| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Fees and Charges
- That the draft Department for Transport (Driver Licensing and Vehicle Registration Fees) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),
- That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5268/03, draft Directive on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in
- decorative paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC; and supports the Government's objectives both of taking measures to reduce emissions of precursors of ground-level ozone across the European Union, recognising that high concentrations of ground level ozone represent a serious public health risk, and also of seeking to reduce as far as possible adverse effects on United Kingdom industry of new European Union legislation.—[Derek Twigg.]
COMMITTEES
Public Accounts
- That Mr David Rendel be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr Richard Allan be added.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
Standards and Privileges
- That Mr Russell Brown be discharged from the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr Stephen Pound be added.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
Home Affairs
- That Mr John Bercow be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr John Taylor be added.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
Defence
- That Mr Gerald Howarth be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr Crispin Blunt be added.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
International Development
- That Alistair Burt be discharged from the International Development Committee and Mr Quentin Davies be added.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
Policing (Surrey)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
8.49 pm
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise what is an extremely important issue for my constituents and for residents across Surrey. I am delighted to see many of my colleagues from Surrey here tonight. I am delighted also that we are able to start so early in the evening, which gives us the chance to debate the issues fully and properly. I am glad that the Minister is in her place and I look forward to her comments.
The reason for tonight's debate is the alarming press reports in the past few weeks that the Government plan to make yet another transfer of funding away from the home counties—away from Surrey and Surrey police—to other parts of the country. The fear has been expressed widely, particularly by the chief constable in the wake of those reports, that if Surrey suffers yet another bad funding settlement this year it will become increasingly difficult to provide to our local residents the policing service they expect. All too often, financial pressures mean that they are not getting it.
I am not expecting the Minister to stand up and say, "Yes, fine. You can have more money for Surrey." However, I hope that she takes away from the debate points that my colleagues and I, want to raise with her to ensure that when the funding settlement is announced it reflects the legitimate concerns of people in Surrey, and that she does not end up short-changing our police service.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Does my hon. Friend agree that many Surrey MPs at least hope that the Minister takes account of the exceptional burdens on Surrey police in the last 12 months? I am thinking not only of the operation relating to the so-called Deepcut deaths in my constituency, but of Operation Ruby relating to the disappearance and tragic murder of Milly Dowler, Operation Orb relating to crimes in respect of the south-east serial rapist and the operation relating to anti-terrorist activity around Heathrow airport. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that when Surrey police, in the light of all those incredibly important inquiries, put in a claim to the Home Office for £1.6 million additional costs owing to those wholly exceptional burdens, only £0.3 million was approved?
Chris Grayling: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Surrey has suffered disproportionately over the past couple of years from major investigations that incur enormous costs from the day-to-day budget, quite apart from the impact of officers being transferred from front-line duties in parts of the county to those central inquiries. That has placed a huge financial burden on the county and made it much more difficult for the chief constable and his colleagues to make a tight budget work effectively in terms of delivery of front-line services.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley): One of the difficulties, in local government as well as in police forces up and down the country, is that this Government
tend to give a proportion of the money in grant—the major proportion—but then top up the specific, targeted grants that the local authorities and the police forces have to campaign for. That totally demolishes any predictability, and it is not until part way through the financial year that the police have any idea of their total budget.
Chris Grayling: I endorse that point. The problem with initiatives and funding that is linked to them is that security of funding is not provided. Core funding is often tighter than is suggested by the overall impression created by budgeting at the centre. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of administrative time to try to secure such funds and they are, as my hon. Friend suggests, absolutely unpredictable—this in a county that already has the lowest per capita policing grant in the country by quite some margin.
When I was newly elected, I raised those issues in a written question to the Home Office and I was quite startled by the gap between Surrey and comparable parts of the country, even the next county up in the league table of per capita grants. There is no doubt that our police force is short-changed, given the real strategic issues that it faces—not only that, but our local taxpayers pay a disproportionate share of the burden. In most areas, some 25 per cent. of a force's budget comes from the police precept.
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): Will not the situation continue to worsen if the Government do not change the funding arrangements? Am I right in recalling that the precept was increased by 40 per cent. simply to avoid cuts to make up for money that the Government had taken away? Am I also right in recalling the chief constable's observation that if something was not done about the Government's new regime to penalise police services like the one in Surrey, the Surrey police could face the loss of 500 of their 2,000 officers because—thanks to this wretched Government—there would be no money to pay them?
Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last year our council tax payers had to pay an extra 40 per cent. on the precept. The total proportion of police costs met by local taxpayers is approaching 50 per cent.—it is over 43 per cent.—and if we have another bad settlement this year, it may even exceed that level. It is nearly twice as much as is expected in other parts of the country. Moreover, the burden often falls on low-paid people who may have public service jobs in, for instance, teaching, on police officers themselves, and above all on pensioners who face retirement on fixed incomes but see their local taxation costs rise year by year, because Surrey is being short-changed on police grants from central Government.
The Government emphasise the fact that Surrey is a relatively low-crime area, but ignore the fact that it also suffers from widespread antisocial behaviour, especially among gangs on trains. A huge number of troublemakers go up and down railway lines in and out of London. Gangs often travel out of London to Tattenham Corner in my constituency, simply because it is a quieter, less policed area where it is easier to cause trouble. The Government's information also masks
crime overflows. Today the chief constable confirmed to me that violent crimes, robberies and burglaries are on the increase.
Mr. Wilshire: Surrey may be a low-crime area historically, but have not the Government just published figures showing a 30 per cent. increase in violent crime there?
Chris Grayling: Indeed. As policing in London is tightened up—often as a result of recruitment from neighbouring counties—it becomes easier for those who wish to cause trouble and commit offences to spill into more lightly policed areas.
The chief constable expects a 15 to 18 per cent. increase in violent crime this year. As for robbery, the force does not believe it will be able to meet its targets, given current trends, and projects an increase of between 6 and 15 per cent. Its target is 0 per cent., but given the spillover from London it is struggling to keep to 15 per cent.
Town centres pose a huge policing problem. It is somewhat ironic that this week, in what is undoubtedly a difficult security environment nationally, we can put 14,000 police on the streets of London, and that hundreds of police are on duty for a major football match, while in most town centres there are very few on duty on a Saturday night. I have seen that in my own area when out and about with police cars. On Saturday nights there are often only two response cars available to deal with trouble in town centres.
On Friday and Saturday nights—I am sure you have the same experience in your area, Madam Deputy Speaker—the trouble worsens, but the police are simply not there to deal with the crowds of troublemakers. The message from the Surrey constabulary is that they are struggling to deal with trouble in the county's top 10 disorder towns, because they do not have the necessary manpower on the ground. It cannot be right for the Government to believe they can take funds from a force that is struggling against the trends of increasing robbery, increasing violent crime and increasing trouble in town centres.
The reality is that those pressures are causing services to disappear or to be curtailed on the ground. At Epsom police station in my constituency—I have no doubt that those experiences are shared by colleagues in Surrey—the custody suite is no longer open except very occasionally; at the moment, it is not open at all, even on a Friday and Saturday night. As I have said, there are few police cars on the roads at peak times. There must be a question mark, if we have another tough funding round, over the future of many of the smaller police stations in the county—that is the reality.
As all that is happening, front-line officers are facing not just budget cuts but more bureaucracy. A few weeks ago, I had an extremely interesting conversation with one of the senior officers in the county. I asked why we seemed to be able to get so few officers on the road and why, in a force of 2,000 officers, the number out on duty on a Saturday night was so disappointingly small. The answer came back, "It is because we are dealing with the bureaucracy, with the target culture, with the expectations that are placed on us by monitoring at the centre."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |