Policing by consent

On Remembrance Sunday last month the Royal British Legion called us to honour those who died in the name of freedom and the rule of law in two World Wars and in continuing conflicts. At Salisbury’s War Memorial in Guildhall Square first our Mayor laid his wreath, followed by the High Sheriff of Wiltshire, a County Councillor and then me on behalf of all the people of the County Constituency of Salisbury. Next, as our Salisbury Police and Fire Chiefs stepped forward, shoulder to shoulder, I realised we were witnessing a moment of history. This time next year neither Wiltshire County Constabulary nor the Wiltshire and Swindon Fire Brigade will be there as we know and honour them.

Our Fire Service is to be regionalised, with its headquarters in Taunton. We are told it will fit more neatly into the boundaries of the Government Office of the South West and the unelected Regional Assembly.

Back in September this Government announced that only seven UK Police Forces were ‘fit for purpose’ in the 21st Century and the rest would have to reform. Wiltshire Constabulary will have to go. On Wednesday November 9th – the day of the ’90 day’ row in Parliament -  the Home Office Police Minister wrote to tell me that we have just two choices. We can either combine all the police forces of Devon, Cornwall, Dorset, Avon and Somerset, Gloucester and Wiltshire – or let Devon and Cornwall go their own way.

The motto of our local Police Force is ‘Primus et Optimus’ – ‘First and Best’. ‘First’ is a matter of record. ‘Best’ is borne out by the fact that we live in the safest County in the Kingdom. It goes without saying that I will be joining other Wiltshire MPs to defend our County Constabulary. However, our police deserve more than a knee-jerk reaction (no doubt labelled ‘political expediency’ by some). Why does the Government think we can’t cope as we are?

We may have the first and the best Force – but we also have one of the smallest at just over 1300 people. The Home Office says we should be looking at Forces at least 4000 - strong. I discussed this with our Chief Constable and the Chairman of our Police Authority. Following the publication of the Report of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies called ‘Closing the Gap’, we know that Wiltshire Police consistently perform well – in the top quartile of all Forces. However, our small size works against us in what are called ‘Level II protective services’ – which include organised crime, counter terrorism, civil contingencies, public order and strategic roads policing.

You and I know that in many of our towns and villages there is a strong military presence. We are glad to see police protecting us – be they Wiltshire Constabulary including Specials and  Police Community Support Officers, or Ministry of Defence Police, Royal Military Police, British Transport Police or, occasionally, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. In our communities some of these non-Home Office Forces are just as familiar as our local police. Yet the Home Office took no account of this when giving us our marching orders. I have now added an amendment to this effect, to an All-Party Commons Motion criticising the entirely inadequate and arbitrary way the Government is forcing through this absolutely fundamental change to our ancient tradition of policing by consent

Freedom under the Law

Our nation is great for many reasons – and one of the greatest is our constitutional understanding of the freedom of our citizens. If you pop over to our Cathedral and check up in the original Magna Carta, you will find that in Chapter 39 the King was made to say that no man shall be seized or imprisoned, outlawed, exiled, or ruined except by the law of the land. Later, under the Habeas Corpus Act of Charles II – and in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America, freedom under the law insisted that no-one should be imprisoned without evidence (‘you must produce the body.’).

Historically, the period of detention between arrest and charge in England has been 24 hours. In recent years Parliament has realised that investigating serious crime and terrorism is more complex and only two years ago I voted to increase this to 7 days. Later we agreed, in cases of terrorism, to extend this to 14 days. MPs on all sides were astonished that the Government insisted on a six-fold increase to 90 days. Not one single piece of evidence was produced to justify this. The security services as opposed to the police never endorsed or recommended 90 days. Nor did many of our local police, judges and lawyers.  The Government said a detained suspect would be put in front of a Judge every seven days to extend the detention. The Judges didn’t want this – with no evidence what could they contribute – a fig-leaf?  And if it takes a long time to de-code computer encryption, you surely employ more computer experts, not lock people up for longer and save wages.

Three days before the vote the Home Secretary said 90 days was not obligatory. He appears to have been over-ruled by the Prime Minister. So I voted, along with 322 other Members of Parliament from all political parties to double the period to 28 days.

Our values in upholding freedom and democracy are one of the best defences we have to the terrorist threat because the eradication of terrorism is a hearts-and-minds battle as much as a policing issue. I know many police agree with this as well.

Robert Key MP
20th. November 2005