SURELY no-one can disagree with the principle of putting more money into fighting crime - especially if the alternative is fewer police officers on the streets.

Of course the public has a right to be satisfied that our police forces are as cost efficient as possible and that money is not wasted.

But basically the problem isn't so much value for money as precisely who should pay and how.

Lancashire Police Authority chairman Dr Ruth Henig says that to cover their share of a £250million national funding shortfall the county's council tax payers face a rise of 15% in their bills.

This would, for example, push annual police bills for Band D payers through the £100 barrier.

Dr Henig, who is also chairman of the National Association of Police Authorities, lists a number of rising costs which are behind the need for extra cash and they are not all the result of above-inflation wage increases.

Demands on local council tax payers are already high, not least because of heavy pay pressure from firemen and teachers.

And anyway is it just that people living in areas which suffer more from crime, usually because of their deprivation, should have to pay more in local taxes to fight it?

No is the answer.

The cash shortfall should be met from central government funds, and thus general taxation, as Dr Henig is demanding.