Police and Justice Bill

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed. I hope we can dispose of this amendment relatively swiftly. When we last debated the issue of police force mergers on Report, I indicated that, while the Government were no longer pursuing the amalgamation of forces, it was necessary to retain the powers in the Police Act 1996 for the Home Secretary to initiate mergers, so that they were available as a backstop. When the matter was debated in the other place on 24 October the shadow Minister for Police Reform, Nick Herbert, sought five assurances on this issue. My honourable friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, Mr Tony McNulty, was happy to give a broad yes on all five points. For the record and for the benefit of this House, I am ready to repeat those assurances. First, I say again, enforced amalgamations will be a last resort, for now we are looking at other means to narrow the protective services gap. Secondly, of course a proper case for any future amalgamations must be made. Indeed, the 1996 Act requires the Home Secretary to set out his case for any merger. Thirdly, we accept that any proposals for mergers must be subject to full public consultation and that this should not be confined to the statutory four-month consultation period required by the Police Act. Fourthly, on the question of parliamentary scrutiny, merger orders initiated by the Home Secretary are subject to the affirmative procedure under the Act, so a measure of scrutiny is already built in. However, we are ready to consider additional opportunities to debate any merger proposals. Finally, if we in the Home Office have learnt anything from the previous experience, it is that the financial implications, including the issue of precept equalisation, must be fully resolved before any merger proposals are finalised. I hope that in the light of these assurances the House will now feel able to agree not to insist on this amendment. Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)