---

West Yorkshire Police (Funding)

I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour for his comments. I agree wholeheartedly with what he said and thank him for his accolade. I have been accused by some people of having been "bobbied", which is a reference to those who at one time were hostile to the police and who have now been taken very gently under their wings. If that was put to any of the officers whom I mentioned earlier, they would smile because they know what a robust relationship we have. I have always believed in credit being given where credit is due. The crux of the problem is that West Yorkshire is not receiving the funding it should under the funding formula, that various aspects of its funding are under some specific threat and that many of the priority developments that it is taking to respond to Government initiatives and the demands of the local community increasingly have to be funded from savings. Although the authority is efficient and has proved its ability to make savings, that is not in the long term a sustainable way of meeting the funding challenges, especially on the revenue front. The authority was conscious of the difficult economic climate when it settled its budget for 2009-10, and agreed a 2.99 per cent. increase in the police precept, which allowed for an increase in spending of 3.38 per cent. overall. However, two thirds of that is already locked in by the pay award that was negotiated over a three-year period. Savings have been identified from the base budget to divert into priority areas, such as the automatic number plate recognition team, the road death investigation team and additional resources for Every Child Matters and force intelligence. The result was as we would want it—the force strength remained virtually unchanged. Some of that was achieved by leaving vacancies open for much longer than is operationally desirable, which I regard as the cracks starting to appear in the revenue budget. The preliminary estimate for the budget that is required in the next financial year is an increase of 4.3 per cent. Again, more than half of that is locked in by pay awards that have already been agreed. The increase is also required to meet the full-year consequences of some of the developments to which I referred a minute or so ago. It is also needed for further developments, such as the replacement of body armour, making up for the loss of interest on investments resulting from reductions in interest rates and the revenue implications of capital expenditure. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. On resuming—