---

Council Tax Capping (Surrey)

I was not intending to speak in this debate, but, as my hon. Friends have been admirably succinct, we have a little time left, so I should like to take the opportunity to make a short contribution. Unfortunately, I have to leave at 12 o'clock, and I apologise in advance for any discourtesy. My hon. Friends have set out very clearly the underlying pressures facing Surrey police. Surrey is a target-rich environment; there are many temptations for criminals and we have a proximity to a pool of crime, which is both organised and opportunistic, in the London conurbation. Surrey police have a small level of reserves, and I hope that the Minister will not suggest that the reserves should be raided to meet some of the pressures that the force is facing. We need those reserves to deal with unexpected events. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) referred to the Milly Dowler case, which involved an extraordinary police operation costing millions of pounds. In my own constituency a few years earlier, we were unwilling hosts to an unwilling guest—the former President of the Chilean Republic, General Pinochet. That operation cost Surrey police well in excess of £1 million. At the time, we were promised categorically that there would be no net cost to Surrey taxpayers, but the reimbursement from central Government never came close to meeting the full cost of that policing operation. It is for such reasons that forces have to maintain appropriate reserves. Let me dwell for a moment on process. While the points about the underlying funding and underfunding of Surrey police force have been well made, my concern about this particular issue relates to process. Having read the facts, I have to say that Franz Kafka would have been impressed by the way in which the Government convey—or, rather, do not convey—detailed information to precepting authorities to enable them to set a precept that will not fall foul of rules that have not been made at the time the precept is set. I should also like to address the question of the proportionality of the response. I hope that the Minister has some good news for us today. There will not be anyone in this country in the current environment who thinks that spending £1.2 million of public money to return £1.6 million to Surrey council tax payers is a sensible way to proceed. I suggest to the Minister that he is in danger of appearing to be pursuing an agenda of petty political vindictiveness rather than an agenda of common sense.