Police and Justice Bill

As a west Sussex Member, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is our force that will be merged with Surrey and the proposal is deeply unpopular in the county. It is sad that the advice of the police authority—in particular that of the former chief constable of Sussex, who is now the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers—that a federal option should be investigated, was simply not taken. The Government failed even to consider that option properly, even though it was the Prime Minister’s preferred route. The fifth reason advanced by the Government for rejecting referendums on police mergers is that they know what is best for the people. It is that contempt for public opinion that has led the Government to ignore the people’s vote on regional assemblies and proceed by stealth to build regional government in any case. Back in 1996, before the Government came to power, there was a rather different message. The Labour party document on regional government, to which I have already referred, claimed:"““It is in no-one’s interest that we impose unwanted new structures of government on areas of the country that have no great wish to change. We are determined to work in partnership with the people—with their active support and understanding.””" That must be the kind of active support and understanding that the public gave the Labour party in the recent local elections. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) asked the previous Home Secretary if he would accept the verdict of the people of Essex if they voted emphatically for a stand-alone force, he replied:"““I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical answer…no.””—[Official Report, 20 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 5.]" So that is what new Labour meant by"““the active support and understanding of the people.””" It meant, ““We don’t want you to have a say and if, for some reason, you get a say, we’ll ignore you.”” I hoped that the new Minister might take a more enlightened view of local or direct democracy, which I know he supports. After all, he co-authored a pamphlet entitled ““Power to the People””, so let us give the people some real power. Last September, he also co-authored a Fabian Society paper entitled ““Why Labour Won””. That is now of course of only historical interest to readers. He might be planning a small but significant revision to the title. In the pamphlet, the Minister argued for a manifesto to transform the choice and voice of the public in the services for which they pay. I agree with him, but he has fallen at the first fence in his new job by denying local people an important choice over the future of their police forces. Before the local elections and in his previous incarnation under the Deputy Prime Minister—as it were—the new Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made great play of what he called double devolution, in which citizens would have more choice. So where is the citizens’ voice in the future shape of their local police force? That is not double devolution: it is doublespeak. Their rhetoric is about localism, community empowerment and the citizen’s voice: the reality is a steady accrual of power to Whitehall. Successive clauses in the Bill give more power to the Home Secretary and take it from police forces and authorities. This group of amendments also addresses schedule 2 to the Bill, which gives the Home Secretary sweeping new powers to intervene in police forces. ACPO has warned that by enabling the Home Secretary to act independently, the Bill"““creates a new linear relationship from chief constable at the bottom, to police authority and up to the Secretary of State at the top, replacing the tripartite arrangement that has been in place for many years””."