Proceeding contribution from Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 9 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Police and Justice Bill.
Police and Justice Bill
My Lords, I am interested in the use of ““that would be the effect””. The Minister then said ““yes””, which I hope is an absolute answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. We might consider that further. I shall deal first with the Minister’s response to my Amendment No. 24. I have always made it clear that it was tabled so that ACPO might have an opportunity for a response. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, that it is vital that we have local accountability—the thrust of the Bill—whereas we all agree that there should be no interference with operational matters. We will return to that in a later debate. I am interested in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. It was tabled in exactly the right spirit: post the Government’s haste in seeking to force mergers, we must look at the new policing landscape which will obtain. It is important to see how to improve collaboration, particularly on protective services and strategic services overall. I should perhaps now declare an interest, or my thanks, to my own police in Surrey. This summer, they asked if I would like to see one of the strategic services in operation, and I went along to Fairoaks where the Surrey police helicopter is based. Of course, one never knows if the helicopter is going to be called into service; whether it was fortunate for the people of Surrey or not, it was fortunate for me that it was. I was therefore able to observe the remarkable service they provide to Surrey at close quarters, and how they co-operate with other police forces. We shall need to consider how that is best delivered in the months and, I hope, years to come—if the Government do not press ahead with forced mergers until the next Prime Minister calls an election. It was never my intent to press this amendment, but I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 685 c33-4
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Administration Association of Chief Police Officers Police Powers Mergers Police authorities Metropolitan Police Authority Standards National Policing Improvement Agency Association of Police Authorities
- Legislation
- Police and Justice Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:14:43 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350323
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350323
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350323