---

Police Restructuring

The chief constable of Gloucestershire, who was accurately quoted by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, has said that the proposals that are the subject of today’s debate represent the most profound change in policing since the modern police service was created in 1829. They should therefore have been based on compelling evidence, subjected to a full and thorough consultation exercise and been supported by a substantial body of public opinion. The extent to which these criteria have not been met has admirably been explained in detail by my right hon. Friend in his speech, with which I entirely agreed. I also largely agreed with the speech of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), and not surprisingly, as it consisted in large part of a full endorsement of the policies on which the Conservative party fought the last general election. It is a pity that he did not say so at the time, but we cannot have everything in life. I welcome his conversion to our policies. I want, however, to concentrate my remarks on the implications of the Government’s proposals for the policing of Kent. It is always useful to start at the beginning. The purpose of the report that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary was commissioned by the Home Office to prepare was to provide a professional assessment of whether the present 43-force structure is the right one to meet the challenges posed by the current and future policing environment. I would like to begin by assessing the extent to which Kent police meet those challenges. On any view, Kent is a high-performing force. In the baseline assessment, published as recently as 27 October, Kent was placed at joint third. Kent, Lancashire and Staffordshire are the only forces to have had a top five position for two successive years. In the overall 2004–05 police performance assessment framework, Kent achieved the fourth highest national score, and is listed as improved in five of the seven assessment categories measured. Kent has a proven track record in dealing with high-risk, protective services issues such as the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, the Deal barracks bombing and the channel tunnel fire. As the channel tunnel terminal is in my constituency, that is, of course, a matter of special and particular concern to me. Kent also has widely acknowledged and respected investigative expertise for major and serious crime. The force currently has a 100 per cent. detection rate for murder and manslaughter. Moreover, Kent is a force that is keen to change. Prior to the publication of the inspectorate’s report, Kent had already embarked on a number of comprehensive force-wide reviews to secure ““fitness for purpose”” for the next 10 years. In their plans to achieve that objective, Kent police are very conscious of their links with the agencies responsible for securing our borders and with their law enforcement counterparts across the channel. Those links, and Kent’s links with the Metropolitan police, are much closer than the links with Sussex and Surrey, although I stop short of suggesting that a merger with the gendarmerie of the Pas de Calais would be an appropriate solution. In the light of those facts, it is not surprising that the response of the chief constable and the Kent police authority to the Government’s proposal is that Kent can do best as a stand-alone strategic authority. That view is supported by nearly nine out of 10 Kent residents. What arguments could there possibly be for the view that Kent should merge with Sussex and Surrey? It certainly cannot be cost. The cost of the merger is estimated at £58 million. As we know, unless Kent caves in by Friday, which I very much hope it will not, the cost would not be met by the Home Office; it would be met by the council tax payers of Kent. The only argument as far as I can see against the stand-alone option is that although Kent satisfies the 6,000 total staff threshold set by the Home Secretary, it does not quite meet his requirement that forces should have at least 4,000 police officers. Kent does not quite satisfy that test, because it has taken a proactive approach to work force modernisation and, in particular, to the recruitment of support staff into a wide range of roles previously filled by police officers, which is something that every Home Secretary, including me, has encouraged police forces to do for the past decade or more. In addition, Kent has 323 special constables, who are not included in the figures. The question also touches on the extent to which the Home Office is dealing with those matters in good faith. On 15 November, the chief constable of Kent and the chairman of Kent police authority discussed the issue with John Giffard, the director of the police structures review unit, when Mr. Giffard assured them that the requirement for 4,000 police officers is not a must. On 29 November, the chairman of Kent police authority wrote to the Home Secretary asking for confirmation that that is indeed the case, but, sadly, no reply to that letter has been received yet. I hope that the Minister will specifically deal with that question and give me and the House the assurance sought in that letter. In his speech at the beginning of the debate, my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made some powerful criticisms of the Government’s approach, and I support those criticisms. Even if the Government are determined to proceed with their proposals in general—I hope that they are not—there is no case for forcing on Kent police a merger that does not accord with logic, the effective use of resources or the wishes of the people of Kent. I hope that wiser counsels will prevail.