Police and Justice Bill

I want to make two points on that issue. First, what I said on counter-terrorism rightly does not prevail in respect of serious and organised crime, which belongs more readily at the regional or more localised level, albeit under the umbrella of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. However, we have taken out of that, almost sideways, our centre for human trafficking—although the hon. Gentleman will understand that we are against such trafficking rather than promoting it—and other elements such as the European action plan, so that runs alongside, though very much with the grain, what police forces are doing locally and nationally. I repeat that I am hugely impressed and enthused by the co-operation and enthusiasm of police forces, services and authorities in taking this matter forward. I give a little to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs Lait) in allowing that Sussex is ahead of the game—as are some other forces—but others are way behind in even thinking about filling the gap or protecting services. They have come on in leaps and bounds—perversely or otherwise, to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne)—and we are already in a healthier position in terms of filling the gap that O’Connor recognised than we were before mergers were contemplated. We can argue cause and effect, but that would be like counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Even given that context, it is right and proper that we have the ability to enforce merger if necessary. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) mentioned five tests and I shall answer as sincerely as possible. He asked whether amalgamations would be a last resort, and I confirm that they would. My colleague in the other place has already made that clear and I am happy to do so, too. His second question was whether a proper case would have to be made for amalgamation, and the answer is of course yes. The Bill requires the Home Secretary to set out the case for merger and, having learned the lessons from the summer, we recognise that the case would have to be made very clearly. The hon. Gentleman asked about adequate public consultation beyond the statutory period. That is what we tried last time, perhaps feebly. The four-month statutory period came right at the tail end of the process, which started last September and finished in July, which is somewhat more than four months. We will learn the lessons about the method of consultation. As a democrat, I would resist the call for local plebiscites, because I do not think that they are very democratic. On the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, Hertfordshire was enthusiastic about a merger, just not with Essex. It would have been happy to merge with Bedfordshire and there is still a strong desire for the two to work strongly together. Naturally, they look more to Thames Valley than to Essex for further help, assistance and collaboration. The picture that has been painted of the Government on one side and 43 forces railing against merger on the other is not accurate. Any merger order would be subject to the affirmative procedure, and we have learned the lessons about exploring options for additional parliamentary debate and scrutiny above and beyond the orders at the end of the process. We must of course carefully consider the financial implications and have a proper resolution of issues such as precept equalisation, capping and others. Therefore, with a skip in my heart and in all humility, I think that I may give a broad yes to all five of the points raised by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs.