One of Thames Valley Police’s top bosses has been grilled over policing priorities and funding reductions in Reading.

Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for the Thames Valley, Matthew Barber, delivered a presentation to Reading Borough Council’s policy committee on the work police are doing in the town.

Mr Barber was grilled at the meeting by councillor Adele Barnett-Ward, the council’s lead member for neighbourhood and communities, who regularly liaises with the police.

She criticised the commissioner for failing to define tackling violence against women and girls as a top priority in the Thames Valley.

Cllr  Barnett-Ward (Labour, Caversham) said: “In October 2021, Vera Baird, the victims tsar, said that violence against women and girls should be made a strategic policing requirement to give the issue direction, so there is in her words ‘no doubt of the obligations the police have towards victims’.

“She also said that there are many unanswered questions about how violence against and girls is policed.

“I think if we have this clear requirement, it sends a clear message that tackling it is a priority.

“Throughout this process, the PCC has maintained that its sufficient to have it covered within his other current priorities, and it doesn’t need to be separated, which is the opposite of what the victims tsar believes.

“They can’t both be right, so I’d like to know from the PPC which one of them is wrong?”

Mr Barber has laid out five priorities in the Thames Valley Police and Crime Plan:

  1. Strong local policing
  2. Fighting serious organised crime
  3. Fighting cybercrime and fraud
  4. Improving the criminal justice system
  5. Tackling illegal encampments

Yet tackling violence against women and girls is not listed among these properties.

Responding to the critique, Mr Barber said: “The issues that are covered by that generic term ‘violence against women and girls’ are clearly in my plan and specific strategies will be produced shortly on the three key areas of domestic abuse, safety for women in public spaces, and rape and sexual assault.

“My reasons for not adopting them as one overarching thing is that I believe that the policing approach of them, and the way we deal with those issues for victims are very different for those different crime types, the perpetrators are often different.

“So we need a nuanced approach.”

Cllr  Barnett-Ward also grilled Mr Barber over funding for Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs), which involve joint council and police projects.

After his election last May, the commissioner pledged to review support for the CSPs, with a new ‘fair funding formula’ set out which he claimed provided a fairer allocation of resources to local councils based on population, crime levels and non-crime factors such as anti-social behaviour.

However, the community funding for Reading Borough Council will drop in every year of the CSP grants, from £453,128 to £213,977.

That’s a drop of £239,151 over three financial years.

Cllr  Barnett-Ward asked why this drop has occurred.

Mr Barber argued that CSPs needed to be reformed as funding models for community safety funding gave Reading more funding than Milton Keynes, despite it having a lower population.

He said he understood “those within Reading who clearly do not welcome this move”,  but he has been able to secure £400,000 in Safer Streets funding for Reading provided by the government.

Mr Barber added that he was open to alternatives for CSP funding, but none have been provided to him so far.

The PCC answered the questions at the policy committee meeting on Monday, January 17, which can be watched on Youtube.