Police and Justice Bill

I like my hon. Friend’s idea, and should the Government reject amendment No. 82, which calls for referendums, the option remains for police authorities to hold their own referendums, as authorities such as Essex have proposed. I hope that they do so. The Government have advanced a number of arguments against amendment No. 82 and the use of referendums, none of which I find convincing. The first objection was articulated in Committee by the former Minister with responsibility for policing. She said that"““if we simply ask people whether they want their police area to be merged, it is virtually guaranteed that an awful lot of them will say no.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 March 2006; c. 84.]" That was her principal reason for opposing an amendment calling for a referendum. So the Government do not want to hold referendums because they know that they would lose them. Every single local opinion poll has shown that the public want to keep their local force. The second objection advanced in Committee was that referendums were not held in the 1960s and the 1970s, when police forces were previously amalgamated. But in the debate on the Police and Magistrates’ Courts Bill in July 1994, to which the Minister referred—that legislation now provides the statutory basis for driving forward amalgamations—the current Prime Minister, who was then shadow Home Secretary, pointed out the following:"““When the previous settlements were formed in the Police Act 1964, it was preceded by a royal commission. It was discussed, debated and properly consulted on. Where amalgamations occurred, they occurred as a result of public agreement.””—[Official Report, 5 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 273.]" There is no public agreement to these amalgamations, which is why the public need to have their say.