---

Council Tax Capping (Surrey)

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Fraser, and a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). He initiated the debate but, as has already been pointed out, all Surrey MPs are very much alongside him. It takes quite a lot to pull all the Surrey MPs together on one issue, but today we are debating that issue, which is county-wide. The Government's attitude to Surrey police beggars belief. One of the best forces is being undermined, year by year, by the Government's funding formula. The force is being treated as a rural force but it is on the outskirts of London. As my hon. Friend said, its area is criss-crossed by major roads. Several times, it has had to respond to terrorist outbreaks at the airports on either side, at Heathrow and Gatwick. The county also suffers from trans-border crime, which crosses into it from London—and particularly into my constituency, which borders it. It suffers from a disparity of treatment between the Metropolitan police and the Surrey police force. Surrey Members with borders that are contiguous with London know that at the beginning of this decade some of their constituencies were covered by the Metropolitan police. That changed when the then Home Secretary agreed that Surrey would be properly respected. Its ordinary policemen and women are under a lot of pressure; they are trained in Surrey but are often attracted by higher wages and salaries to the capital. London, of course, is much better funded. I was one of those who supported Surrey having its own police force. I ask the Government to think carefully about a matter of equity. Given that council tax payers in Surrey contribute almost 50 per cent. of the cost of the Surrey police, it is incumbent on the Government to reconsider the formula. Given that the Surrey taxpayer contributes considerable sums to the country's overall tax revenues, and that we are helping to fund other parts of the country, it would be appropriate for us to be given slightly better treatment when it comes to the funding of the Surrey force. To make matters worse, we are being capped. As my hon. Friend so eloquently pointed out, capping yields little except disadvantage to people who live in Surrey. The effect is alarming. The cost of the refunding equates to 24 officers—at least two per borough in Surrey might need to be taken out. All Surrey Members could argue about the importance of their local police. For instance, two of my police stations are manned by volunteers. They provide an excellent service for the community, and they receive a lot of support from the officers; they, too, do a tremendous job. However, we may be losing the volunteers, in Cobham and elsewhere, despite the fact that they have provided an identifiable service to the public, reassuring the public that they are being protected. The other issue that Surrey police have to face, apart from the question of community and neighbourhood policing, is that occasional big events require them to keep financial reserves. The Government cannot decide that reserves should be raided to suit their political policies. They are necessary; incidents, including terrorist incidents, need a response, as do major crimes. For instance, some years ago Milly Dowler was murdered outside Walton station. The police investigation continues; in theory, it is still ongoing, but the inquiry continued for several years at virtually full strength, until the allegation was made that someone who is now behind bars for other reasons may have committed the crime. Surrey police need to respond to other issues, but that often requires them to make exceptional calls on reserves in order to meet the additional costs. In the past, when I and my colleagues have taken up cases, we have lobbied the Government for better treatment in order to balance the county's financial position. For instance, it sometimes has to respond to events at Heathrow—and not only terrorism: occasionally, misguided environmental protests require a lot of police attention, and security is a concern. We are looking for a sensible balance. First, we should avoid rebilling. That is the principal reason for today's debate. Secondly, we should reconsider how the funding formula works. In equity, it must be wrong to undermine progressively a force that has already made substantial cuts, year on year, and that will need to do so again. Thirdly, the Government should persuade the people of Surrey that they, the Government, understand that undermining a police force is not the way to improve people's sense of security. The Government have made a monumental misjudgment. It is a miscalculation, based on a theoretical precept, and it should be abandoned. Whether it should be abandoned after judicial review I shall not say, but it should certainly be withdrawn gracefully. The Surrey police force should be allowed to rebuild, to help the people of Surrey feel secure; they live on the edge of London and are already paying half the cost of the force.