Westminster Hall
Tuesday 27 June 2006
[David Taylor in the Chair]
Police Reorganisation (Wales)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr.Michael Foster.]
9.30 am
Mr. Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con): Although there have been several opportunities in recent months both here and in the main Chamber to debate police force restructuring, this is the first time that we shall consider it purely in a Welsh context. It is an opportune moment to have the debate, given the recent decision—or non-decision—about restructuring following the change of leadership at the Home Office and in response to the crescendo of criticisms and worries expressed in recent weeks by chief constables in Wales, police authorities, Members of this House and the National Assembly and many others.
This debate also provides the first opportunity to discuss properly the findings of the inquiry conducted by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, which reported in February on the proposed restructuring. Although the issue has moved on somewhat since then, the findings of the inquiry are still relevant and deserve a response from the Minister. Apart from the odd question at Welsh and Home Office questions, we have had little time in which to debate this important matter from a Welsh perspective.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we have discussed the subject in the Welsh Affairs Select Committee?
Mr. Crabb: Yes; I have just referred to the inquiry undertaken by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and to the fact that it produced a report in February.
The proposal to create a single police force for Wales is the most far-reaching reform of policing in Wales for generations. What we shall be discussing goes far beyond purely overarching administrative and bureaucratic arrangements, which are of little interest to our constituents who care first and foremost about the delivery of high-quality policing in their immediate localities.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I, too, have worries about an all-Wales force, but several of them have been addressed. The issue of finance certainly remains outstanding, but does he agree that there are considerable savings to be made when there are four forces with four separate IT and administrative systems? Surely there must be scope for savings in those areas that can be transferred to front-line services.
Mr.
Crabb: I think that a number of theoretical benefits on
different fronts can be achieved from restructuring. The important
point is how we achieve that and whether realistic plans are in place
for
realising those theoretical benefits. However, I have big doubts about
whether such detailed plans are in place, as I shall
explain.
I may be wrong, but I suspect that the attachment felt to the four existing forces in Wales is nowhere near as strong as the feelings experienced for local hospitals or schools that are under threat of closure or change. Even so, people will accept change to the status quo in respect of policing only if—it is a huge “if”—there is a convincing case for reform. I have never opposed police force restructuring in principle. Reform of policing is an ongoing necessity in the light of new risks and challenges that emerge—reforms in terms of how resources are deployed, achieving better efficiency, strengthening local accountability and so on.
No Member of the House could have credibly responded to the issues raised in Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s report of last September by insisting on business as usual. It does hon. Members no credit when they wed themselves for eternity to structures that may or may not be out of date or may or may not offer the optimal arrangements for tackling the full range of law and order challenges, from local crime and antisocial behaviour through to serious and organised crime, terrorism and narcotics.
Three broad questions need to be asked at the outset regarding the proposal for a single strategic force for Wales. First, is the proposed destination the right one for Wales? Is an all-Wales strategic force the best possible option for meeting the evolving policing challenges in the years ahead, or could other arrangements do the job? My view is that, more than in any of the police force areas, the proposed restructuring for Wales is being driven by factors other than simply those concerned with tackling crime. Whatever Ministers currently say about whether the groundwork is being laid for the longer-term devolution of policing to the Assembly, I believe there is a strong political imperative driving the reform that may be overriding other factors and which may be leading us down the wrong path.
Mrs. Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a fourth question, which is that what is needed is also a time to bed in the current changes that are taking place within policing in south Wales? In my constituency of Bridgend and in the hon. Gentleman’s neighbouring constituency of Ogmore, the South Wales force is bedding in community policing successfully with community liaison meetings and regular contact on the issues that communities want targeted. Would it not be more appropriate to bed in those processes first and get that confidence with community policing before we move on to the wider issues of an all-Wales force?
Mr. Crabb: The hon. Lady makes a good point and, as ever, expresses herself well. That is the second broad question that I wanted to raise, which is whether the pace at which we are being moved towards the ultimate destination is appropriate in terms of securing the support of relevant stakeholders, including members of the public, and in terms of maximising the chances of the project’s success so that the theoretical benefits can be achieved in practice. On this score, the Government’s tactics and approach have, until recently, been hugely counter-productive, alienating many in Wales who would advocate some kind of positive change.
Thirdly, we need to ask whether the merger would have implications which would ultimately undermine and damage the quality of policing throughout Wales. So far, the unanswered questions over financial consequences, local accountability and the consequences for neighbourhood policing mean that to press ahead with the merger would amount to a reckless experiment which the people of Wales will be left to live with far beyond the life of this Government.
I welcome the current delay in forcing the merger in Wales, but only if this means that there can now be serious reflection on whether this is the right destination and if there will be a much more serious attempt to resolve the outstanding details regarding the implications of the merger. I have never doubted that police force restructuring offers potential gains on a number of different fronts. However, not once in the past 10 months have I come even close to being convinced that the Government have a realistic plan for achieving those benefits in practice.
The Secretary of State for Wales has been repeating the mantra that
“a single police force for Wales remains the best way of ensuring we are able to respond to the emerging threats of serious organised crime, drug trafficking and terrorism” ,
but not once have I heard him offer a serious justification for this statement or explain why other arrangements might not be workable—a federated structure or some other kind of co-operative arrangement, for example. He has spoken of a single police force for Wales as being the only option to counter
“global terrorism, Soham-type murders and serious and organised crime”.
These are big claims, designed I am sure, to tap into our worst fears. It is rather a distasteful approach and typical of those who cannot rely on the strength of their rational arguments. Those who oppose an all-Wales force, claims the Secretary of State for Wales, are not facing up to the real world.
An all-Wales police force has been the only reform on the menu so far. The all-Wales force has always been the preferred option, as the then Minister with responsibility for policing told the Welsh Affairs Committee at the start of the year, which suggests a less than open mind about what the alternatives might be.
We need to test the assumptions that lie behind the HMIC’s report as they apply to Wales. In particular, we should question the presumed relationship between size and effectiveness. The issue is by no means as clear cut as Ministers would have us believe. I am not convinced that the Minister’s preferred option for Wales has been tested thoroughly and nor am I convinced that a robust cost-benefit analysis of other arrangements has been undertaken.
The
standard assessment model laid down by the Home Office for the
evaluation of the different options for Wales was, in effect, a
straitjacket which delivered only one outcome—the one desired by
Ministers, namely an all-Wales force. We do not have anything like a
consensus on the ultimate destination of this
reform process and Ministers have been less than convincing on their own
preferred destination.
In January I asked the Home Secretary in a written parliamentary question if he would place in the Library copies of the business plans and implementation plans received relating to police force restructuring so that Members could get a better idea of the kind of analytical work being done in assessing the merger proposals. I was told that would not be possible as the information about protective services was too sensitive. Could the Minister make available copies of any work done to evaluate the different options for Wales? Has the work been done? If not, could the Minister commit to doing the work?
From discussions I have had with members of my own police force authority in Dyfed-Powys, I know that there is growing interest in the option of a federated police force structure, which would create new opportunities for co-workers while at the same time preserving some kind of local accountability and ensuring some flexibility.
In other parts of Wales too there is a feeling that all relevant options have not been properly assessed. The Welsh Affairs Committee’s report made the point that it is a pity
“that there has been no opportunity to explore the possibility of formalising the present informal co-operation between the North Wales police force and the police forces in Merseyside and Cheshire.”
On the time scale for the restructuring, until the pause initiated by the new Home Secretary a week or so ago, Ministers had been driving this process along at what can only be described as a lunatic pace. Talented as they are, there is absolutely no way that Ministers, their officials, the chief constables and their authorities could have done all the necessary groundwork for such a massive reform in the few short months between the publication of the report “Closing the Gap” in September 2005 and the end of the year deadline for submitting business cases.
“Closing the Gap” referred to the importance of mature leadership in achieving successful structural change. I am sorry to say that in place of mature leadership we have had bulldozer tactics which, at times, have amounted to bullying and, in the case of the offer of extra money to forces volunteering to merge by the deadline, something akin to bribery. The Welsh Affairs Committee was very clear on the negative effect of the pace at which this reform was being driven. It stated:
“the very short timetable set by the Government for the submission of a preferred option and business plan... has limited the scope of the debate and impeded consultation with the police forces and police authorities... it has also removed the possibility of full consultation with the public.”
As the report goes on to mention, the rushed process has had a negative impact on public opinion and served only to heighten the concerns regarding the restructuring. It states:
“the appearance of a ‘done deal’ has only added to the existing tensions and frustrations, which hindered genuine analysis of the issues and meaningful consultation with the public.”
I
sincerely welcome the relaxing of the timetable under the new
leadership at the Home Office. Given the box of unpleasant surprises
waiting for the new Secretary of State on his first day, it is entirely
understandable that he should now take the view that police force
restructuring is an unnecessary headache at this point in time.
However, it is vital that the period before us is not just a breathing
space for the new Home Secretary before he revisits the scheme and
attempts to push it through in exactly the same way. What we need now
is further meaningful reflection, dialogue and a reworking of
ideas.
As Don Evans, the chairman of the Dyfed-Powys police force has said, further dialogue is welcomed
“only provided it is constructive and if it attempts to address outstanding issues and not disguise them.”
The Home Secretary has promised to spend the summer in “discussion, dialogue and listening” to the concerns of police force leaders. He will be held to that promise.
Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman makes it clear that there are a number of views on this subject. There are those who wish to stay exactly as they are probably for ever and a day, those who support a merger on the scale that is being proposed and those who are somewhere in the middle. Where does he stand?
Mr. Crabb: I am not opposed in principle to restructuring. I made that very clear at the start of my speech. However, I need to be convinced that the restructuring will deliver concrete benefits in terms of policing in Wales. My point throughout has been that so far, I have not been anywhere near convinced that the plans for creating an all-Wales strategic force will achieve the benefits that we are led to believe are out there to be gained.
Back in February the Secretary of State for Wales, very much with his head in the sand, insisted that all concerns had been listened to and met with regards to an all-Wales force: accountability had been dealt with through the proposed regional police board structure, and the issue of financing had been dealt with through the provision of
“a pot of money to deal with the upfront costs of merging”.
If that assessment by the Secretary of State were correct, I doubt whether we would be here this morning. Much more time needs to be spent on properly addressing the consequences and implications of the merger for police force financing.
There is widespread acknowledgement that the financial offer from the Treasury of £50 million in 2006-07 and £75 million in 2007-08 to help meet the huge upfront costs of restructuring throughout England and Wales is nowhere near big enough.
Mrs.
Moon: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that part of the
reason for the decision to delay is so that local members can have an
opportunity to engage with the process more fully? I attended the South
Wales police force open day on Sunday and took the opportunity to
discuss with senior police officers how they saw the process
progressing and what their concerns were. Many of the concerns they
expressed were on matters that have been acknowledged as needing
further time, and the time now available is thanks to the work of Back
Benchers in asking the Home Office, “Can we have more time? Is
there not an
opportunity here for more discussion?” We have that opportunity
and we should welcome it rather than be
negative.
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. Interventions need to be brief. There will be an opportunity to make speeches later.
Mr. Crabb: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) makes a valid point. Many Members from all parties have been active in the past 10 months in asking pertinent questions. We hope that that is one of the reasons for the current delay.
The Association of Police Authorities estimates the cost of mergers to be in excess of £525 million, and work done by Dyfed-Powys police authority indicates that the current plans would lead to an annual deficit of about £50 million for an all-Wales force by 2012-13. Those figures mean that a merger will create a financial black hole that can be plugged only by cuts in the service and the loss of uniformed officers or a large increase in council tax, unless the Treasury can deliver a much more attractive offer.
One of the key recommendations in the Welsh Affairs Committee’s report was that the Government should provide further detail and information on how the costs of the merger will be met. I understand that, assuming that police authorities do not cut services, the average police precept would increase by more than 20 per cent., meaning rises of between £15 and £37 on a council tax bill on a band D property. The police levy on council tax has already soared since 1997, and much of it has been wasted on administration and paperwork. Council tax payers in Wales have suffered enough in recent years as a result of the botched revaluation and rebanding exercises. They must not be asked to foot the bill for the creation of an all-Wales police force.
Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. There is quite a difference between precepts in north and south Wales, which is why north Wales Labour MPs have campaigned hard on the issue. Extra money has gone into policing to deliver extra police on the ground, which is why it is important that there is ring-fencing to ensure that that continues.
Mr. Crabb: The point has been made.
The other alternative—service cuts—is equally unpalatable. According to the Dyfed-Powys authority, the high price of the merger would almost inevitably lead to service cuts, which would
“defeat the purpose of the restructuring.”
Drawing on work done by the Association of Chief Police Officers, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has previously mentioned a figure of up to 1,350 police officer posts that could be lost in Wales as a result of the restructuring. Last November, Unison said that 1,000 jobs could be lost, and others have put the figure between 800 and 1,000. That would be catastrophic for the quality of policing in Wales and the safety of our communities. Not one post should be lost as a result of the need to finance the restructuring. I, and I suspect other members, would like reassurance from the Minister on that point.
I understand that a cross-Government working group, on which the Welsh Assembly is represented,is considering the ongoing transitional financial arrangements for the restructured police forces and the issue of precept equalisation. Will the Minister update us on the progress that that group is making, as a background to any assurances that he might give on council tax and service cuts?
For reasons of time I shall not go deeply into the issue of accountability, other than to ask the Minister to describe his current thinking on local authority representation on the new all-Wales police force authority. Will it have a regional structure, and what are the proposed structure and location of deputy chief constables and senior police officers?
There is a very real fear that a merged police force will lead to a reconfiguration of uniformed officers in some parts of the Principality, with the hot spots in south-east Wales having an increase and rural areas a decrease. That concern is heightened by the matter of costs, which we have just discussed. The Secretary of State for Wales said recently that restructuring will not result in any shift of resources away from neighbourhood policing. Will the Minister explain the basis on which such an assurance can be given? Does he feel able to repeat that assurance to allay the fears of my constituents in Pembrokeshire, who regard an all-Wales force as a step backwards in community policing?
The report “Closing the Gap” made the point that
“any move to a more strategic organisation of policing needs to take place in a carefully planned and measured way which reduces the short-term risks as far as possible and keeps a clear line of sight on the benefits to be realised.”
The approach taken thus far regarding an all-Wales force flies in the face of each part of that statement. It is no wonder that it has been rejected by the North Wales and Dyfed-Powys police authorities and has the support of virtually no Back-Bench Member in Wales, irrespective of party. I doubt whether the project can be rescued successfully, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he intends to do so and to his answer to the specific points raised.
9.50 am
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) on securing the debate, which I welcome. However, I take issue with the perhaps dismissive way in which he dealt with the Welsh Affairs Committee report, because a lot of work went into that and it has had an influence.
Mr. Crabb: Far from dismissing the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I have quoted from its report extensively and drawn on a lot of the evidence received during its extensive inquiry, which formed the basis of many of the comments that I have just made.
Nia
Griffith: I suggest that that report has had considerable
impact on the thoughts of the Government, as have individual MPs. We
must give credit to the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon.
Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), for taking considerable
time in listening to us way before
the reshuffle; even then we were talking about an increased time scale
and looking into the financial issues. We were given assurances that
things would not be going ahead at the speed that had first been
suggested. It is important to give credit there, where credit is
due.
We now have a new Administration. The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety is here today and will be looking into the matter. The message that he has already conveyed to us is that he is willing to listen and to take into consideration time scale and cost, as well as the important issue of precept differences, which needs to be resolved.
What matters at the end of the day is that we build on the excellent work at local level. Llanelli is one of the most deprived areas in the Dyfed-Powys area, but in recent years there has been a considerable reduction in crime. A lot of work has been done at a local level to deal with crime when it is committed, help citizens to protect themselves better—home safety mechanisms and so forth—and provide programmes that help young people to overcome some of the difficulties that have led them to crime in the first place. In the reorganisation, keeping that local police force is very important. As I understand it, that is the plan.
I seek reassurance from the Minister again today that what the citizen will meet on the street will be the very high standard of service that we have now—indeed, an improved service—and that we will not see any leaching out from the neighbourhood to a centralised system, as referred to by the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. We must keep our officers on the street, doing the very good work that they are doing.
9.53 am
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) on securing this important debate.
We are told that there are two main drivers for the change. The first is the inability of a smaller force to deal with terrorism in its modern form. I venture to suggest that that is not a sustainable argument. My argument is that there are several avenues of co-operation between the Met and the West Midlands force, together with other forces, assisting the North Wales and Dyfed-Powys police. We have seen it before. Unfortunately, 15 years ago there were terrorist incidents in Wales. There was a great deal of co-operation throughout the forces. For example, in Holyhead an anti-terrorist branch successfully combated some of the terrorist problems emanating from the troubles in Northern Ireland.
What has happened with terrorism? Lord Carlile’s recent report says that the smaller ports have scaled down their anti-terrorism protection to a large degree. I wonder why, if there is an immediate terrorist threat, which we have been led to believe is fundamental to the change, the cover of those ports has been scaled down? I also wonder why, if it is such a problem, our friends in Scotland have not bothered to address the issue.
The
second reason that we are given for the reorganisation is that forces
of fewer than 4,000 officers are unable to deal with organised crime.
Operation Tarian was a recent successful operation mounted by Gwent,
South
Wales and Avon and Somerset. It netted some of the most dangerous
criminals in the UK, who were hell bent on bringing crack cocaine into
south Wales, having flooded the market in the Bristol area. They were
heavily armed and ready to do whatever was necessary to avoid being
apprehended. In large part, they are now behind bars. That was possible
because of the excellent understanding between Avon and Somerset, South
Wales and Gwent police.
For some months, I have been asking for a comment from the previous occupant of the Minister’s post about the success of that operation. We are led to believe that there will be a review of it some time during 2006, well after it was thought that the reorganisation would have gone ahead. I wonder whether that timing should have been brought forward.
There is excellent day-to-day co-operation, both between the south Wales forces and over the border. I know it to be true of Dyfed-Powys and West Mercia. From my experience of dealing with legal matters, I have seen daily liaison between North Wales police, the Cheshire constabulary and the Merseyside force. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire asked whether we could have more co-operation. Of course that would be a good thing and it should be nurtured, but even now there is excellent swapping of information, even on an hourly basis between these forces. So it is going on. It is not as if suddenly officers have been told that they must start communicating with officers elsewhere. It is happening as I speak, and it has been happening for a long time.
Reference has already been made to the manner in which the consultation was mounted. I am afraid that it is a good example of the conceit of consultation by the Government. First of all, they set an unrealistic time scale. That seems to be important. We have seen it before. They set an unrealistic time scale and give a single option to those who are being consulted that paints them into a corner.
Secondly, they do not provide the pertinent facts and figures truly to inform the consultation. That has even been confirmed by the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). We do not really know what the effect will be on the precept. We do not really know how much the reorganisation will cost. I have had answers from Ministers saying various things. So I am in the dark, even now, and more to the point, our local authority leaders are in the dark. We do not know exactly what the financial effects will be. They will drive any efficiency gains and will drive the performance of any force. That is important. The Government keep people relatively in the dark so that they do not have the facts during the consultation.
Then, the all-important one—the Government ignore the results if they are unfavourable. I pray in aid the recent National Offender Management Service consultation in which everyone who responded—I beg your pardon, Mr. Taylor, 96 per cent. of the respondents—including the National Association of Probation Officers, the Prison Officers Association, the police and social services—said, “Do not make these changes, whatever happens”. Yet the Government went ahead with NOMS. That is the ultimate conceit of such consultation.
A recent debate on 20 June in the other place highlighted that point. Baroness Harris said:
“The difficulty is that the Minister says that her right honourable friend Dr. Reid and her honourable friendMr McNulty are now exploring ways forward whereas, as we said earlier, yesterday, on the Floor of the House in another place, the Home Secretary made it clear that the destination stays the same. It is all very well listening, but if one will not change one's mind about where one goes, what does it matter?”
“My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made it clear that on the basis of the information that we have, especially the HMIC advice, that road of travel is inevitable and the destination is absolutely secure. The question is how quickly can we go along that road and what do we need to do to ensure that that delivery eventually takes place?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2006; Vol. 683, c. 728.]
There has been a partial reprieve, perhaps because the Government are listening to arguments, but for all I know because Cleveland has taken the Government to the High Court for a judicial review of the process. That would have an impact on all forces in England and Wales. I know not what the precise reason is, but I am grateful that we at least have some time to talk at reasonable length. However, we still do not know the basic answers.
I refer to what Geraint Price-Thomas, the chair of the police authorities of Wales, said in a 27 April briefing to Members of Parliament:
“Additionally, we have also stressed the need for clear and definitive information from the Home Office on a number of key issues, namely around finance, funding, precept equalisation, governance and accountability. It was due substantially to a lack of such information that the police authorities were not able to fully consider the issues around the submission of a preferred option at the end of December 2005. Unfortunately, the situation in respect of both timescales and a lack of necessary information continues.”
That was at the end of April. He went on to talk about council tax and the impact of precept equalisation:
“While the Home Office has indicated that it is prepared to make provision for phased precept equalisation, there has been no definitive decision by the Home Office on this nor a clear decision on the exact period of harmonisation.”
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |