Police and Justice Bill

No, I cannot. The third argument advanced by the Government against local referendums—indeed, the Minister has just advanced it—was that one area might be able to block the proposal. For example, even if West Mercia was the only area that objected to the proposal—there is no polling evidence to suggest that that would be so—that could prevent a west midlands super-force from coming into being. But Labour’s own policy document, published in 1996, before Labour came to power, answered that very contention. It said:"““Our advocacy of referendums to measure popular support for elected assemblies is not intended to be a blocking device to prevent progress, but rather is a means of ensuring that these assemblies have their own legitimacy amongst local people.””" Legitimacy is indeed the issue. If an area is to have amalgamation imposed on it—if it can be voted down by a majority vote of other areas—that is not a proper vote on policing for that area; rather, it amounts to a hostile takeover. That is why the Government’s argument is wrong. The Minister also said that referendums should be reserved for issues of major constitutional significance and change. Yes, they should—that is probably self-evident—but Denis O’Connor, the chief inspector of constabulary on whose report the Government rely in order to push forward these amalgamations, stated in the introduction to his report that"““the constitutional implications of this work are significant””." What is more, in 1994 the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), described the proposed amalgamation of police forces without public debate as a ““denial of constitutional principle””. If the Minister is relying on the argument that this is not a constitutional matter, he is on shaky ground.