Police and Justice Bill

It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and I always enjoy doing so, but, in following him, I realise that I have to try to match his eloquence. That is somewhat difficult, especially as I approach this issue with a very heavy heart. I apologise for arriving late in the Chamber. I had a huge backlog of admin work to do because I was in Committee all day yesterday, from morning till night, as the senior Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Education and Inspections Bill. I have to return to Committee very soon, so I will be making a bit of a breathless contribution to the debate. I want to complain not about policing standards, or police conduct and discipline, but the reorganisation. The matter is nothing new to the House because I secured an Adjournment debate on it in Westminster Hall. It was probably the most heavily attended debate on any subject discussed in Westminster Hall, and I must say that I enjoyed it. I spoke for rather too long, but nevertheless the subjects were covered in adequate detail. I point out to the Minister and the Government that ever since the topic came on the agenda and we were given three weeks in which to consider the proposal and come up with our options, I have consistently opposed it resolutely, in every syllable. I made the previous Home Secretary well aware of my opposition not only through the debate in Westminster Hall, but in private meetings with him and when he chose to raise the issue with me in the Tea Room—I did not chase him; he came to me. On each and every occasion, I had to make it plain to him and his then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), that I thought that the proposal was unjustified, unwarranted, illogical and unaffordable. I am not against change to the structure of the police force. Modernisation is certainly needed, as are re-equipping and new methods of detection and pursuit, especially to take account of the changes that are occurring in not only terrorism, but drug and commercial crime. However, simply coming up with a set of proposals, giving people three weeks to consider them, stating that options could be put forward, but sweeping those options to one side without even considering them, was not only illogical and impolite, but verging on the insane. I find it difficult to express myself in terms that are clear and polite. We were asked to concentrate on forces that would be able to supply 4,000 officers. When one questioned the basis for that figure, no logical justification was given. One then pointed out that there are forces in Scotland—they will not be affected by the measure because it will not impinge on Scotland at all, which must be rather comforting for a Home Secretary who comes from Scotland—with only 400 officers, so how are they going to survive and provide protective services if we must have forces with 4,000 officers in this country?