Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department – in the House of Commons at 2:30 pm on 15 May 2006.
How many representations he has received (a) opposing and (b) supporting the merger of the Essex police force with the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire police forces.
It is not possible to provide the statistics in the way that the hon. Gentleman has requested. However, we have received a range of submissions, many of them proposing a solution that differs from our original proposal. They will all form part of our continuous consideration.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but does he accept that there is very little support in Essex for merging Essex police with Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire police forces, two counties with which Essex has very little in common? What is more important—holding the line on a wrong decision made by his predecessor, or getting it right? Here is an opportunity to be a hero, rather than a villain.
Hope springs eternal, Mr. Speaker.
This is not a decision that offers the choice of getting it right or pursuing the strategic objectives of my predecessor, which were based on considered evaluation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. It is clear that the present strategic structure of our police services is not fit for purpose in many ways. Therefore, the status quo is not an option. The strategic goals outlined by HMIC, and the work that was done by my predecessor, point us in the right direction. I have not had time, to be honest, to consider these matters in the considerable detail that would be wished in the hon. Gentleman's area and in many other areas, because of other events over the past week. I will be turning my mind to how we achieve this strategic objective in the not too distant future. I hope to be able to return to the hon. Gentleman with fuller detail.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us in the area of the Bedfordshire police are concerned that whatever the reconfiguration between the counties, resources should be released into front-line policing? I welcome the extra 24 police officers that we have in Luton. Will my right hon. Friend ensure, as part of the reconfiguration, that Luton has parity with other similar police forces? That would mean that we would have an additional 60 to 70 police officers. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that reconfiguration will give us the extra resource that we need on our front line?
I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for the interests of her own area. She will know that there are a considerable number of police officers on the beat and in the forces who were not there when the new Labour Government took office in 1997. There are about 13,000 more police officers. In addition, far more of them are on the beat than previously. Neighbourhood policing teams, as well as the back-ups from antisocial behaviour personnel and community wardens, and so on, mean that the capability of the police in combating crime and restoring order is far greater.
It is true that any restructuring will be aimed at further enhancing that capability. That is the intention. This will be costly, but we have already made it plain that although restructuring will be expensive we have undertaken to meet the net reasonable costs that arise as a direct result. At this early stage, I cannot speak with great authority about the position on the street in Luton. I undertake to educate myself on that in the not too distant future, and to write to my hon. Friend.
I beg to differ with the response that the Home Secretary made to Bob Russell. Essex is the size of a small European country and—
Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. It is not the function of Question Time to allow hon. Members to differ with Ministers. The purpose of Question Time is to put questions to Ministers. If the hon. Gentleman puts a question to the Minister, I can help him out.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to know from the Home Secretary whether he will do what his predecessor agreed to do, which was to listen to the people of Essex, who voted unanimously for a no in keeping an Essex police force independent.
Of course I will listen to the people of Essex, and to people throughout the country, along with their various representatives. That is what I have undertaken to do, as my predecessor did. He asked for people's views on these matters, and we shall consider them carefully. I have already said that we must take into account the individual parts of the whole and how the whole of our police service in England operates in its efficacy and capability. That may not always concur with the expressed wish of each of the individual components. However, we try to get the best overall capability that is possible. I think that the strategic direction that has already been set out is probably the right one in which to move and will lead to the right conclusions at which to arrive. I have already undertaken to listen, to read, to try to learn and to consider how we get there. When I have done that, I will return to the House and the hon. Gentleman will be able to question me.
With a little more time in his new office my right hon. Friend will become aware that many in Bedfordshire, including me, have made strong representations in favour of a north-south merger with Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that possibility, given that all the transport links and the natural geographical coherence means that Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire work as a unit, as with the coastal counties, but possibly in two groups?
Without claiming any particular credit, I can tell my hon. Friend that in the limited time that I have been in post, I have already become aware of that submission. As I said earlier, it is not possible to provide the statistics that Bob Russell requested—perhaps fortunately—but I am aware that a lot of differing views have been expressed on this issue. Many of those views disagree with our proposals and most of them disagree with each other, so the wisdom of Solomon, elevated to an even greater extent, may be required. The HMIC report examined the current system and said that it was not fit for purpose; it is not serving the public as it should by giving the maximum protection. That said, I want to examine exactly how we reach our end goals.
Just today, the Prime Minister said:
"The Criminal Justice System is still the public service most distant from what...people want".
But the merger of police forces such as Bedford, Essex and Hertfordshire, which will cover an area of 2,500 sq m and a population of 3 million, will inevitably make chief constables more distant from the communities whom they are meant to serve. Will the Home Secretary look again at the federal option advanced by the Association of Police Authorities, which would achieve the objective of strengthening protective services without the loss of local accountability? Local people do not want to lose such accountability.
On the suggested federal option, my understanding is that it has been tried before in several areas and has not worked particularly well.
indicated dissent.
That is my understanding, which is why HMIC did not adopt it as the preferred solution. So although I am prepared to consider every option, as a new Home Secretary, I would obviously not like to allow the hon. Gentleman to believe that I do not consider the strategic direction pointed out by HMIC to be the one that we should pursue. That said, I shall look in detail at how the matter might be dealt with. Secondly and incidentally, I do not believe that the strategic vision outlined in the HMIC recommendations is incompatible with more local accountability; the two elements could be combined. Thirdly, at the end of the day what people want is a more capable police service that reduces crime, fear and feelings of insecurity. They want a service that is seen better to protect, and to be fair to, the vast majority of people—who are decent, hard-working and responsible citizens—rather than a service that is unfairly balanced against their interests.