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 Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, 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.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we have discussed the subject in the Welsh Affairs Committee?

Yes; I have just referred to the inquiry undertaken by the Welsh Affairs 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.

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.

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.

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?

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 that 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, the Secretary of State for Wales claims, 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 it?

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 and 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.

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?

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 regard 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.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that part of the reason for the decision to delay is 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.

Order. Interventions need to be brief. There will be an opportunity to make speeches later.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 friend Mr 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?”

Baroness Scotland responded:

“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.”

On the cost of change, he said:

“While the Home Office has tried to assure us that the cost of restructuring will not be borne by council tax payers, there is still much uncertainty regarding how the set-up and recurring costs of restructure will be met. The Home Office has stated that it would meet 100% of the net set-up costs. The exact levels of these costs, however, have yet to be determined between our Welsh project team and the Home Office. Significantly, the estimated cost of protective services submitted by the Wales project team has been reduced by 75% in the Home Office’s assessment of our business case. This is an operational issue of grave concern to the chief constables and ourselves, as it strikes at the fundamental rationale behind restructuring.”

He also commented on the funding formula and the sparsity element in funding of Welsh police forces.

Only a few months ago, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of police gave all four Welsh police forces a glowing report. They had improved in many ways, and they were good previously. During the past 15 years, Dyfed-Powys and North Wales in particular have consistently been in the upper quartile of semi-rural forces in England and Wales.

I pay tribute to Dyfed-Powys, for example, which at this moment is creatively opening police stations in villages throughout the area wherever there is an opportunity, even in the corners of chemist shops. It may be a volunteer who is involved, but a police contact is available. I went to Whitland not so long ago to see the situation for myself. The police are being as creative as they can about providing services locally, as they should be.

My late father was a police sergeant and my brother is a police chief inspector, so I have been versed in these issues for some time. In fact, I have lived in many police stations and I even had a train set in a jail cell at one time. Some people say that I should still be there, but that is another story.

North Wales police have made their points on the restructuring clear. They have canvassed widely throughout north Wales. All six unitary councils that were contacted responded and said that they were strongly against the proposed merger. Four of them said that there would be a loss of services in north Wales. The bottom line is that two thirds of the population of Wales live in the south and the south-east. That must be considered. We are worried that money and other valuable resources will be shifted to what the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire described as the hot spots and that rural and community policing will suffer. I am sure that that is the last thing anyone wants. Four of the councils were concerned about loss of accountability. Three said that the merger was not justified. Three were concerned about the cost. Three were concerned about loss of local knowledge, and three criticised the consultation process. Mention was also made of the threat to community policing and to Welsh language policy.

North Wales police also wrote to the town and community councils in north Wales. Ninety letters were received: 34 from the western division, 34 from the eastern division and 22 from the central division. Of the 90 letters, 89 were against the merger and one did not express a view. Again, 24 councils gave the cost of restructuring as a reason; 20 referred to the loss of services in north Wales; 14 mentioned the centralisation of resources in south Wales; 14 talked about the threat to community policing; 12 referred to the loss of accountability; and 12 criticised the consultation process. Points were also made about the loss of local knowledge and it was said that the merger was not necessary.

There has been an overwhelming response in the North Wales police area, and I venture to suggest that the response is not limited to that area. We have heard what the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said about the Dyfed Powys area. We know that Gwent is very unhappy. In fact, all the police authorities in Wales remain desperately unhappy because they feel that they are still in the dark.

A submission was made this month by the clerk to the North Wales police authority. He wrote to the Home Secretary and made telling points. He referred to the geography of Wales and the fact that it is unfortunately very difficult to travel from north to south. He said that there would be huge problems with travelling for a single police authority. In fact, the travelling distance between Holyhead and Cardiff is slightly further than that from central London to Preston. That gives an idea of the likely problems. The clerk refers to the council tax equalisation problem and the likely capping criterion of 5 per cent., which will result in the black hole referred to by the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. The clerk also refers to future funding and the annual deficit of £29.9 million in 2009, rising in 2012 to just over £50 million. We have to ask how that black hole will be filled.

The formula funding also concerns the hon. Gentleman, as do governance and the command structure. I remember asking the previous Home Secretary about the command structure when he made a statement about the matter, and he said that district councils would be the key to the command structure—the basic command unit. Unfortunately, we have not had district councils in Wales for many years, which goes to show that the merger has not taken any of the Welsh concerns into account.

I see that last week the other place passed an amendment that in effect says that the local police authorities will have to sanction any change. No doubt that will come back for further votes in this place, but I believe that it shows the great strength of feeling. In a fortnight from yesterday there will be a meeting with the Home Secretary attended by representatives of all the parliamentary parties in Wales. Clearly, when all parties in Wales come together round the table something is seriously wrong. I am sure that there will be further discussion, and I hope that we will get more information, because I have no doubt that the current situation is unhelpful. Proper decisions cannot be made because of the lack of basic information.

On 8 May, a letter from the chairmen of the police authorities representing Cheshire, Cleveland, Northamptonshire, North Wales and West Mercia was printed in The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian and the Financial Times. It stated:

“The current proposals are being rushed through amid growing concern that they will lead to a damaging reduction in performance, a collapse in neighbourhood policing, and a significant loss of accountability. Serious questions remain about the costs and financing of mergers, the impact on council tax, the timescales for transition and the governance arrangements. Opinion polls show overwhelming public opposition, only two police authorities have volunteered to proceed with mergers…and some have initiated legal proceedings to halt the process.”

There is, I am afraid, a lack of rigorous analysis of the issue. Indeed, the recent report by Policy Exchange even goes as far as describing the document, “Closing the Gap”, as another dodgy dossier. I will not go as far as that, but I echo what the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire has said and say that we are far from convinced of the need for restructuring. More to the point, we are far more convinced that it will impede the progress that all Welsh forces are making in all areas of policing.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not opposed to restructuring per se. My late father joined the old Caernarvonshire police force, and then went on to the North Wales police force. There had been two restructurings shortly before he joined. It is an ongoing process, as the hon. Gentleman says, and only a fool would say that it will be the same for ever. Of course, in human nature there is a tendency to doubt that changes will bring forth improvements. That, I think, is accepted. However, on the evidence that we have before us at the moment, it is inevitable that people will say that there is no need for this change.

When senior police officers, all police authorities and many people who are in the know about policing in Wales speak with one voice and say that the restructuring will be detrimental, it is time to listen. It is time to consider whether another form of restructuring is possible, and I hope in the coming months that there will be a dialogue with the Minister and his colleagues, as I am sure that there will be. The strength of feeling in Wales is extremely high at the moment. There is a genuine feeling that community policing will go by the board and that the rural police forces, as they were, will be hammered. There is genuine concern that council tax payers will pay huge increases, only to be met at the end of the day with the effects of a £50 million black hole that will mean either incredibly high council tax increases or a cut in services.

This is not a semantic debate such as sometimes occurs if one party feels obliged to raise points because the other one disagrees. It is not at all like that. As I said, all the parties that have Welsh representatives in this Parliament will meet the Home Secretary a fortnight from yesterday. I hope that the Minister will be there as well.

A further concern is that the National Assembly for Wales was not consulted at the beginning of the process. Yet it contributes to the tune of £144 million per annum to the Welsh policing budget. Why was it not immediately consulted when points were first raised? I hasten to add that it has been brought into the consultation now, but rather late in the day, considering that the whole thing could have been over—done and dusted—had police authorities not stood their ground in the face of some dubious tactics along the way and helped bring about the latest volte face.

The Assembly’s Social Justice and Regeneration Committee prepared a report which stated, in effect, that it preferred the status quo, but that if there was to be a change, a decent time frame for discussion and implementation was required. Its conclusions were that the merger process should be halted, that the consultation and time frame were inadequate, that everybody was in the dark on the finance and that regional police authorities might well be a way forward.

It is clear that the Committee was greatly concerned about local accountability. It stated that that was perhaps the essence of the exercise. It asked whether local authorities would be represented on an all-Wales strategic police authority, whether the authority would be restricted to elected representatives, whether the chief constable, the courts, the National Offender Management Service and the Police Federation should also be represented and what the constitution of regional boards should be.

The Committee was concerned about staff numbers and how the change would impact on community safety officers and so on. It stated that the effect on precepts and on Welsh language policy, and the size and geography of Wales required consideration. Also, it referred to co-terminosity and what it described as the failure of the Home Office to deliver. That was from an all-party Committee with a Labour majority.

The Committee said that the manner in which the consultation process was pushed through was extremely damaging. It was seriously concerned about co-terminosity issues and the fact that part of police responsibility had been devolved—as I said, the budget is £144 million per annum—yet the Assembly was not consulted at the beginning of the process.

The Minister is a reasonable man. I am sure that, having listened patiently to all the arguments, he understands that there are grave concerns. Even Labour Members have raised concerns, although they believe that they will be met in the coming 12 months. That may or may not be so—I do not know—but I stress that an all-Wales force is the last option that the people of Wales require.

There will undoubtedly—one hopes—be movement, and other options could be considered that could enable change to occur, but only with the support of the people of Wales, for we must also remember that policing is by consent. If that consent breaks down, policing breaks down. As the Minister will know, 90 per cent. of crimes are solved as a direct result of information from the public. If the public feel alienated from the police, that all-important source of information will dry up and the police’s performance will be severely damaged.

The concerns that I have raised are bread-and butter-concerns about policing. I hope that the Minister will address some of them in responding.

rose—

Order. Before I call the official spokespeople for the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition, I ask that they bear in mind the amount of time available for this debate and ensure that the Minister has adequate time to respond to the many points that have been raised.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) on securing this debate. A number of hon. Members had wanted to have a debate, either in this Chamber or on the Floor of the House, to unwind the developments in the Government’s proposals. I congratulate him also on how he presented his case. He did not defend the status quo for its own sake, nor did he make party political points. I am sure that everyone here would want a police force that is fit for purpose and best designed to serve the people of Wales and its geography.

I also pay tribute to the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee on the issue, although opinions can sometimes change relatively rapidly. When I was a member of the Committee during the previous Parliament, we interviewed all the chief constables on antisocial behaviour. At that time, every one of them believed that amalgamation into a single police force was not the way forward for policing in Wales.

I also pay tribute to Labour Back Benchers, who are not here in numbers, although the Minister will understand that the Standing Committee that is considering the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill is sitting now. I am sure that many more hon. Members from Wales would have attended this debate were it not for that unfortunate coincidence.

The delay that the Home Secretary announced last week marked the latest chapter in a long-running farce that has typified the consultation process on policing in Wales. Last year saw story after story of Home Office incompetence, and the proposed merger of the four forces is no exception to that. It is a poor policy that is being hammered through at an impossible pace, after a meaningless consultation process.

It is interesting that on Thursday—30 June—two by-elections will take place in Blaenau Gwent, and the one thing that unites all the candidates is their opposition to the proposal. They are reflecting the concerns of communities in Wales about what is happening to their policing. Policing is fundamentally important to their quality of life. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) said that things were improving in her community. When we see those improvements, we are determined to ensure that they continue and are not lost.

The so-called consultation period lasted just under four months. I say “so-called consultation” because one month into it the Secretary of State said that there was only one option for Wales. That does not give people much confidence or enthusiasm about getting involved in the process. If the Government are to show a semblance of collective responsibility, when the Secretary of State says that there is only one option, it has presumably been agreed by the whole Cabinet, particularly the Home Secretary. It beggars belief that the consultation process, with all its expense and burdens on people to contribute and reply to it, and to attend meetings, was happening when it was fairly obvious that the decision had been taken already.

We need to think about the speed proposed for that process. The last reorganisation of the police force, in 1964—I think—took eight years to achieve, but before the inevitable delay announced last week, the Government had planned to complete the process this time within a year, and to appoint a new police authority by the end of August and a chief constable for Wales a month later. In such a rush of activity they did not give people enough confidence that they had suitably considered the best way forward.

That farcical process can only have a negative effect on police officers in Wales. Stability is vital in all walks of life, but particularly in high-risk jobs such as policing. Yet the Government have done nothing to aid stability in police forces. Instead, our police must contend with a whirlwind of Whitehall legislation and a dizzying number of missives, directives and law changes.

Last week, the chief constable of Dyfed-Powys said:

“It is impossible to work consistently coherently when every month, or every six weeks, there is a policy change…Most of my colleagues, certainly chief probation officers, across the country find it impossible to do their jobs.”

That draws attention to the fact that if we had a radical change in the structure of policing in Wales, it would have to be reflected in other elements of the criminal justice system.

The Government’s approach is introducing great uncertainty in Welsh policing. That is especially the case with their merger plans, which they have been trying to force through without giving anyone an accurate and realistic picture of how much it will cost, or of how many jobs will be lost. Already today, we have heard a number of different estimates of costs—both set-up costs and ongoing financial deficits. There does not seem to be any agreement on what those costs will be, or how they will develop.

The uncertainty surrounding the policy and the process can only have a negative effect on strategy and police morale. Every day, these people are on our streets making Wales as safe a place as possible, and they deserve better from their Government. How difficult must it be for them to do their job given the proposals, and the effects on jobs and personnel casting a shadow across the future of the organisation?

My constituents in mid-Wales are concerned about the continuing presence of the whole of the criminal justice system in rural areas, and worried that resources will be taken from rural areas and put into the more urban ones where there is a more obvious threat to people’s quality of life.

I mention in passing the proposal to close the police cells in Llandrindod Wells—there has already been a proposal to close the magistrates court—which will leave the only police cells in that mid-Wales area in Brecon in the south and in Newtown in the north. We will have a 60-mile stretch of countryside without a single police cell in which to hold a potentially dangerous person, and the expense of solicitors travelling long distances to interview their clients. The people in that area in rural Wales are concerned that they are losing the security that they get from the police and the justice system, and that that process will accelerate if the proposal goes ahead.

I was present in the Welsh Grand Committee in which the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), proposed a federated system, for which it seems that support is growing. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has already mentioned the Tarian operation that involved Somerset and Avon, Gwent and South Wales, in co-operation with Dyfed-Powys. It showed how police authorities can and will work together when they are given the right encouragement. A lot of crime in mid-Wales is carried out by travelling criminals—not that we do not have our own criminals as well. People come into the area and they think that it is so sparsely populated that their nefarious activities may go undetected. However, there is good co-operation between West Mercia and Dyfed-Powys, between Merseyside, Cheshire and North Wales, and between Somerset and Avon and Gwent. It happens, and we should encourage it.

A number of questions still remain unanswered. The council tax situation has already been mentioned—the precept convergence, as it is called. In a written statement on 11 May, Edwina Hart, the Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration, said:

“I am afraid I have little progress to report on the precept issue.”

Will the Minister provide an update on whether any progress has been made since then, and could he enlighten the council tax payers in north and south Wales on whether they will pay more or less council tax if the merger goes ahead? The level of uncertainty surrounding the cost of the merger is extraordinary, and is evidence of how badly thought through, and rushed, the policy is. The four chief constables told the Social Justice and Regeneration Committee of the National Assembly for Wales that by 2012, on current Government calculations, a single police force would have an annual deficit of £79 million. Different figures have been mentioned today, but it would be interesting for the Minister to tell us the most up-to-date one. Meeting the deficit that I have mentioned without additional Government funding would mean an extra £71 on the bill of the average band D council tax payer, or 1,800 fewer police officers on the streets. That is the scale of the financial black hole that some police forces and chief constables have predicted.

The Home Secretary announced last week that the merger process will be delayed, and that is welcome. However, he gave no detailed estimate of how long the delay would last, or what the new merger timetable would be. Will the Minister provide the Government’s revised timetable?

There is enormous public opposition to the measure. The Welsh Liberal Democrats have conducted street polls in Wrexham, Merthyr, Cardiff, Newport, Maesteg and Llandrindod, all of which have shown overwhelming opposition to the Government’s proposals. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has described how the consultation process produced exactly the same results on the streets of towns and villages in Wales. Many people throughout Wales—myself included—think that the merger will harm community policing, reduce local accountability and leach resources from low-crime areas. In short, it could seriously jeopardise the security of our communities, particularly in rural areas, and the largely excellent records of our four forces.

We urge the Minister really to engage on the issue with the people of Wales, with the stakeholders, and with the public. We are determined—as I am sure he is, in his own mind—that the solution we reach should not be the quickest fix but the best system for ensuring that the resources for policing in Wales are used most effectively, that communities in Wales have a level playing field of policing, and that some areas are not left out altogether. I ask him to ensure that the process is complete and not partial, and that the people of Wales get the police service that they so justly deserve.

I intend to be brief, because I want to give the Minister plenty of opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), whom I congratulate on securing this debate and on making the case against the way in which amalgamations have been proposed and against amalgamations in Wales themselves so effectively.

I want to outline the Opposition’s concerns about the process. I shall start by saying that we welcome the decision of the Home Secretary and the Minister to place a stay of execution on the wave 1 mergers, which would include the amalgamations in Wales. That seems to make sense. The speed of the proposals has been roundly criticised both in and out of this House. The chairman of the Cheshire police authority, Mr. Peter Nurse, described the timetable as “absurd”. Mr. Steve Thomas of the Welsh Local Government Association, giving evidence to the Welsh Assembly’s Social Justice Committee, described the consultation process as

“the best farce since ‘Charley’s Aunt’”.

As hon. Members have pointed out, the Welsh Affairs Committee criticised the speed with which the process had been conducted. It was always unrealistic to expect that amalgamated forces could be in being by April next year. A pause for thought will be welcomed throughout the country, particularly by the police authorities who were facing impossible challenges in seeking to meet such a deadline. Part of the problem has been not just the speed of the process, but the lack of proper consultation, both with police authorities themselves and with the public who have largely felt shut out and who have expressed considerable concern about amalgamations. I welcome the fact that the Minister is now engaging in talks with Members and with the police authorities concerned, and the constructive nature of those meetings.

My second concern is about the absence of local accountability that would feature in larger forces. The arguments have been put powerfully before, but plainly in a force covering 8,000 square miles and serving 3 million people there is a grave danger that the leadership of policing will be much more remote from the communities that chief officers are meant to respond to and serve. There is also the danger of a democratic deficit, in that the formal representation on police authorities will be considerably diluted if there is a police authority in Wales of 23 members but there are already 22 unitary authorities in Wales, all of which should be represented if they are to have a stake in it.

There is a plainly a serious issue about the extent to which local people have any formal input in the direction of policing in Wales. That has not been sufficiently answered by the claim that neighbourhood policing will be developed or that basic command unit commanders will be responsive to local concerns. BCU commanders are responsible for tactical decisions, not strategic ones. Those will be set by the police authority and the chief constable jointly with the Home Office, which is exercising increasing control in the matter. It is influence over those strategic decisions that the community wants, not just good public relations on the part of their local police commanders or good neighbourhood policing, which they want too.

The democratic deficit, the absence of local accountability as a result of creating these larger forces, is one of the most powerful reasons why the Government should rethink. Another powerful reason, and my third concern, is the cost. Concerns about that and about the potential impact on neighbourhood policing have been expressed from all sides. The Home Office’s own business case estimates that amalgamating the four forces will cost around £27 million, and any savings that will accrue—which are not quantified but are merely asserted—will take some years to come through.

There is the additional problem of precept equalisation, which could mean precepts rising by up to 15 per cent. in south Wales, for instance, according to the Association of Police Authorities. The Minister will doubtless have something to say about that.

The report of the Government’s own strategy unit warned:

“Evidence from other sectors suggests that mergers can be a costly, protracted exercise which does not always deliver expected benefits and inevitably causes distraction for management and staff.”

That warning should have been heeded better, and if he has not already done so I urge the Minister to read the report by Tim Brain, the head of the finance division of the Association of Chief Police Officers, whom I believe he has met. The Home Secretary said that he had not read the report, but it transpires that he has discussed it with the president of ACPO. I make the point seriously and constructively that the Minister should read the report, which points out that in three years’ time, against the background of frozen Home Office budgets, the effect of amalgamations on finance that will already be in short supply will result in serious funding shortfalls for the police, equivalent to 25,000 police officers. In Wales that would amount to 1,350 officers. The fear expressed in the report and shared by police authorities, chief constables and members of the public, not least in Wales, is that the costs that will have to be met directly from existing police budgets against a background of tight finances will mean cuts in neighbourhood policing. Does the Minister think that the figures given in that serious report by ACPO’s head of finance are correct? What proposals does he have to deal with the matter?

There is a stark contrast between the past few years—funding for police and community safety has increased by about 75 per cent. in real terms since 1997—and the situation at which we will arrive in 2007, when Home Office budgets are frozen. The contribution that £500 million of costs will make to that problem could be severe.

My fourth concern is that the Government have been reticent in considering alternatives. I hope that in the round of discussions that the Minister is having, he will be more open-minded about the alternative proposed by the APA that the Prime Minister himself seemed to endorse. That is the option of police authorities sharing services, which could yield savings that could be reinvested in protective services much more quickly than could any money through amalgamation, while preserving the local accountability that is so valuable.

The Home Secretary seems to be indicating that strategic forces are still the route that he wishes to take, albeit more slowly. I urge the Minister to consider not strategic forces but strategic capability: how it is possible to organise forces together more sensibly to close the gap, which we all agree must be done. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire that there is no dispute that there is a gap in protective services that will require closing. The question is how that can sensibly be done.

I emphasise the importance of public consent in the process. The last time decisions of an equivalent scale were taken, back in the 1960s, there was a royal commission and full public discussion, and the process took a number of years. ACPO and the APA have expressed alarm about the general direction of policy as expressed in the Police and Justice Bill and shown by the increasing centralisation of policing. They make the point:

“Effective policing is dependent on the consent and support of the public. This support is conditional on the demonstrable independence of policing from partisan political interests. It is essential that the local nature of policing is preserved, as it is here that policing has its roots, and that is why local accountability between police authorities and chief constables is crucially important and should not be undermined by greater central control.”

Against a background of such increasing central control, developments such as the national policing plan, and the proposal, not yet formally announced in the House, to create a national policing board with the Home Secretary as chairman, concerns about the loss of local independence and accountability are particularly amplified. The Government should have pursued a different agenda, and I hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister will now pursue it. It is one of police reform, of ensuring that the police service is equipped to meet the challenges against the background of much tighter finance in the future, of work force modernisation, of driving forward the process of neighbourhood policing and of meeting the public demand for a visible police presence on the streets. Amalgamations will threaten that agenda and not meet public demand. That is why we have such concerns about amalgamations. I hope that the Minister responds constructively to all the points raised today.

I join those who congratulated the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) on securing the debate. I cast no aspersions on hon. Members because of the lack of attendance at the debate, not least because, as has been said, the Committee considering the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill is sitting at the same time. Apparently, there are some minor attractions down in Blaenau Gwent, which will also have taken away some of our Welsh colleagues. I do not come to the room and think, “Phew, there are only four hon. Members present; the subject of the debate cannot be much of an issue.” I do not take that view at all. I know that policing in Wales remains a very serious issue.

I also join those who congratulated the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire on the way he introduced the debate. I shall come later to the substance of the debate. According to my minor bits of research, the hon. Gentleman is clearly a born optimist. Apparently, he joined the Conservative party in 1997, which is almost a definition of optimism. He then became an officer in the Southwark and Bermondsey Conservative association. That is not, by any means, an area where there are rich pickings for Conservatives, so I am glad to see him in his place now as a Welsh Tory. Being a Welsh Tory is still, happily, a minority pursuit. I had to ask a colleague how many there were. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was on his own, but apparently there are three of them, which I am sure makes for good company.

Soon there will be more.

Perhaps, but with the greatest respect I do not suspect that that will be the case after Thursday.

I commend the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire on the non-partisan way in which he introduced the debate. In making that point, I join the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who, having made it, went on to make some rather foolish partisan points, which detracted from our debate, about Blaenau Gwent and about the supposed incompetence of the Home Office.

It is clear to me—the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) finished his remarks with this point—that there is a serious and detailed debate to be had. I do not think that I will pre-empt where we are going if I say that my view and that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary remains that the destination should be a strategic force. That is not to throw it down people’s throats, but it is our view. We have delayed things deliberately, in part because of the level of disquiet, but also because a range of issues remain to be answered fairly and because we want what I think everyone wants in the end—to render to Wales the policing and police force that it requires for the 21st century.

I am pleased that most if not all colleagues have not challenged the notion that there are serious gaps at level 2. We are really talking about how they should be filled. It should not be inferred that somehow we are moving to an all-Wales strategic force and then the border will go up, preventing any co-operation between that force and its English counterparts on the other side. To suggest that is rather foolish. I commend the progress, as outlined by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, by all four forces and their co-operation not only with one another and with immediate border forces but, on specific issues, beyond that.

The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said at the start that this was an important matter, and I agree. He said also, which may be a reasonable criticism of where we have been for the past couple of months, that a proper, detailed and mature debate on policing in Wales for the 21st century should not get lost in administrative and bureaucratic arrangements. We should not be locked into existing arrangements for the sake of it—I cannot remember who said it, but someone said that only a fool would be wedded to those arrangements if they could see that they were not the main way forward. However, in our concerns about moving towards a strategic force, we have lost sight of the debate, the narrative and the argument on the relationship between neighbourhood policing, basic command units, strategic policing and how those elements serve our communities in Wales, as elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman also agreed that there were a number of theoretical benefits. He was not opposed in principle and said that there was no credit in wedding oneself to certain structures, regardless of reality, and I agree. We have moved on. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said during Home Office questions that he would no longer be seeking to lay any Home Secretary-initiated amalgamation orders before Parliament before the summer recess. He also made it clear that we are still seeking to secure the voluntary merger between Lancashire and Cumbria constabularies, although that has not-dissimilar attendant issues that we are trying to deal with.

One minor point: Lancashire and Cumbria were the only two forces that voluntarily declared that they would merge with each other. It is not accurate to say that they were the only two forces that agreed to a voluntary merger—a pedantic point, but that claim is simply not true. For some of the others, three of the four forces in an area wanted to merge voluntarily but the fourth did not, whereas in another area two forces wanted to merge but the third did not. It is therefore not true to say that Lancashire and Cumbria were the only two forces in the country that sought voluntary merger.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his announcement because, in the few weeks that he and I have been in our new posts, we have been engaging with stakeholders and listening to concerns. As with the tone of this debate, time and time again people have said that, whatever the respective merits, there should be discussion about alternatives and more time in which to have those discussions, and we have responded to that.

If I may make a picky little comment about some of the remarks that we have heard today—rather like what my right hon. Friend said to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs—it is that half the speeches were written as though last Monday’s announcement did not happen. However, I forgive people for that; they have their points to make and that is entirely fair.

The effect of the announcement is to extend the period for objection, thereby allowing us to work closely with the wider community on developing answers to some of the issues. If we are to have a proper and honest process, I cannot give a definitive response about what that will do to the time scale, because that would pre-empt all that we are seeking to do with that engagement. However, let me say in passing that, as I understand it, if whatever we end up with for each area is significantly different—that is an important phrase—from where we are now, there will have to be a new period of objection, consultation and all those assorted elements.

So I can say, with a degree of confidence, that the process is not about either kicking the proposal into the long grass for ever—“Closing the Gap” remains terribly important to level 2 services and other elements—or some sort of flim-flam to get ourselves out of a hole until September or October and then doing exactly what we said we were going to do now. I assure hon. Members that neither scenario is the reality that will prevail, but there is a lot of distance between those two points and that is why I want serious discussion .

I want those who suggest that a federated model might work in Wales to tell me, in substance and detail, how they think it will work. I want people whose main objection has been to the timetable to tell me what would be a better timetable for Wales. I freely admit that more work remains to be done—although most of it was laid out in the business case, save for the point about protected services. More work needs to be done on finance, council tax precepts and all the other elements. I freely admit that, but that is the work that we are seeking to engage in now.

I have already met the four Welsh chief constables and the relevant Minister from the Welsh Assembly to discuss those points. I have also met a group of north Wales Labour MPs—I was going to say “north London”, so apologies for being metro-centric—and I extend the invitation to come and talk to me about the issue in detail to the Liberals, Plaid Cymru and the Tories. As was said, the Front-Bench spokespeople are going to see the Home Secretary to discuss the issue, and I am more than happy to pursue that. I will have the pleasure, I hope, of appearing before the Welsh Affairs Committee on 4 July to discuss my relative independence, rather than that of the Americans. That is as it should be, because the Committee has done good work on the matter.

On 13 July, I am going to Cardiff to meet the four police authority chairs, whom I have not yet met. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger), and our friend the Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government will accompany me, and that it will be more successful and productive than my last visit to Cardiff, which was entirely enjoyable until we lost on penalties and Gerrard scored that fantastic goal just as I was dozing off, waiting for the celebrations and for West Ham to lift the cup. None the less, it was an enjoyable day out. Because I popped in and out, I did not see all the glory of the development around Cardiff bay. I hope to see it, at least in passing, when I return.

We are serious about engagement and about the future of Wales. Let me scotch another conspiracy theory. It is not the case that the all-Wales force is the only thing on the agenda because we want in the end to devolve all policing matters to the Welsh Assembly Government. Policing is and should remain a national, UK matter, and as far as I know, it will do so for the foreseeable future. Of course we must engage with the Welsh Assembly Government—as hon. Members have suggested, they have a locus and a stake in the matter—but this is not some elaborate ruse to devolve all such matters to them in the end, and they know that.

We must give more consideration to how the national dimension—the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned a national policing board—the strategic dimension of every part of the country, the basic command unit areas and the neighbourhood policing areas interact and relate to each other in terms of governance and accountability. Those points are entirely fair, and I am not a million miles away from what the hon. Gentleman said about work force modernisation, police reform and all the other elements that should perhaps be bundled up together.

The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire made three fair points about the questions that need to be answered. Is this destination the right one, or are there alternatives? I feel passionately that it is the right direction. There is time and scope to consider that now. He is right about not using it as a breathing space or a hiatus in which we do not think about the matter but hope that it goes away.

We need to engage properly. If there are alternatives, we should talk about them. The destination may well be the right one in the end, but to link to the hon. Gentleman’s next point about the pace of reform, some kind of confederation on the way to a potential all-Wales force may be the way to go. I simply do not know, and everyone here gets nervous when people start speculating what the direction might be.

Is the destination the right one? That is an entirely fair point that we need to address now. The pace of reform is also a fair point. Another question is whether the merger will have consequences for policing in Wales which we have not thought through. That was an allusion to financing, policing and governance. There is also the point about council tax precept equalisation. All those points made by the hon. Gentleman were fair. Whether in the Welsh context or the wider context, we must consider them in some detail. However, I do not accept the point—it cannot be right—that all this is about is eradicating all the advances that have been made in policing in Wales and elsewhere at other levels.

The strategic policing model that we are discussing, rather than undermining neighbourhood policing, will root it far more readily in communities. We will not have, as people know that we do now, abstraction any time there is a major incident or issues that go wider that the locality, when people lose their community policing focus.

Everyone agrees that community policing and neighbourhood policing are the right way to go and should be our focus. We have found that in our campaign in Blaenau Gwent, and I am sure that, if they were honest, others would say that they find that too. We are not creating strategic police forces to destroy interaction between police and their local communities. Such interaction must be central to all that we seek to do in 21st-century policing in Wales and everywhere else. I repeat that I am serious about discussing such things in detail. Now that we have the time and space, let us talk.