Police and Justice Bill

I apologise to the House for the absence of the shadow Home Secretary, who is detained in the north today. This is a curious Bill. It contains a number of disparate measures, some of which are perfectly sensible. All of us will support the principle of new powers to tackle child pornography and increased sentences for computer hacking. Other provisions such as the extension of summary justice will need closer examination in Committee, but this Bill maintains an unfortunate trend of increasing Government direction of the police. The Bill aims to prepare police authorities for the Government’s proposed regional police forces. It does not itself propose police amalgamations. The Government are already proceeding with those using secondary legislation under the Police Act 1996, but the manner in which the Home Secretary is using the powers should make the House extremely cautious about conferring on him the Bill’s proposed new powers to alter the role and shape of police authorities without proper parliamentary scrutiny. When police force amalgamations were last considered in the 1960s, a royal commission was established and it took two years to report. Legislation was introduced a year later. It was recognised that the structure of police forces is a fundamental issue on which the public, forces themselves and their authorities need to be properly consulted. The way in which the Government are proceeding could not be more different, but it is entirely in character. The Home Secretary’s proposals to amalgamate forces were announced last September not to the House but in a letter to police authorities. He gave them just four months to respond. He attempted, in the words of the Labour chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, to ““bully and bribe”” authorities to agree to his proposals and to meet the deadline—a tactic that backfired spectacularly when not one authority submitted. The Government did all they could to avoid parliamentary debate on the proposals, only finally agreeing to a debate before Christmas on a motion for the Adjournment when we and a number of hon. Members protested to Mr. Speaker. Last month, the Home Secretary again gave police authorities an ultimatum, this time to submit proposals for voluntary mergers within just three weeks. Again, almost all the authorities concerned refused. Cleveland said no, Cheshire said no, Merseyside said no, Dyfed-Powys said no, Gwent said no, North Wales said no, South Wales said no, Warwickshire said no, West Mercia said no, West Midlands said no. Even Staffordshire, whose chief constable is leading—