Clause 5
6:15 pm
Paul Holmes (Chesterfield, Liberal Democrat)
The logic and rationale for amendments 56 to 58 can be taken as read from the detail of this morning’s debate. They are all part of the same principle. On amendment 56, for example, we do not see why the Secretary of State should have to be consulted if more than six police forces decide to collaborate. I am not quite sure why the arbitrary figure of six was chosen. Why not four or eight? Why is it felt to be necessary that the Home Secretary should have the power to say, “Yes, we can have six police forces, or seven, or eight, collaborating.” It seems to be a completely unnecessary degree of central control in a system that we would prefer to be devolved completely to directly elected, responsible and powerful local police authorities.
The same point arises in amendment 57. We do not see why the Secretary of State should have the power to direct the police authorities in collaboration arrangements. It is the same for amendment 58.
In response to amendment 57, the Minister might talk about the need to get authorities to collaborate on terrorism issues. However, in July 2007, when there was the terrorism issue, the Metropolitan Police Service worked very closely with the police force in Leeds, for example, without the need for prescribed direction from the centre. At the time of the tube bombings, police forces all over the country worked very closely with the Metropolitan police—regular and ad hoc collaboration—because of that emergency. The following year, a friend of mine, whose is a detective in Chesterfield, spent a lot of time in London on a semi-permanent basis working with the Metropolitan police to swell the ranks of the Criminal Investigation Department and to investigate that major act of terrorism.
Collaboration, therefore, can and does take place, without the need for the Secretary of State to make directions—to say yes, to say no and so on. That is all part of this morning’s debate on new clauses 2 and 4 and, more recently, new clause 3. I do not see the rationale for central Government having that degree of control over every decision and action taken by police authorities around the country.