| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9 Jun 2009 : Column 186WH—continued
There is also an argument over reserves. Surrey police have reserves of £9.4 million, much of which is clearly not available, because, technically, only general reserves are available for expenditure. Those reserves stand at £5.6 million, or 2.6 per cent. of the budget, but HMIC and the Audit Commission insist that that be lifted to 3 per cent. That, too, will have an impact, on top of the capping and the re-billing expenditure.
As someone who has, in the past, been involved in programmed expenditure cuts, I am abundantly aware of the fact that one of the worst effects of capping is that it is applied at the beginning of, or during, the financial year in question. That means that cuts in expenditure at a late stage in the financial year must compensate for the failure to achieve a full-year effect from the beginning of the financial year—in simple terms, the percentage cut must be higher to achieve the full-year effect.
With the prospect of capping in mind, the authority began setting this year’s budget in July 2008. The budget was carefully calculated and took account of the principles set out by the Secretary of State. The idea of a notional precept was raised, and Surrey police finance officials shared their concerns with lawyers from the Department for Communities and Local Government. The lawyers confirmed in writing that
“there is no requirement on the Surrey police authority to calculate the notional level of Council Tax (based on the notional budget requirement) 2008/09 and Surrey police authority will set their budget requirement and their precept for 2009/10...in the normal way”.
To avoid capping and its effects, the authority carefully calculated the budget. Three days before setting the budget, the Department announced a notional 2008-09 budget and a notional band D council tax. That left the police authority with the threat of capping. Given that the cuts arising from capping were late and unplanned, they had an extra detrimental effect on the force.
In the past financial year, the Surrey police work force was 4,229-strong. The continuing prospect of capping means that the authority must produce a progressive extrapolation of financial constraints, which produces a series of cuts as the Surrey police authority calculates its manpower for the years 2009-10 to 2012-13. That commences with the loss of 159 personnel this year, with a total loss of 373 personnel by the end of the process, and that is before designation and re-billing.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): Does my hon. Friend share my frustration not only that are there significant manpower issues in relation to the capping itself, but that the re-billing exercise will add an additional cost that is wholly unnecessary and will put extra burdens on the district councils required to carry it out and lead to a further cut in manpower, at a time when a county that must deal with the policing of Heathrow, the M25 and Gatwick airport will also, I fear, face increased overspill crime from London, because of a rise in property crime rates resulting from the recession? Does he agree that the capping is the wrong thing to do, at the wrong time?
Sir Paul Beresford: Completely; I think that all Opposition Members would agree with that statement.
The cost of designation is a further £1.6 million cut. The cumulative effect, over the same period, is another 55 personnel. Re-billing will cost Surrey police authority £1.2 million, and that translates into a further manpower reduction of 24. Over that time the population increase in Surrey will continue, and so will the threat of crime—particularly cross-border crime—and the anticipated threat of terrorism. The broad figures are that if the Government insist on going ahead with the capping order, and on re-billing, it will cost Surrey police authority £1.2 million to reduce the council tax bill by £1.6 million.
On Thursday, I received a response to a parliamentary question, from the Minister of State for Local Government that stated:
“Subject to the approval of an order by the House of Commons, the reduction in Band D council tax in Surrey as a result of capping will be £3.18.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 678W.]
According to Mole Valley district council, my main billing authority, the overall cost to it of re-billing is £172,000. That translates to an approximate cost per bill of £4.65. That means that in band D it costs £1.47 more than the reduction. Obviously, the balance is worse for the lower bands. It is not until band F that the negative balance is reversed. I hope that the Minister can visualise the huge sigh of relief in every band D household as the annual bill drops, by the Government’s order, by £3.18. I can see thousands of taxpayers rushing to buy a bottle of cheap wine, equivalent to £3.18, to celebrate. However, as most of them pay in 10 instalments, the reduction will be 32p a month over 10 months. Perhaps after saving 32p a month for 10 months it will be a pint of beer, a packet of crisps and a packet of peanuts at the pub.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that at a time when public spending will be tightly constrained anyway it is incumbent on Governments to ensure that every penny of public money is carefully used, and that the Government have failed abjectly to do that in the case that is being outlined? First, they have failed to set out clearly what was required of Surrey police authority, so that it could take action that would not lead to the present situation; secondly, they have proposed a disproportionate response, which no taxpayer will accept as a sensible way of dealing with a rather small excess, as it will, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, cost nearly the entirety of what will be recovered to undertake re-billing.
Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend’s timing is perfect. I expect the effect of the re-billing notice on most council tax payers to be confusion or bemusement. If they are aware of the cost of the re-billing to the already strapped police force, they will be furious. Local authorities throughout Surrey will have to reset their direct debits for every council tax payer who pays by that means. Many thousands of people pay by bankers’ orders and will have to send off new bankers’ order forms, which will probably cost about 20 per cent. of the so-called saving, and there may be additional costs at the banks.
That is perhaps the smile side, if there is one, to the re-billing problem, but there is a deeply serious effect. My constituency is a mixture of rural and semi-rural. It has two main towns—Dorking and Leatherhead—and approximately 32 villages spread across the countryside,
and considerable numbers of relatively isolated houses in between. In the past several years, organised crime and individual thefts of agricultural property on Surrey farms have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. Several years ago, such crime was successfully targeted by a special police team in Surrey, and following its success, Surrey police set up a single liaison officer for farmers, known as the farm liaison officer. That was a full-time job. With last year’s cuts it became a half-time job. I am concerned that, as Surrey police authority looks around for further savings because of the re-billing and the designation, that key officer may have to be drawn back in, and the post may go.
Antisocial behaviour is a big problem at the moment. It is continually sprouting up in my area, showing its ugly head in forms varying from general abuse through to shop and household window-breaking. It has now moved on to unlawful purchasing and semi-organised theft, by groups, of alcohol. The latest problem is a series of serious arson attacks in different towns and villages. Generally, Surrey police have been successful in stemming the tide of those activities and acting either pre-emptively or preventively. When that is not possible, there has been an organised attack on the problem. However, the greatest value comes, as was mentioned in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), from neighbourhood specialist officers. Those individuals are present in the neighbouring police force, where they are also very successful. The Metropolitan police have one neighbourhood specialist officer per 100 crimes. At the moment—before the cuts that will have to be made—Surrey police have less than half a neighbourhood specialist officer per 100 crimes. I have been talking to a local police inspector in one of my towns, which is having a lot of difficulty from three dozen or so youths, who work either in groups or gangs. The most likely effect of capping is that the inspector may have to reduce the number of front-line neighbourhood officers following the capping and re-billing.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Ten of the 11 Members of Parliament for Surrey constituencies are attending the debate. The only absentee is my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), the shadow Secretary of State for Education, who is addressing a major education conference this morning. I hope that that fact will impress on the Minister the seriousness with which all Surrey MPs view the issue.
My hon. Friend has been talking about neighbourhood specialist officers: I do not want such local intelligence to disappear from my area, not least because last night, Surrey police managed to arrest a burglar who attacked my premises in my constituency. I take this occasion to thank Surrey police for their rapid intervention and the welcome arrest of someone who will, I hope, be brought to justice in due course. My hon. Friend has done a singular service in securing the debate, and the Minister should be under no illusions as to how important the issue is in Surrey, and how insane the capping proposal is, when viewed in simple common-sense terms.
Sir Paul Beresford: I think that common sense is the theme, but I am always a little dubious about using the term, as it has been misaligned in the past.
The case for Surrey police being capped is wrong. The effect on the safety of the people of Mole Valley and Surrey will be quite marked. To add to the arguably incorrect injury the unnecessary cost of re-billing each council tax payer for such a minuscule amount is ludicrous. I ask the Minister to accept, if the Government win the anticipated judicial review, that although they will have made their point—however erroneous—they should not require the unnecessary re-billing. The legislation allows that, and common sense demands it.
Christopher Fraser (in the Chair): I intend that the winding-up speeches should start at about 12 o’clock, depending on how many hon. Members want to speak.
11.19 am
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton) (Con): 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 re-billing. 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.
11.25 am
Anne Milton (Guildford) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing this debate. As we have heard, it is hard to herd Surrey MPs. The fact that we are all here shows our strength of feeling, and I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
As time is short, I shall not say more on matters that were so eloquently mentioned by my hon. Friend. However, some key factors must be re-emphasised. Surrey police force is a county force with urban challenges; it borders two airports and some of the busiest motorways in London. Half of the crime there is committed by people from outside Surrey. Indeed, Lord West acknowledged criminals as
“people doing ‘away days’ from London in order to redistribute wealth.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 January 2009; Vol. 706, c. 1012.]
The Audit Commission assessment states that there is no doubt that Surrey police have managed their affairs and finances excellently and that they give value for money of the highest grade, being one of only six forces that achieved that status in 2007-08. The force has the lowest expenditure per band D property.
Much of what Surrey police do is excellent, but with tight resources it is not always perfect. To a large extent, resourcing has been a continuing problem for the force, and it acknowledges that it cannot always give the service that it would like. Rightly, it is cutting 144 back-office jobs and replacing them with technology improvements to hold on to its front-line force, but it faces losing another 50 front-line jobs if the Government have their way.
Policing in Guildford is not easy. We have a busy night-time economy, persistent crime in the large rural areas, and some serious antisocial behaviour, much of which involves criminal damage. Indeed, antisocial behaviour is often a euphemism for crime. There is terrible criminal damage; someone stole a saw and cut down trees on an estate; elderly residents are being terrorised and are afraid to go out in the evenings; and a local business woman could not cope with the police response to the number of racist and violent attacks on her staff and now employs her own private security. It is not good enough.
Given the tight police budgets, with the best will in the world the police cannot respond as they want; they are angry and the public are frustrated. Too many kids are getting away with completely unacceptable behaviour. I cannot speak too highly of the community wardens, the police and community support officers and the neighbourhood specialist officers in Guildford. However, poor resources leave many areas badly wanting. The public are not getting the service that they deserve; it falls well short.
I now give a quick plug to the Street Angels project in Guildford. Those not familiar with Street Angels should come to Guildford in the evening and watch. Set up by the churches in Guildford, they support the town police. Surrey police have been excellent in working with them, and we have seen a real drop in crime. None the less, it is difficult.
I get very tired of having to listen to Ministers telling us what they are giving us. The truth is that in 1997 we were receiving £96 per head; in 2009 we are getting £93 per head. As a result, 50 per cent. of the funding comes from the council tax payer; elsewhere in the country, it is approximately 25 per cent. We in Surrey raise a lot of money for the Treasury, and we are not getting a good deal in return.
This year, the situation is ridiculous. The Government rejected attempts by Surrey police to meet officials and Ministers. The Department for Communities and Local Government created the notional precept, and I know that the Surrey police force is considering taking legal action on that. Police officials raised the concept of a notional precept with the DCLG, but were reassured that they should set their budget as normal. Three days before the Surrey police authority set its budget, the Government wrote to say that they had not yet determined
any capping principles. With officials refusing to talk to it, Surrey police authority had to set a budget in the dark.
I hope that the Minister will respond to many of the arguments raised today. Everyone in Surrey, and Guildford in particular, wants their council tax bills to fall, but they also want to be safe. The police struggle, and the public are cross, fearful and not getting the service that they deserve. The Minister has it within his power to reconsider this matter before he lays the draft order. I hope that he does not come out with the usual platitudes. We have heard that the Prime Minister is very keen to listen to people, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to listen to the people of Surrey.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |