Police and Justice Bill

First, I commend all of those who are still with us in the debate, notwithstanding the provocation to be elsewhere, for entering into it with such vigour into it. Amendment No. 60, as the noble Baroness says, would, if her construct and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, were approved, give a veto on decisions about whether to alter police areas to an unidentified and unaccountable independent body. I find that surprising, bearing in mind the other areas in which she has mentioned accountability. As I said about Amendment No. 14, the role of the elected government of the day is to take strategic decisions about the policing of this country. That is certainly not a role that should be contracted out. Furthermore, the amendment ignores the fact that the current process of restructuring was initiated by the report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary which, I would argue, is wholly separate from central government, police forces or police authorities—to use the terms of the amendment. Throughout its history, it has demonstrated its independence, acuity and knowledge of police services and delivery and has been of huge assistance and benefit to each Administration as it has struggled with the arduous task of producing the best quality policing possible in the time available. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary report, Closing the Gap, is clear, independent evidence of the case for change. As for the cost of change, we make announcements. We have been publishing the case for each individual amalgamation, setting out the costs and benefits of merger. Those cases are informed by the independent, professional advice of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. Our analysis of the business case is put forward by police forces and police authorities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has invited me to comment on it, I agree that the benefits of merger must outweigh the costs. In assessing such matters, it is right that the Home Secretary should seek independent advice from HMIC, but I return to the point that, ultimately, it is for Ministers to decide these matters—not to, effectively, pass the buck to a third party. Debate about who should or should not have the responsibility has been going on for more than 40 years. Noble Lords will remember that debates about whether we should restructure and who should have responsibility for that were first exposed during the previous royal commission on the police, which reported in 1962—44 years ago. Contrary to popular belief, the amalgamations of the late 1960s were not a direct product of that royal commission. The fact is that that royal commission recommended the setting up of an expert working party which would report confidentially to the Home Secretary, who would then publish the proposals. It stated at paragraph 284:"““It is not our business to assess in detail the strength of the case for reorganising particular police forces in particular areas on the basis of larger units, but we are satisfied that there is here a problem which Her Majesty’s Secretaries of State should examine as part of their duty to promote the higher standards of efficiency in the police service””." So even the last royal commission agreed that it was for the Home Secretary of the day to decide these matters. There has been nothing to cause us to believe that that assessment was wrong. I return to the point I made previously: that Sections 32 and 34 of the Police Act 1996 already set out a well established process that contains a number of checks and balances. When the Home Secretary initiates a merger, he must give his reasons why he considers that it would be in the interests of the efficiency and effectiveness of policing. He must give notice of his proposals to the affected police and local authorities and must give them at least four months to submit objections. Thereafter, the Home Secretary must consider any objections and respond to them. Only then may he lay a draft order before Parliament, where it must be debated and thereafter approved. That is a comprehensive set of pre-conditions, and we really do not see any case for adding more. The use of a referendum, which forms the body of Amendment No. 61 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is really a third scheme to change the arrangements for giving effect to the police-force amalgamations. There is a place for referendums, but in our parliamentary system they are reserved for major issues of constitutional significance such as devolution and our future relationship with the European Union. Police restructuring is not such an issue. It would be an abrogation of our duty as a Government to contract out such a matter in a referendum, as I said in response to an earlier amendment. It is for Ministers to decide these issues after taking expert advice from the inspectorate and after having listened to chief constables, police authorities and others, and for Parliament to debate them and to give its consent. We do not have government by referendum. The Home Secretary and my honourable friend Tony McNulty are continuing to explore the way forward with authorities and police officers, not least the chief constables. We also have a number of problems with the detail of the amendment. It would require a referendum even where the police authorities have volunteered to merge. I find that a surprising proposition. The amendment requires the Home Secretary, affected police authorities and the Electoral Commission to agree the wording of the question. What if they cannot agree? Would this mean that the referendum cannot be held? For referendums covered by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the requirement is only for the Electoral Commission to give its views on the intelligibility of the question. There is no requirement for it to agree the question, so this would be a significant extension of its role. Finally, the amendment requires majority votes in each of the affected areas. If, say, two out of three areas delivered majorities in favour of a merger, why should the third area, perhaps with a much smaller population, be able to exercise a veto? The process of police-force restructuring in which we are now engaged is not unprecedented. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the then 125 police forces were reduced to the current 43. That was a far more fundamental reshaping of the police service than the one on which we have now embarked. There were no referendums then, and we see no reason for them this time around. I know that the noble Baroness will say that the amendment is really a stalking horse, that we will raise the whole subject of referendums so that we can just have this debate, and that I am not suggesting that the amendment is correct. I do not seek to pull the amendment apart on that basis, but shall say simply that one would have to consider a plethora of difficult testing issues if any such provision were to get off the ground. We do not think that the amendment is necessary. As I said, there needs to be an informed debate on this issue, but ultimately Governments are elected to decide such issues, and we think that that is where the responsibility should remain. I know that the noble Baroness will return to this topic at the next stage, but I thank her for indicating that the one-nil victory that she has already secured from the Government tonight will suffice. We all hope, however, that England will do a little better.