Cuts will not affect officer numbers says Warwickshire PCC
The number of police officers in Warwickshire will not be affected by the need for £1m of savings, the person responsible for setting the force's budget has said. The force area's police and crime commissioner (PCC) Philip Seccombe said he had been reassured by the top officer at Warwickshire Police that a tightened budget would not affect staff numbers. The Conservative was challenged on the savings at a budget meeting of the Warwickshire Police & Crime Panel on Monday. The force has to find savings, despite plans to increase its council tax precept by the maximum allowed for the 2025/26 financial year.
The owners of an average Band D property in Warwickshire will pay an extra £14 to the police in their council tax bill, the plans state. Documents show Warwickshire Police will require another £10m just to stand still over the next financial year, and while the bulk of that will come from government, Chief Constable Alex Franklin-Smith has been tasked with making £2.2m worth of savings to balance a £140.8m budget.It was explained at the meeting that £1.2m in savings had already been found, with the force currently working on plans to find the rest of the money.
Speaking at the meeting, Mr Seccombe said Mr Franklin-Smith had assured him that officer number would not decrease. "These savings are challenging," he said."I stood on a manifesto to increase the number of officers in Warwickshire Police, I continue to stand by that."Mr Seccombe said that while it was currently "difficult to look over the horizon", he was "optimistic" the force was in a sound financial position."We have to make sure we protect our reserves - they are there for a reason - but I am optimistic we can continue to grow the number of officers and PCSOs in Warwickshire," he said.This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service which covers councils and other public service organisations.
Follow BBC Coventry & Warwickshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Rantzen warns peers not to hamper progress of assisted dying law
The legislation could face a difficult passage through the Lords, with critics poised to table amendments to add further restrictions and safeguards to the Bill. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz of to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lord's and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. He told Today 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'. He added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.' Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, told the PA news agency she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.' A group of 27 Labour MPs who voted against the legislation said: 'We were elected to represent both of those groups and are still deeply concerned about the risks in this Bill of coercion of the old and discrimination against the disabled, people with anorexia and black, Asian and minority ethnic people, who we know do not receive equitable health care. 'As the Bill moves to the House of Lords it must receive the scrutiny that it needs. Not about the principles of assisted dying but its application in this deeply flawed Bill.' Meanwhile, one of the leading opponents of the Bill, Conservative Danny Kruger, said 'these are apocalyptic times'. In a series of tweets on Friday night, the East Wiltshire MP – who is at odds with his mother, Great British Bake Off judge Dame Prue Leith in her support for legalisation – accused assisted dying campaigners of being 'militant anti-Christians' who had failed to 'engage with the detail of the Bill'.
South Wales Argus
4 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Abergavenny library mosque proposal decision date named
A decision to grant a 30-year lease on the former Abergavenny library was approved in May before being put on hold pending review by a council scrutiny committee, which met last week, and said the decision had to go back to the cabinet within 10 working days. Just days before the scrutiny committee took place the words 'No Masjid' and crosses were spray painted on to the grade II listed building with police investigating the criminal damage as a hate crime. Masjid is Arabic for place of worship or mosque. Monmouthshire council's Labour-led cabinet will now consider the arguments made at the place scrutiny committee when it meets for its regular meeting on Wednesday, June 25 and must decide whether to stand by its original decision or reconsider it. The scrutiny committee heard from Abergavenny mayor Philip Bowyer and town council colleague Gareth Wild, a Baptist minister, who both spoke in favour of the cabinet's decision to grant the lease to the Monmouthshire Muslim Community Association. READ MORE: Banner of support draped over Abergavenny mosque graffiti Four public speakers, including Sarah Chicken the warden of the alms houses next door to the former library, a resident, and Andrew Powell landlord of the nearby Groefield pub objected to the decision, citing reasons such as parking and potential for noise as to why a mosque and community centre would be unsuitable. Cabinet member Ben Callard, who lives near the proposed mosque and represents the area on the town council though he is the county councillor for Llanfoist and Govilon, explained no planning permission is required. Community centres and places of worship fall under the same planning use as a library. But he said the community association had promised to hold a public consultation on its plans, but that was criticised by councillors who called the decision in for review, as it was 'consultation after the decision'. The review was instigated by Conservative councillors Rachel Buckler and Louise Brown, who represent Devauden and Shirenewton, and Llanelly Hill independent Simon Howarth who questioned how the decision was made. They faced criticism as Abergavenny councillors and the town council backed the original decision. The former Abergavenny Library. The three questioned the council's process and complained there had been no scrutiny of the decision. Cllr Callard said the community association's bid was the highest scoring tender, and the £6,000 a year rent similar to one of the other bids, and rejected the idea it would be practical for the council to operate as a landlord if every lease had to go through a full scrutiny process. Cllr Callard also said if councillors disagreed with it offering the building for new uses, as it was no longer used as a pupil referral unit with the library having transferred to the town hall in 2015, the decision made last November to declare it 'surplus to requirements' should have been called in for review. The cabinet will consider the scrutiny committee's suggestions a re-tender should be run with specifications including an independent valuation, a survey of the building, consideration of the building's history and importance, a public consultation and the possibility of selling the building. It meets at County Hall in Usk at 4.30pm.
Scotsman
5 hours ago
- Scotsman
Regime change in Iran? Be careful what you wish for
Getty Images History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Ten years ago, in a very different world, the SNP was adapting to life as Westminster's third party and the resulting new responsibilities. The EU Referendum Bill was still rattling its way through Parliament, with the mayhem it unleashed yet to come. As the SNP's first member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I was working with colleagues as then Prime Minister David Cameron mulled the expansion of air strikes against Daesh. The so-called Islamic State had unleashed a wave of horrifying violence across the region that they were publicising through social media channels. The Committee had investigated the implications of any such military action taking evidence from a range of actors and experts in the UK and region. The proposed action was one of extending UK airstrikes from Iraq, where the RAF was already in action against Daesh, across the border into Syria. That would have meant the UK joining other states, as well as countless armed groups, in becoming a participant, however limited, in the ongoing conflicts across Syria. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Comparatively this was a modest proposal. Daesh was not a state actor, the UK was already involved in military action against them and there was unanimity around wanting to see an end to Daesh's murderous reign. However, there was reluctance across Parliament to sanction intervention. Even in 2015, the implications of the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, hung heavy over MPs, mindful of the consequences of the Iraq war, pursued by a Labour Prime Minister, that had led to regional destabilisation, an undermining of the international rules-based system and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the subsequent civil war. There were also the more recent consequences of 'regime change' in Libya where a Conservative Prime Minister had sanctioned action that led to the fall of Colonel Qaddafi's administration. Many of the mistakes that had been made on the run up to Iraq were repeated in the Franco-British led actions in Libya. The consequences of those mistakes were again felt most keenly by the innocent civilians. Given that recent history our Committee was asked to come up with a set of criteria for the House to consider ahead of the vote. Our report, written by the very talented team of clerks who assisted us, was published in November 2015. It bears re- reading today especially the short, one page section 'Enabling the House to reach a decision' that effectively provides a 'check list' for war. When teaching first years at the University of St Andrews I used to ask them to read the report, and if not the whole thing, then that one-page provided a good cheat sheet of what policy makers should look for when considering whether to sanction military intervention. It is as useful a read today as it was then. Some of the questions around international law, the role of ground troops, agreement of regional actors and the overall strategic goals meant that the Committee could not, initially, agree military action. Today as Trump considers action, and the UK is coming under pressure, I feel that the questions we posed then are relevant today and again have not been answered. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Don't get me wrong, the Iranian regime is deeply unpleasant, threatening its neighbours, murdering opponents and oppressing its citizens. The same was true for the regimes in Tripoli and Baghdad. Furthermore a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous for the region and the rest of the world. Iran has absolutely no problem in visiting death and destruction on its citizens and neighbours including providing an arsenal for Russia and the drones that target families in their homes in Ukraine. An Iran that respects international law has huge potential as I saw for myself in 2015 when the Committee visited. Sitting around the table in the British Embassy where Churchill had celebrated his 65 th birthday with Stalin and Roosevelt during the Tehran Conference in 1943, the British chargé d'affairs and other senior diplomats updated us on the progress with the JCPOA diplomatic negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities. They were clearly making some progress until Trump brought them to an end. We were also briefed, and could see for ourselves, the economic potential of the country where ordinary Iranians were keen to rejoin the international mainstream. Iran is a complex and deeply diverse country of well over 90 million a critical part of the world. Any war and upheaval in the country would have massive implications for us all. It could also further destabilise the Middle East convulsed by the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israeli actions in Gaza and the years of war in Syria. Over the next few days Donald Trump is considering joining Israel's military action against Iran. For now, Keir Starmer is calling for a diplomatic solution, joining President Macron, who mindful of past failures such as in Libya, warned 'the biggest mistake today would be to try to do a regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos'. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and no friend of Iran, Kaja Kallas also remarked that Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons but that 'lasting security is built through diplomacy, not military action'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, pressure could well be brought to bear on the British by the White House. The lessons of Iraq and Libya hung heavy over MPs ten years ago. As the situation in the Middle East evolves rapidly, those lessons seem as pertinent today as they did then. Like then, we shouldn't recommend war and regime change without answering the questions we posed a decade ago. History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians.
