house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

1057 Police: Funding
[17 JUNE 2009]
Police: Funding
1058
3pm
House of Lords
Wednesday, 17 June 2009.
Prayers—read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the
Lord Bishop of Bradford.
Police: Funding
Question
Asked By Lord Trefgarne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals
they have for funding Surrey police force this year
and next year.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the
Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. At
the same time perhaps I may declare an interest in that
I happen to be resident in the county in question.
Lord Brett: My Lords, the Government have provided
general grant funding of £101.8 million for 2009-10,
and provisionally £104.4 million for 2010-11. This
represents years two and three of the three-year settlement,
providing a background of stability and continuity
against which the police and all stakeholders can plan
with much greater certainty and confidence. In addition
to general grant, Surrey will receive approximately
£15.4 million from specific grants and capital provision
for 2009-10.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the
noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that funding for
the Surrey police force has, uniquely in the United
Kingdom, been capped by Her Majesty’s Government
at what is in fact below the level of last year; that
Surrey faces some unique security threats, and that
this capping sits ill with the threats to which I have
referred?
Lord Brett: My Lords, I think that there may a
slight overuse of the word “unique” by the noble
Lord. In the first context it is not used correctly,
because last year Lincolnshire found itself in the same
situation, so Surrey is not unique. I suspect that the
noble Lord’s second use of the word is not accurate
either. While there are problems with Surrey—the
great M25 motorway goes through it—there are also
great motorways in the north of England, the west of
England, and many other areas. The arguments about
this can be seen by noble Lords if they take the time to
read the proceedings of the 90-minute debate held in
another place two days ago. They will see that the very
adequate response given by the Minister in the other
place answers the points raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Imbert: My Lords, is it sensible or fair that
although Surrey has been adjudged by the Audit
Commission to give excellent value for money—the
commission commented that Surrey police authority
has a very low level of central government grant—it
has the lowest proportion of band D properties in the
whole of England and Wales? Is it sensible that the
Government are now forcing the Surrey police authority
in addition to the 144 front-line personnel who have
already been cancelled out this year to scrub around
another 50 front-line officers? Is that fair to the public
of Surrey?
Lord Brett: My Lords, it is not the Government
who are scrubbing anything. If the word “unique” is
to be used, it is that Surrey uniquely is a police
authority that twice in two years has gone beyond the
cap, knowing in advance what was likely to happen
this year. It is now the case, of course, that there are no
central targets. Each police authority must manage its
own affairs within the money raised locally and provided
centrally. In that sense, Surrey is in the same situation
as any other county. It has an excellent police force, as
the noble Lord rightly said, but there again the number
one police force happens to be that for the county of
my birth, which is Lancashire.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the Minister
acknowledge that the police authorities all around
London, not only Surrey, suffer huge losses of experienced
people to the Met because it pays more money and has
a better pension scheme based on the final year’s
salary? Will he make sure that the Government once
again look at the funding of authorities around the
periphery of London and do something about the
quite unjust boundary between the police forces?
Lord Brett: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows,
funding is a matter of continuing review. While it is
true, perhaps, that Surrey would raise the argument
that it loses police officers to the Met—the so-called
doughnut effect—that also applies to other counties
that border on the Metropolitan Police area. All those
other areas have met their requirements within their
budget.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend
agree that there is a paradox in noble Lords opposite
frequently asking for more and more decentralisation
of responsibility and, when they get it, they do not like
the consequences of their own decisions?
Lord Brett: My Lords, my noble friend makes an
accurate comment. It is, of course, a question of
human nature.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, is the noble
Lord aware that the amount per head proceeding from
the Government in the present year at some £93 is well
below the average for police authorities as a whole of
£132, and that the Surrey figure has been reduced by
39 per cent in real terms over the past 10 years? Will he
take account of my own experience when I was Chancellor
of the Exchequer and the Member of Parliament for
East Surrey and found it possible to be generous, as he
ought to be in the present circumstances?
Lord Brett: My Lords, we can spar about percentages
and amounts of money across the Chamber without
necessarily getting to the root of the problem, which is
that the Surrey Police Authority and all other police
authorities have a responsibility both to raise money
from council tax payers, which we want to ensure does
not exceed a certain amount, and to do an excellent