHS with the needs of the policing community. Moreover, in 2024, a new priority - to provide, for the first time, proactive suicide prevention resources for forces and individuals was incorporated into the Covenant. As we have a clear duty to support and protect the wellbeing of the police, I urge the Government to continue to progress and deliver the Police Covenant and I will continue to monitor progress closely.
It is for this reason that the Opposition has also continually scrutinised and critiqued the Government's police settlement for 2025/26, warning that it provides insufficient funding, which places pressure on police forces and risks job losses.
As you may be aware, responsibility for determining how resources are allocated to managing and responding to crimes, as well as addressing local community priorities, rests with Chief Constables, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), operational leaders, and local representatives. However, the Government's first priority is to protect the public, and Ministers have a key responsibility to ensure that the police have the necessary funding to keep communities safe. I am pleased that the previous Government increased police funding by more than 30 per cent during the last Parliament, and I would expect this trend to continue under the current Government throughout this Parliament.
This Labour Government passed its new funding settlement in February 2025 for 2025–26. Despite an increase in cash terms, I understand that the settlement has raised significant concerns among police officers regarding insufficient resources. Chief Constable Paul Sanford, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for finance, said the settlement presented “real challenges” for policing and that "this will inevitably lead to cuts across forces."
These concerns have now been compounded by the decisions made by the Chancellor in the Spending Review, raising concerns among the National Police Chiefs' Council, the Police Federation and the Association for PCCs who expressed significant concerns about its impact on police numbers. I share the view of my colleague, the Shadow Home Secretary, who has urged the Government to do everything possible to prevent reductions in officer numbers.
While I understand and agree with the desire to have structures in place that enable police officers to be paid fairly, I believe it is appropriate that there is an Independent Police Remuneration Review Body, which makes recommendations to the Government on the appropriate level of pay and allowances for police officers based on a wide range of evidence. Like any system, of course it has its challenges, and I would always encourage the Government to make improvements where possible. Nevertheless, it replaced a process that had been found to be widely inefficient and prone to delays due to the system of collective bargaining.
When Sir Tom Winsor conducted his wide-ranging and detailed review of the pay system, published in 2012, he also concluded that the case for making arbitration awards binding on the Home Secretary was unsound because it "fails to give due weight to the special position of the Government in the control of public expenditure and in the determination of the pay and conditions of an essential public service whose morale, efficiency and performance are central to the maintenance of the safety and security of citizens and their property."
Ultimately, while time has passed, this remains as true now as it was then. As such, I fear the proposals suggested would return us to the previous system, which would broadly cause more problems than it would solve. Therefore, I was unable to support the changes proposed in this campaign.
