Police and Justice Bill

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. Although it preoccupied us all far too much earlier this year, I hope that the possibility of police mergers is now dormant. But that does not mean that they will not be reactivated in the future. I hope that the Government have leant lessons about the way that the matter was approached and that we will not see the mistakes repeated. As we have just heard, the recent Statement by the Minister for Policing made clear that this measure had been an extremely costly way of achieving very little. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made clear, Surrey incurred great expense—the relevant sum was more than £250,000—as did my local force, North Yorkshire. We should remember that the figure of nearly £4 million set out in the Statement reflects only the limited range of eligible costs directly attributable to restructuring and is only a fraction of the total sums involved in the very extensive and detailed work that was undertaken by forces and authorities. This represents a lot of time, effort and money, which has been diverted at the expense of real policing. Since that time some excellent collaborative policing has taken place. A very good example of that was demonstrated earlier this month. I refer the Minister to a Thames Valley press release issued on 10 October, which states: "““Officers from across the south of England have arrested 14 people aged between their mid-20s and mid-50s in a series of raids this morning in connection with a series of crimes valued at over £30 million.""The arrests, which took place in Oxfordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, are a significant development for Operation Haul, which was set up in October 2005 jointly by Thames Valley Police, West Mercia Constabulary, Warwickshire Police, Wiltshire Police and Gloucestershire Police to target an organised crime network believed responsible for 23 serious offences throughout the five force areas. Thames Valley Police Assistant Chief Constable Francis Habgood, Operation Haul commander on behalf of the five forces, said, ‘The crimes being investigated by Operation Haul include some of the highest profile—and highest value—burglaries this country has ever seen’””." That is an excellent operation and shows exactly what police forces can do, and what we said they could do when the Government put forward their ill judged proposals on mergers. The five assurances to which the noble Baroness referred, and to which the Minister again referred, which were asked for in the other place and given by the Minister for Policing, are important. I wholeheartedly support them. For me the one that resonates is the need to ensure that adequate consultation takes place. This consultation needs to listen to what is being said by both the public and the experts. Merely paying lip service to consultation, having predetermined the outcome, is completely counterproductive, as I hope the Government have learnt. Local identity matters to local people. They feel a bond with, and take a pride in, their local police force which is based on this identity. That is not to say that local identity is all that should be considered, but minimising its value and ignoring alternatives which might accommodate it is asking for trouble. The other assurances are equally important. Clearly, any future proposals must take account of what is allowable under financial rules in relation to precepting. They must involve making a meticulously and preferably independently evaluated and costed case. It must be a last resort that no other approach will solve, otherwise the public will never be convinced that some other way of doing things is not more important than their local allegiance. Finally, it must be subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny. It is, after all, a key constitutional issue if policing by consent is to mean anything. Like the noble Baroness I shall be keeping a very close eye on any future statutory instruments dealing with police mergers. It is vital to ensure that there is adequate opportunity for a robust debate to explore whether mergers might, at some point in future, be sensible, and to address the other key criteria set out by the noble Baroness. Half-baked proposals that do not meet those criteria will not pass the test. With the promise of a gimlet-eyed watching brief, I am reasonably content to leave matters regarding mergers in the Government’s hands for the present. On Question, Motion agreed to. 5: Clause 15, leave out Clause 15 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason- 5A: Because the clause removed by the Lords Amendment would improve the provisions about conditional cautions