Police and Justice Bill

I am delighted to add my name to the amendment. It is a cleverly crafted amendment which meets the concerns of all those who spoke on Second Reading against the hastily devised police mergers. This is not a wrecking amendment; it would help to tighten the criteria by which the Secretary of State could merge police forces. In other words, we are not saying that the Home Secretary cannot proceed to merge; we are saying that there are better ways of doing so. There was the undue haste to merge police areas without adequate consultation. Then there was the threat by the previous Home Secretary that he would proceed to merge in any case. The amendment proposes that we place the matter firmly in the hands of police authorities to make such a request and that the Home Secretary decides if it is necessary in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. A statement was issued yesterday, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, quoted, saying that plans have been delayed until the autumn. I cannot understand why something that was so important and urgent a few weeks ago that the Home Secretary was not even prepared to wait has suddenly been put on the back-burner. But there has been a public outcry about the mergers. There are legal challenges in the courts and there is a lack of a proper response to alternative arrangements, such as a federal structure. I thank the Minister for arranging a briefing meeting last week. I am sure we all benefited from the contribution of Sir Ronnie Flanagan. The question remains: are the Government ultimately proceeding to create a national police force, where the ultimate control remains with the Secretary of State? We have again and again seen centrally directed executive action to tackle local problems. Policing is essentially a local matter. The further away the decision-making process is, the more difficult it is to resolve the situation. I suspect that to achieve the best possible performance, which we all aspire to, the Government have gone overboard in demanding powers that are best left to the police authorities. The case for better performance through wider powers for the Home Secretary has not been proved. I received a letter today—I am sure that many other noble Lords also had it—from the West Mercia Police Authority. The chair of the authority, Paul Deneen JP, has this to say:"““The Home Secretary’s proposals are predicated on the need to improve Protective Services following a report entitled ‘Closing the Gap’ by Denis O’Connor, HMIC. The methodology and analysis of this report has been repeatedly questioned and criticised by many commentators, including Professor Tony Lawrence of Warwick University.""The report identifies an ideal minimum overall size for Police Forces of 4000 officers or 6000 officers and staff in total. Yet West Mercia Police Authority which has 2500 officers and a little over 4000 officers and staff overall has continued to be identified as a top performing force. The performance of Protective Services, which in the main rely on the establishment of relatively small, highly specialised teams, appears to have little relationship to the overall size of the force””." There goes the Home Office’s argument for efficiency. It is time now, rather than waiting until late summer, for the Home Office to come up with further proposals. I suggest that the best way to proceed is to give the police authority the power to determine whether mergers are necessary and let the Home Secretary decide whether, in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness, that is an appropriate course of action. That is why we support the amendment.