Police and Justice Bill

No, I do not. It is plausible to have a regional government appropriate to the community that it serves that is not based on the model that is emerging in this country. For the record, my party has always been in favour of elected regional government that takes power down from central Government. What we have is unelected regional government that takes power up from local communities—precisely the reverse of what we have campaigned for. There are good reasons, to do with civil liberties, and resistance to the undue centralisation of power, for not having a national police force, and for preserving a degree of independence for police forces and authorities. Amendment No. 2, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, would provide for a police authority’s chair and vice-chair to be elected rather than appointed by the Secretary of State. Again, we are seeking to remove from the Bill a measure that increases centralisation and the Secretary of State’s power. When he was considering the amendment, the Minister said that greater flexibility would be allowed and that police authorities and forces, and the Government, would not be constrained. In this Bill, however, the Government always seem to be seeking more flexibility for themselves and less for local people and communities. He said that the Mayor of London would be able to appoint the chairs of police authorities. If that is good enough for the Mayor, why is it not good enough for police authorities all over the country? Why does the Bill have to reserve that power for the Government? Given that the support for amendment No. 2 may not be as widespread as we had hoped, we may not press it to a vote. However, I want to place on record our clear support for the principle that police authority chairs and vice-chairs should be elected and not appointed. Interestingly, the first Home Secretary to try to interfere in that process was the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), so it is welcome that the Conservative party is beginning to move away from that centralising instinct. It is just sad that the Labour party seems to have moved past it in the opposite direction. Amendment No. 82, in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), is based on good instincts. The Conservative party’s commitment to referendums has been questioned. That is rather uncharitable, although I remind the House of the trenchant opposition of the then Conservative Government to a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, but I am pleased that Conservative Members seem to have discovered the virtues of direct democracy. The Minister said in connection with amendment No. 82 that there was good provision for the reorganisation of police forces. Certainly, existing legislation contains good provision for reorganisation, but there is no provision for the application of a brake on the sort of hasty and precipitate reorganisation proposed in the Bill. I am sympathetic to this amendment, which would apply just such a brake and make it possible for public opinion to exert an influence on what would be a hasty and unwise process. However, the Minister identified a fundamental and practical problem with amendment No. 82, which I shall illustrate using an example involving the forces around Gloucestershire, Avon and Wiltshire. If referendums were held in each of those areas, and if Avon and Wiltshire voted in favour of a merger and Gloucestershire voted against, it is difficult to see how such a result could be resolved. The amendment would appear to give a veto to Gloucestershire over the other two areas. It is one thing to hold a referendum in a single area, such as happened with the devolution of power to Wales or Scotland, but it is much more difficult to hold one that involves the interlocking relationships between different areas. I now turn to amendments Nos. 14 to 20, again in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. Amendment No. 14 is another attempt to remove the extraordinary powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State. Not only will he be able to interfere when he feels that a police authority is failing but, as is made clear in schedule 2, paragraph 24, in proposed new section 40(2), he will also be able to interfere where he is"““satisfied that the whole or any part of a police force will fail to discharge its functions in an effective manner””." Added to all the Secretary of State’s many powers, therefore, is the psychic ability to predict when a police authority or force is going to fail. That is an extraordinary provision to include in the Bill. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs suggested that the amendment would command wide support. However, if it fails we have amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18, which offer alternative safeguards and checks and an independent voice against the power of the Secretary of State to intervene. The Minister says that checks will be allowed under the legislation, but we have to take his word on trust and hope that we will have an enlightened enough Home Secretary in office to allow those independent voices to be heard. If the Government are so happy for there to be independent checks and balances in the process, why will they not accept them on the face of the Bill? The Minister constantly wants flexibility for himself and his ministerial colleagues, but none for the people and local communities in respect of their policing. It seems perfectly reasonable to include measures in the Bill to put in writing safeguards against abuse of power, from which we must all be protected. If the opportunity arises, we shall seek the opinion of the House on amendment No. 14. I commend it and our other amendments to the House.