'(1) 'Section 107 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c.70) (application to police authorities of provisions about discharge of local authority functions) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (3A) there is inserted—

"(3B) Section 101 above, in its application to a police authority, shall have effect as if a reference in subsection (1), (2), (4) or (5) to an officer of an authority included a reference to a member of that authority."

(3) For subsection (4) there is substituted—

"(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision regulating the power of a police authority under section 101 above to arrange for the discharge of their functions by a committee, sub-committee, officer or member of the authority as respects part only of their area.

(4A) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular—

(a) impose limitations or restrictions on the functions which may be the subject of arrangements of the kind referred to in that subsection;

(b) make provision as to the membership or chairmanship of any committee or sub-committee discharging functions under such arrangements;

(c) impose limitations or restrictions on which officers or members of a police authority may discharge functions under such arrangements.

(4B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

(4) Subsection (6) (members of police authority committees must be authority members) is omitted.'. — [Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 54

No. 2, in page 66, line 32 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointment' and insert 'election'.

Government amendments Nos. 55 and 56

No. 3, in page 66, line 36 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.

No. 4, in page 66, line 37 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointment' and insert 'election'.

Government amendment No. 57

No. 5, in page 66, line 42 [Schedule 2], leave out 're-appointment' and insert 're-election'.

No. 6, in page 66, line 43 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.

No. 7, in page 66, line 48 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointment' and insert 'election'.

Government amendments Nos. 58 and 59

No. 8, in page 68, line 46 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointment' and insert 'election'.

Government amendments Nos. 60 and 61

No. 9, in page 69, line 2 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.

No. 10, in page 69, line 3 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointment' and insert 'election'.

Government amendment No. 62

No. 11, in page 69, line 8 [Schedule 2], leave out 're-appointment' and insert 're-election'.

No. 12, in page 69, line 9 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.

No. 13, in page 69, line 14 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointment' and insert 'election'.

Government amendments Nos. 63 and 64

No. 82, in page 73, line 18 [Schedule 2], at end insert—

'Referendums on proposals to alter police areas

20A After section 33 (Objections to alterations proposed by Secretary of State) there is inserted—

"33A Referendums on proposals to alter police areas

(1) Before making an order under section 32 the Secretary of State shall by order cause a referendum to be held in every area affected about the proposed alteration in police areas.

(2) The Secretary of State shall make an order under subsection (1)—

(a) in relation to a proposed alteration made under section 32(3)(a), after he has received a request under that subsection;

(b) in relation to a proposed alteration made under section 32(3)(b), after he has given further notice to objectors under section 33(4)(b).

(3) The question to be asked in a referendum to be held in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) above shall be agreed by—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) each police authority affected by the proposed alteration, and

(c) the Electoral Commission. and specified in the order.

(4) The Secretary of State shall, in consultation with—

(a) each police authority affected by the proposed alteration, and

(b) the Electoral Commission ensure that an order made under subsection (1) above makes such provision as is necessary to secure the proper conduct of a referendum.

(5) No order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(6) The Secretary of State shall not exercise his power to make an order under section 32 unless a majority of votes cast in a referendum held under this section in each of the existing areas affected supports the proposed alteration." '.

No. 14, in page 74, line 11 [Schedule 2], leave out paragraphs 24 to 26.

No. 15, in page 74, line 14 [Schedule 2], after 'Where', insert

'following a recommendation of the Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody, or a request from a police authority responsible for maintaining a police force,'.

No. 16, in page 74, line 21 [Schedule 2], after 'Where', insert

'following a recommendation of the Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody, or a request from a police authority responsible for maintaining a police force,'.

No. 19, in page 75 [Schedule 2], leave out lines 7 to 18.

No. 17, in page 75, line 36 [Schedule 2], after 'Where', insert

'following a recommendation of the Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody'.

No. 18, in page 75, line 41 [Schedule 2], after 'Where', insert

'following a recommendation of the Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody'.

No. 20, in page 76 [Schedule 2], leave out lines 17 to 27.

Government amendment Nos. 72, 73 and 75.

I shall first deal briefly with the Government amendments.

Government amendment No. 75 is consequential to new clause 4. As hon. Members know, police authorities can delegate powers to construct committees, but only those that are organised across the entire geography of a region. New clause 4 and the associated amendment No. 75 will enable police authorities to delegate their functions either to a member of the authority or to an area committee of the authority. They would therefore provide police authorities with the flexibility to establish area committees and delegate some of their functions to such committees. That is important in the context of combined working with local authorities.

Government amendment No. 64 and the associated consequential amendments will enable police authorities to appoint more than one individual to the office of deputy chief constable when there is a compelling operational case for that. I have tabled the amendments to enable police authorities to delegate to area committees in response to strong representations by my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). They have made the powerful case that, in the light of the special circumstances in Wales—including its geography and its transport infrastructure—an all-Wales police force could require more than one deputy chief constable and more than one police authority area committee.

Amendments Nos. 54 and 59 are technical. They reproduce the existing order-making power in schedule 3 to the Police Act 1996 that enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on the procedures to be followed by selection panels charged with identifying candidates for appointment as independent members of police authorities.

Amendments Nos. 55 to 58 and 60 to 63 correct a drafting error in the Bill to provide for the appointment of a chairman and one or more vice-chairmen from the membership of a police authority, as is set out in the Police Act 1996.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 13, tabled by Lynne Featherstone, relate to the election of police authority chairmen and vice-chairmen. I can assure the House that we have no intention of exercising the regulation-making power in schedule 2 to provide for the Home Secretary to appoint chairs or vice-chairs of police authorities. Our aim is simply to give a greater measure of flexibility in the legislation in relation to the appointment of police authorities as a whole. Our proposal is therefore very straightforward: we propose to exercise the regulation-making power so as to provide that the chair and vice-chair of police authorities outside London will, as now, be appointed by the members of the authority. In the case of the Metropolitan police authority, we have consulted on a proposal that the Mayor of London should appoint the chairman. We are considering the responses to the consultation and will announce our conclusions in the summer.

My right hon. Friend Hazel Blears, now the Minister without Portfolio, said in Committee that candidates for chairmanships should have the right skills for the job. That was outlined clearly in the White Paper, "Building Communities, Beating Crime". We intend that candidates for the role of chair should be subject to a competency-based selection process. As in other areas, we will consult on the detailed provisions to be included in the regulations. In the light of my assurances on this issue, I hope that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will agree not to press her amendments.

I turn now to amendments Nos. 14 to 20. I believe that the House is united in its ambition to ensure that recent improvements in police performance continue, and even accelerate. We all know that, in the real world, the prospect of outside intervention can be a great motivator for change.

I realise that the Minister is new to his responsibilities, but can he tell us whether it is the Home Secretary's desire to carry on the intention of his predecessor to merge our police forces? Will there be a review of that decision, particularly in relation to the merging of the police forces in the east midlands? Most people there think that the previous Home Secretary was wholly wrong to say that all five of the east midlands county forces should be merged into just one force.

Amalgamations are not the subject of the Bill, but I will address the question of related powers in a moment.

Intervention powers are long-established, and they allow the Secretary of State to fulfil one of the most important responsibilities that he or she has, namely to address rapidly any failings in policing. The rationale for the Government's revisions to the existing powers is based not on theory but on the reality based on our experience since the inception of the original powers, and on our work in supporting forces to enable them to perform better.

I have heard the Minister's predecessor make that argument. Is not there a change of principle involved here, in that there will be no independent hearing under the new procedure? In fact, the powers are to be given directly to the Home Secretary, with no independent element at all.

I will come to the question of amalgamations shortly.

In Committee, many hon. Members accepted the principle that powers of last resort to intervene should exist, providing the Secretary of State with the means to take remedial action where significant and enduring performance failings had been identified. These revisions are about ensuring that the powers are quickly usable. Sometimes a measure of speed is essential if the public are to secure the protection that they need, and that they pay for. Intervention powers are, and will remain, powers of last resort, and the revisions are not intended to change that.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green—who is not in her place—seek to insert a number of unnecessary obstacles in the legislation. For example, amendment No. 14 seeks to remove all the proposed changes to the intervention powers. This overlooks the key role that intervention powers play in driving up police performance, and the changes needed to make them fit for purpose. Amendments Nos. 15 to 18 seek to reinsert the requirement that intervention will be undertaken only following a recommendation from the chief inspector for justice, community safety and custody or, as the new legislation provides, a recommendation from the police authority responsible for maintaining the police force. Enabling the Secretary of State to draw on the advice of a wider range of sources when considering intervention will mean that a wider base of knowledge on which to base an intervention decision is possible. That might include a recommendation from the inspectorate, for example, but experience has shown that a wider range of sources of information exist, such as a public inquiry—on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend Mr. Clarke mentioned the Bichard inquiry. There is every expectation that the inspectorate's opinion on whether to intervene would remain a central consideration. It is right, however, that other sources of information are not precluded from informing that decision.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 seek to remove the Secretary of State's ability to intervene without delay when he is satisfied that the chief officer or chair of the police authority has been given sufficient information and time to remedy those failings. When a police force or police authority has failed to address problems of which it has been made aware, and it has already been given time to address them, surely a different solution needs to apply. Where a long-standing and known performance issue has persisted and gone unresolved, we therefore feel that it would be illogical, and possibly irresponsible, simply to hand back the problem to the force or authority without any stronger or more immediate requirement for its resolution. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will not press her amendments on those provisions.

Amendment No. 82, tabled by David Davis, requires that referendums are held before an order can be made under section 32 of the Police Act 1996 altering police force areas. I appreciate that a process of permanent revisionism is now taking hold on the Conservative Benches, but the amendment ignores the adequate provisions already in the Police Act for merging force areas. Indeed, those very provisions were substantially revised by the previous Administration in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, when Mr. Howard was Home Secretary.

What is the difference in principle between the Government wanting to discover the wishes of local people with regard to regional government—in relation to the referendum in the north-east—and their not wanting to listen to the wishes of local people with regard to the regionalisation of police forces as a result of mergers?

As I shall explain in a moment, the provisions for merging force areas set out in the 1996 Act put sufficient protection in place and require deliberation in the House. In our constitution, referendums are typically reserved for issues of significant constitutional development, such as regional government, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, and our relationship with the European Union. Under the 1996 Act, a merger may take place either if the police authorities concerned have volunteered or if the Home Secretary considers that a merger would be in the interests of the efficiency or effectiveness of policing. Therefore, there are three lines of constitutional defence.

The Minister referred to the fact that the previous Administration provided the opportunity for police forces to merge. How many of those police forces have taken up that opportunity? I ask that question because mergers are now being forced on them.

No, a number of mergers are currently under consideration, and we are in a period of reviewing objections.

Is not the answer to my hon. Friend's question that many police forces have undertaken their own market research surveys? In West Mercia, for example, more than 80 per cent. of local people do not want their constabulary merged with other forces. The reason the Government will not have a referendum on the matter is that they already know that the answer from the overwhelming majority of people around the nation is a resounding no.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but two issues need teasing apart. First, there is the report from Her Majesty's inspectorate that says that the current structure of forces does not provide sufficient resilience or protective services to deal with level 2 crime. As he will know, organised crime is at work in our communities, especially in relation to drugs, and that requires greater resilience. Secondly, one of the purposes of this place is to consider the sort of changes now proposed.

On that point, is not the Minister aware that there is already resilience in West Mercia and the west midlands generally, in the form of special branch, the regional taskforce and the advent of the Serious Organised Crime Agency? Why do we need all this change when such organisations are already in place? If the Government are serious about resilience, counter-terrorism and dealing with the global threat of terror, why does the Prime Minister still refuse to rule out appointing a Cabinet-level Minister to deal with those important issues?

It is not for me to second-guess the Prime Minister's motives on anything. [Laughter.] Let me return to two issues. First, as the hon. Gentleman would accept, if Her Majesty's inspectorate has set out an argument that the current structure of 43 forces is insufficient to provide robust, effective and resilient protective services, it is surely incumbent on the Government to respond.

rose—

rose—

I will just finish this point.

Secondly, on the role of the House, I want to answer directly the point about referendums. As the House knows, the process is that the Home Secretary must give notice of his intention to merge forces, and then there is a period of four months for the submission of objections. The Home Secretary must then consider those objections and respond to them before orders are made. Where a merger proposal is initiated by the Home Secretary—this is the most important point for the House—the necessary order is subject to the affirmative procedure, so that there is a debate and vote in both Houses.

I am not sure that it is the time to allow the new revisionism to run riot in the way proposed. I am a great advocate of direct democracy, probably more so than philosophers such as Michael Oakeshott or Edmund Burke. There is a place for referendums, and in our parliamentary system they should be reserved for major issues of constitutional significance, such as devolution and our future relationship with the European Union. It is for the House to deliberate and decide.

May I pose the same question to the Minister again? Since 1994, constabularies have been allowed to merge should they wish to do so, but how many such mergers have taken place?

If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will focus on the object of the Bill.

Will the Minister give way?

I will do so in a moment.

The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden contains a number of interesting features, which also compel me to urge the House to reject it. First, it would require a referendum even when the police authorities concerned have volunteered to merge. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a keen reader of the Yorkshire Post, and I therefore read with interest the article by Simon McGee on 26 April. I noticed that the North Yorkshire police authority, for example, had voted in favour of a merger. I understand that Mr. Cameron, who is not in his place, supported that decision, and said that,

"if individual police forces and individual councillors want to campaign for amalgamations they're absolutely free to."

He continued:

"That's actually what devolution should be all about."

The effect of the amendment, however, would be to deny that.

Secondly, the amendment requires that the Home Secretary, affected police authorities and the Electoral Commission must agree the wording, which leaves open the question of what would happen if they could not agree. Finally, the amendment requires majority votes in each of the affected areas, which is an odd form of democracy, because if two out of three areas said yes, but a smaller one, perhaps with the minority of the population, said no, it would effectively be able to exercise a veto.

The Minister has mentioned the Home Secretary's role a couple of times. As we know, the Home Secretary represents a Scottish seat, and has no remit for policing in Scotland.

Interestingly, a vigorous debate took place in the Labour party in Scotland. A party insider said:

"We want police forces to be more accountable to the communities they serve."

The breaking up of Strathclyde police is being discussed where the Home Secretary has no remit. Then the Home Secretary comes down to England and tells our constituents, who massively oppose larger police forces, that they may be given them.

What is the Home Secretary's real opinion? On his home patch, his own party is debating the breaking up of a very large police force. Now he has come down here—he has only been in power over the past few days—and I should like to know his real views. Is he going to listen to us? Is he going to listen to our constituents? Is he going to let people have a referendum where there is huge local opposition to this measure?

There are two voices in particular to which I would expect the Home Secretary to listen. One is the voice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which has tabled a report; the other is the voice of the House, which will be heard in the debates that are required for any amalgamation initiated by the Home Secretary.

I think that there are strong arguments against the amendment, and I hope that it will not be pressed to a vote.

I welcome the new Minister of State to his post, and congratulate him on successfully seeking political asylum from the Department of Health. I also welcome the Under-Secretary, Mr. Coaker. I look forward to debating these issues with both of them.

Most of the Government amendments are technical, and we are happy to accept them. The Minister, however, raised one issue in relation to the new power to appoint a deputy chief constable, which has been introduced at a very late stage.

I do not object to the principle that new strategic forces should be allowed to appoint additional deputy chief constables, but it gives rise to a serious question about the whole rationale for mergers—which, after all, was intended to secure savings that could be reinvested in protective services. The essence of the savings that were to be achieved was to result from the reductions in the number of senior command posts.

Page 18 of a Home Office document supporting the proposal to create a west midlands regional force—the Minister will know about that from his constituency—refers to cost savings that are quantified, and suggests that the principal cost saving would derive from a reduction in the number of senior command staff. Now we are presented with an amendment that would allow such a strategic force to take on additional command staff, thereby eating into one of the main areas of saving that have been identified as a rationale for merger.

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his position, or rather his party's position? Does his party support the idea of deputy chief constables within regions or not?

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said quite clearly that I supported the new provision that would allow strategic forces to take on additional deputy chief constables. My point is that the entire rationale for merger was that it would create savings. The savings have been poorly quantified, but one of the main sources of savings was to be the reduction in the number of command staff. It now appears that the Government are belatedly saying that there may not be the reduction in command staff that they at first suggested, and that forces will be allowed to take on an additional deputy chief constable, which will mean a significant cost. If that is the case, it undermines one of the key bases for the achievement of savings, and the basis for amalgamation.

Is it not the case that police authorities may appoint, but such appointments will ultimately be subject to the decision of the Home Secretary? Although police authorities have a power, it will not be exercised in every case, so there may indeed be reductions in the number of senior staff.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There may be reductions in the number of senior staff. It now appears, however, that in many cases there will not be the reductions that were originally suggested. That undermines the costings that were the basis on which the proposal was presented to local people and to the House.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Staffordshire police authority came to speak to Staffordshire Members of Parliament, both Labour and Conservative? Considerable doubt was expressed by Labour Members over the accuracy of their projections of the cost savings. The real fear is that police forces in Staffordshire will be diverted to the west midlands, where there tend to be more trouble spots. We have our needs, too.

My hon. Friend articulates precisely the fear expressed by police forces throughout the country that rural areas in particular will lose out as a consequence of amalgamation, and that resources will be diverted from the front line.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there will also be an impact on rural market towns in Shropshire? Is he as shocked as I am that the cost of merging West Mercia police force into a new super-force for the west midlands is estimated at £57 million, an additional police precept whose cost will be borne by taxpayers throughout Shropshire?

I do find it shocking that mergers will cost so much. For several years, any savings that may be achieved—we now know that they are likely to be less than was initially suggested—will be outweighed by the costs. The Association of Police Authorities estimates that the cost of mergers will be about £500 million across England and Wales. The Government belatedly announced in a budgetary letter to the chief constables at the end of March that they would meet the costs of amalgamation, but it is clear that those funds are being raided from the existing police capital budget. Resources that should have been spent on improvements in policing will now be used to pay for management consultants, merged IT systems and new headquarters.

I should be grateful if the Minister asked for replies to be given to the questions that I tabled for written answer as long ago as January, asking about the costs of the employment of management consultants by the Home Office, police authorities and police forces themselves, as part of the police restructuring exercise. I have not yet received replies to those questions, and I am not surprised that I have not, but I think that months later replies are due.

With the Home Office budget effectively frozen by the Chancellor from 2008 onwards, the outlook for investment in level 2 services—a premise for amalgamation that is addressed by our amendment No. 82—and for other areas of policing is bleak.

Does my hon. Friend not find it rather bizarre that the Home Secretary is forcing on Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex an amalgamation that no one in Essex wants, and that the cost will be £29 million?

Again, I think it unacceptable that that amount will be taken from the police capital budget and used for an amalgamation that the local force does not want, the police authority does not want and people in Essex do not want.

In 2004, a leaked joint Home Office strategy unit report warned:

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

In a letter published this week in The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent and The Times, a group of cross-party chairmen of police authorities representing Cheshire, Cleveland, Northamptonshire, North Wales and West Mercia police authorities added to that warning, pointing out:

"The current proposals are being rushed through amid 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."

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Does he agree that the Government could have met their financial objectives, which were set from the O'Connor report onwards, had they not so obviously set their face against federated arrangements such as those offered by Cambridgeshire and Suffolk police authorities, and that they could have made financial cuts without affecting front-line operational services?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Of course, the irony is that the federal option was proposed by the Prime Minister and the strategy unit, but the previous Home Secretary rejected it out of hand. In my own area, forces such as Sussex, Surrey and Kent have lost the option of going down the federal route. I am of course pleased that Kent is being allowed to remain as a stand-alone force, but I regret the fact that the impetus for such federal arrangements has been lost. Such arrangements could have met many of the cost-saving and reinvestment criteria for level 2 policing that amalgamation purportedly addresses, and without impacting on local accountability.

Serious issues have arisen from the speed with which these proposals have been developed; indeed, they have been a significant distraction from what the Home Office should have been doing in the past few months. Setting aside the obvious issue of whether sufficient ministerial and official attention was paid to the deportation of foreign offenders, the Home Office, as one chief constable remarked, has been moving the deckchairs around in driving through this disruptive and costly amalgamation, when it could have been focusing on other, more important aspects of police reform—not least driving up police productivity and work force reform.

The Prime Minister said in January that it

"is not a question of forcing"

—amalgamations—

"through".—[ Hansard, 25 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1426.]

But only one amalgamation—Cumbria and Lancashire—has been agreed by both the police authorities concerned. All the others have been contested by at least one of the authorities involved. Now, as the Minister said, there is to be a consultation period, and the question is: what does that consultation really mean? In a letter to The Times of 12 April, 35 council leaders from across the parties and across the country condemned the Home Secretary's merger proposals, arguing the following:

"As policing is by consent it is crucial that the wishes of the people are heard and respected. Yet the Home Secretary is not listening. He continues to press ahead with his ill-thought out and ill-judged plans, riding roughshod over the vast majority of the people and their elected representatives."

The truth is that the public have been shut out of discussion about the future of their own police forces. They must be consulted properly.

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. He knows that one of Peel's nine principles was that the police's ability to perform their duties is dependent on public approval of police actions. Some 96 per cent. of respondents to a telephone poll in West Mercia, which the police conducted in a thoroughly professional manner, wanted West Mercia to be a strategic force. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real risk that, if we do not consult the public through a referendum, these huge new forces will not have legitimacy in the eyes of the public?

I agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. If they were wise, the Government, the new Home Secretary and his team would pause to reflect on whether this is the right thing to do in seeking to rebuild public confidence and to establish the right set of priorities for the Home Office, in order that it can do its job of contributing more effectively to public safety.

Will my hon. Friend invite Ministers and Members to hold their own plebiscites? I am carrying out a survey in my Lincolnshire constituency, in the form of a plebiscite, to find out just how many people support these dastardly plans. If all Members did that, we could send the results to Ministers, who would then know once and for all that these plans are unpopular, unwarranted and unnecessary.

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."—[ Hansard, 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.

Given that the hon. Gentleman is very keen on referendums, can he tell us how many the Tories have held at national or local level over the years? [Interruption.]

I am very sorry but I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's question; there was some noise from behind me.

That is probably because the hon. Gentleman's colleague next to him was shouting. Given that the Tories are now very keen on referendums, can he tell us how many they held at national or local level over the years when they were in power?

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, 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.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is arguing the case powerfully. He will know that there is a move to force Surrey police to amalgamate with Sussex, and that every Member of Parliament for Surrey is against this, on the basis that it will mean less local accountability and less-efficient policing; indeed, virtually everybody in the county is against the idea. Can he think of any reason why the Government will not be prepared to listen to the people of Surrey, through one means or another, and to take their views into account?

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 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."—[ Hansard, 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".

The hon. Gentleman talks about localism and local debate. I have great concerns about the proposed all-Wales police force, and local people in great volumes are saying that they want some form of localism. Schedule 2 will give local people the say that they need, so we are moving towards that. It is the duty of Members of Parliament to listen to what people are actually saying, and that is certainly what north Wales MPs have been doing. We are feeding it into the debate today and it is being taken on board.

I understand, from all the public opinion polls and surveys that have been conducted in Wales and debates in which I have taken part that there is considerable opposition in Wales to an all-Wales police force. There will be a substantial loss of accountability, because police force headquarters will be a long way from the people of north Wales. That is why there has been such resistance to the proposals. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to listen to the people, and they are telling us that they do not want these amalgamations.

Ministers claim that the powers in schedule 2 will be used as a last resort. That is what the Minister just told us and the explanatory notes to the Bill set it out in terms. But in Committee the Government refused to put the words on the face of the Bill. When they could offer no convincing reason for not including that uncomplicated safeguard, we became convinced that Ministers have every intention of using the powers more broadly. For that reason, we support amendments Nos. 15 to 18 tabled by Lynne Featherstone, which will go some way to restoring the balance by requiring that intervention is preceded by a recommendation from the new combined inspectorate, or a request from the police authority. Those are not unnecessary obstacles, as the Minister described them. They are the existing safeguards in legislation against the abuse of power by the Home Secretary and this Bill would remove them.

The Association of Police Authorities has expressed alarm that the Bill

"amounts to a fundamental shift of power to the Home Secretary, which undermines the checks and safeguards on which policing is built."

It warns that that the

"changes will not only further centralise power...but could also exacerbate the disconnection from local communities that restructuring policing into larger units could involve".

The association's concern might well have increased if it had heard, as I have, a rumour of a new proposal to create a national policing board in the Home Office, to be chaired by the Home Secretary. There is nothing in the Bill about such a board; nor, to my knowledge, has it been suggested in Parliament. Perhaps the Minister will now confirm whether such a board is planned. If so, it should have been discussed when this Bill was before the House. It is especially relevant to the powers in schedule 2 and the amendments before us, because the concept epitomises the direction of Government policy and the increasingly central direction of policing. We will have half the number of forces, remote from their local communities, with chief constables effectively being appointed by and answering to the Home Secretary. The public simply have not been consulted about a fundamental transfer of power from their communities. That is what our amendment, requiring local referendums on the changes, seeks to address. It is right in principle and it is right because we believe in trusting people. I beg to move amendment No. 82.

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot move that amendment at the moment. It is up for debate now, but it will be moved when we reach it on the amendment paper.

I must first apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for the absence of my hon. Friend Lynne Featherstone, who is attending to vital constituency business but who will join the debate as soon as she can.

I congratulate the Minister on his new responsibilities. It is very impressive to hear new Labour Ministers quoting Edmund Burke; indeed, it must be a first. I suggest that he leaven it with a little John Stuart Mill from "On Liberty", which might be useful in this debate.

If I were optimistic, I would detect a slight softening of the Government's position in new clause 4. The suggestion that huge super-forces may not be such a clever idea after all is a welcome development, as is the proposal to delegate some authority to deputy chief constables or area committees. If it is the beginning of backtracking on the super-forces, I am pleased to see it.

I notice that the Minister credits Welsh MPs with some of the arguments that have persuaded him on the new clause, but there are plenty of other examples from my area in the south-west.

I have been watching the debate from the comfort of my office—[Hon. Members: "You should have been here."] Well, I was moved to come and compliment Welsh Labour Members who, like me, are uncomfortable with the suggestion of one super-force across Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that the Government need to listen to the cross-party consensus that opposes one police force for the whole of Wales? This is not about scoring points off the Government; it is about getting the right settlement for Wales. Behind the Minister are four good men and true who speak for Labour and for Wales. All of them support keeping the police force in that nation roughly as it is.

I certainly agree with that. My hon. Friend must be pleased that he and his Welsh colleagues seem to have had a real impact on Government policy in this area, and that they seem to be moving the Government in a positive direction.

However, I was about to say that Wales is not the only area to which that principle could apply. In the south-west, my area, the most northerly point of the proposed super-force is to the north of Gloucestershire, around Tewkesbury, while the most southerly is the Scilly Isles. The distance between those areas is about twice the distance between the north and south of Wales. In a sense, therefore, the argument for the south-west is even stronger, and there are signs that the Home Office may be thinking twice about the implications of establishing such an enormous force.

The metropolitan model of a successful force is the basis of the O'Connor report and the Home Office's response, but it is one thing to apply that model to a large metropolitan area such as Manchester, where there are many police officers, and resources can be reorganised and shifted around, and quite another to say that resources available in the Scilly Isles could resolve a problem in Gloucestershire.

Interestingly, Gloucestershire's chief constable has continued to make a strong case against the merger of forces in the south-west. In January he wrote to the Minister's predecessor and said that restructuring could cost at least £550 million. He offered shared services and collaboration as an alternative model, saying that it could

"offer a viable alternative to restructuring, and especially so in a disparate geographical region such as the South West. It can build on current strengths, avoid adverse costs associated with restructuring, and avoid disruption at the neighbourhood level."

If the Government are beginning to pause for thought on these huge, inappropriate and expensive mergers, that is a welcome development.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned metropolitan forces, but we need look no further than London's Metropolitan Police Service to see how difficult it is to police a metropolitan area with very different component parts. Outer London is very different from inner London: the policing needs are different, and there are constant pressures on budgets and the allocation of resources. Does he agree that the same will happen in the very large regional forces that the Government propose? They would face exactly the same problems, as they would cover both rural and more built-up areas, with their different policing needs. There cannot be a borough commander in the whole of Greater London who would not welcome more autonomy in dealing with his resources and budgets.

I do not know the details of the Metropolitan force, but the hon. Lady and other hon. Members make a powerful case against a one-size-fits-all solution. What is needed is local flexibility appropriate to an area's geography and the nature of its communities.

At first sight, Government new clause 4 seems to be positive but, as ever, the Government cannot resist increasing the powers of the Secretary of State at the same time. As a result, the new clause contains powers to impose limits on what may be delegated, and to direct police authorities and forces how and what to delegate to area committees or regional deputy chief constables. The Bill's theme is one of interference and creeping centralised control, and it reappears just when it seems that the Government might be beginning to move in the other direction.

As Nick Herbert pointed out, the Bill and its creeping centralisation have constitutional significance.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there appears to be a dichotomy between his party's correct opposition to the proposals for police amalgamations and its consistent support for regional government in every form possible?

No, I do not. It is plausible to have a regional government appropriate to the community that it serves that is not based on the model that is emerging in this country. For the record, my party has always been in favour of elected regional government that takes power down from central Government. What we have is unelected regional government that takes power up from local communities—precisely the reverse of what we have campaigned for. There are good reasons, to do with civil liberties, and resistance to the undue centralisation of power, for not having a national police force, and for preserving a degree of independence for police forces and authorities.

Amendment No. 2, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, would provide for a police authority's chair and vice-chair to be elected rather than appointed by the Secretary of State. Again, we are seeking to remove from the Bill a measure that increases centralisation and the Secretary of State's power.

When he was considering the amendment, the Minister said that greater flexibility would be allowed and that police authorities and forces, and the Government, would not be constrained. In this Bill, however, the Government always seem to be seeking more flexibility for themselves and less for local people and communities. He said that the Mayor of London would be able to appoint the chairs of police authorities. If that is good enough for the Mayor, why is it not good enough for police authorities all over the country? Why does the Bill have to reserve that power for the Government?

Given that the support for amendment No. 2 may not be as widespread as we had hoped, we may not press it to a vote. However, I want to place on record our clear support for the principle that police authority chairs and vice-chairs should be elected and not appointed. Interestingly, the first Home Secretary to try to interfere in that process was Mr. Howard, so it is welcome that the Conservative party is beginning to move away from that centralising instinct. It is just sad that the Labour party seems to have moved past it in the opposite direction.

Amendment No. 82, in the name of David Davis, is based on good instincts. The Conservative party's commitment to referendums has been questioned. That is rather uncharitable, although I remind the House of the trenchant opposition of the then Conservative Government to a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, but I am pleased that Conservative Members seem to have discovered the virtues of direct democracy.

The Minister said in connection with amendment No. 82 that there was good provision for the reorganisation of police forces. Certainly, existing legislation contains good provision for reorganisation, but there is no provision for the application of a brake on the sort of hasty and precipitate reorganisation proposed in the Bill. I am sympathetic to this amendment, which would apply just such a brake and make it possible for public opinion to exert an influence on what would be a hasty and unwise process.

However, the Minister identified a fundamental and practical problem with amendment No. 82, which I shall illustrate using an example involving the forces around Gloucestershire, Avon and Wiltshire. If referendums were held in each of those areas, and if Avon and Wiltshire voted in favour of a merger and Gloucestershire voted against, it is difficult to see how such a result could be resolved. The amendment would appear to give a veto to Gloucestershire over the other two areas. It is one thing to hold a referendum in a single area, such as happened with the devolution of power to Wales or Scotland, but it is much more difficult to hold one that involves the interlocking relationships between different areas.

I now turn to amendments Nos. 14 to 20, again in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. Amendment No. 14 is another attempt to remove the extraordinary powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State. Not only will he be able to interfere when he feels that a police authority is failing but, as is made clear in schedule 2, paragraph 24, in proposed new section 40(2), he will also be able to interfere where he is

"satisfied that the whole or any part of a police force will fail to discharge its functions in an effective manner".

Added to all the Secretary of State's many powers, therefore, is the psychic ability to predict when a police authority or force is going to fail. That is an extraordinary provision to include in the Bill.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs suggested that the amendment would command wide support. However, if it fails we have amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18, which offer alternative safeguards and checks and an independent voice against the power of the Secretary of State to intervene. The Minister says that checks will be allowed under the legislation, but we have to take his word on trust and hope that we will have an enlightened enough Home Secretary in office to allow those independent voices to be heard. If the Government are so happy for there to be independent checks and balances in the process, why will they not accept them on the face of the Bill? The Minister constantly wants flexibility for himself and his ministerial colleagues, but none for the people and local communities in respect of their policing. It seems perfectly reasonable to include measures in the Bill to put in writing safeguards against abuse of power, from which we must all be protected.

If the opportunity arises, we shall seek the opinion of the House on amendment No. 14. I commend it and our other amendments to the House.

I support the Government amendments, in particular new clause 4 and amendment No. 64.

The proposals to set up an all-Wales police force have been extremely controversial in Wales, especially in north Wales. North Wales Labour MPs have been listening closely to their constituents' views about the proposals and were regularly in close and active discussions with the Minister's predecessor, Hazel Blears, who is now the Minister without Portfolio, and the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend Mr. Clarke. We look forward to continuing those discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister. I have already benefited from several talks with him.

Much of the reason for the strength of the controversy in north Wales is that we are extremely proud of our local police force. We have one of the lowest crime rates in the UK and one of the highest detection rates. A person who commits a crime in north Wales is more likely to be caught. North Wales police force is such a good force because of legislation introduced by the Labour Government. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was the most successful, far-sighted and effective legislation on policing since the second world war. It has made policing local.

If Opposition Members had an active and close relationship with their local police forces they would know that with the advent of community safety partnerships, co-operation between local authorities and police forces has developed hugely since 1997 under the Labour Government.

My hon. Friends and I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is important that police forces have an affinity and a closeness to local communities, so why are the Government trying to destroy that by merging police authorities into larger areas where they are divorced from the people?

It is essential that individuals and our constituents have links with the police at the most local level. Community safety partnerships enable that to happen. Basic command units in my area of north-east Wales have been extremely effective in linking local authorities and the police so that they can work together. I will give the hon. Gentleman a concrete example. In 2001, when I was first elected, if an individual came to me with a complaint about a police-related matter, I had no idea where in the police force I should refer the complaint. Now, every local authority ward in north Wales has an identified police officer whom I can contact on their mobile phone to deal with individual complaints. I can thus link individuals with concerns about crime in their community to their local police officer, which means that the police force can be much more effective.

None of that existed under Conservative Governments. The crucial link between the community and the police has been fostered and developed under a Labour Government and I am extremely proud of that. That is why I am campaigning to continue local policing, and the progress that has been made under this Government.

Part of the Government's explanation of the reason for police mergers is that they will increase resilience and improve counter-terrorism and co-ordination between police force areas, so why are five special branch officers being removed from the important port of Holyhead, which has the fourth highest footfall in the country?

I have no detailed knowledge of that proposal, but my hon. Friend Albert Owen is in active discussion about it, so I have every confidence that the matter will be satisfactorily resolved owing to his intervention.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I should like to make a little progress.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will give way to my hon. Friend—

Hon. Members: Oh!

The port of Holyhead is in my constituency. There was concern about the transfer of policing from the port to the local area but no decision has yet been made. I raised the issue with the Home Secretary, who said that he would look into it. The important issue of resources will follow.

I think that I had better give way to Michael Fabricant now.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned basic command units and I agree with much of what he says, but when I have a problem with a constituent in Lichfield I can take them to police headquarters in Stafford, where they can talk to the top man. The hon. Gentleman knows that the drive from, say, Machynlleth to Cardiff can take as long as driving from London to Cardiff, and the drive from Wrexham to Cardiff takes even longer. Is not that why people in the north of Wales want to keep their own police force rather than being merged into a greater Welsh police force?

The previous Home Secretary was well aware that Members of Parliament representing north Wales had profound concerns about the proposals. The new Home Secretary will also be aware of that concern, which we have shown by our attendance in the Chamber today. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's arguments and I have been making them, too.

I was talking about the development of community policing in north Wales, which is a major achievement of the Government. Not all of that progress has been easy; there was resistance to community policing teams being established in north Wales, but we now have community beat officers who are in charge of policing in individual wards. The Police Reform Act 2002 introduced police community support officers—an excellent innovation. I was privileged to serve on the Standing Committee on it, and am well aware of the opposition to PCSOs expressed at the time by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, which has now been withdrawn due to the success of scheme.

Is my hon. Friend surprised that despite everything that the three Tory MPs in Wales have said about policing, none of them is bothering to take part in the debate?

What about Plaid Cymru?

Indeed. Plaid Cymru Members are not bothering to take part either.

That is a matter for concern. A lot of heat has been generated, but Labour MPs in Wales have done an awful lot of work on this issue, and that will continue.

On the precise issue of basic command units, are there not smoke and mirrors, and sleight of hand by the Government? What we are actually seeing is, yes, an increase in police community support officers, but the basic command unit in the northern division of Cambridgeshire constabulary has experienced a reduction of 58 full-time police officers over the past three years. That is not making an impact in terms of combating crime.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman makes the point about police numbers, because I was going to say later that police numbers in north Wales have increased from 512 in 1996, under the last Conservative Government, to 836 under this Labour Government, in addition to the community support officers and neighbourhood wardens who have been introduced to the community policing team by the Government.

Not only is there resistance to community support officers from political opponents, but the chief constable of north Wales was resistant to them, and initially did not apply for the Home Office funding available to enable those community support officers to be introduced. I am pleased to say that the chief constable has now accepted that he was wrong, and we are seeing the widespread introduction of community support officers across north Wales. The development of community policing in north Wales has been very successful indeed. It has led to higher detection rates and less crime. For that reason, I have been working extremely hard to ensure the survival, maintenance and improvement of neighbourhood and community policing in north Wales.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I agree with the points that he is making—they are reasonable—and community policing has been helped by that initiative, and credit to the Government for it. Nevertheless, the great concern, which I am sure we share, about creating a single all-Wales police force is that it will cost us more than many of the benefits that he highlights. Does he share my hope that the new Home Secretary will revisit the issue of an all-Wales police force? Although I recognise that some improvements were made under the previous Home Secretary, the cost of a single all-Wales police force will more than outweigh all the good that he did.

There were enormous improvements to policing in north Wales under the previous Home Secretary. I am putting my case to my hon. Friend the Minister in my own way, but I will be very forthright in ensuring that neighbourhood policing continues to improve. I am therefore very disappointed indeed that the Liberal Democrat-led local authority proposes to abolish the neighbourhood warden scheme in Wrexham, thus undermining the progress that has been made to date. I would be delighted to know whether the hon. Gentleman supports that proposal. Perhaps he will intervene and let me know.

I am conscious that we may be drifting a bit from the new clause, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman asks me a question and I will give him an answer. I assure him that the Liberal Democrats in his constituency have every intention of doing what is best for local policing. If he is suggesting a dialogue about these issues, it would be safe for me to say that the Liberal Democrats in his constituency would be happy to discuss the best way to police. However, they would agree that the big concern that all hon. Members have on a cross-party basis is that the single biggest threat is creating an all-Wales police force, because resources could be leached from his constituency and mine to high-crime areas. That is one of the reasons why we would have a bigger cost than benefit from that initiative.

I now turn specifically to the Government amendments that relate to the creation of an additional deputy chief constable and to allowing the delegation of police authority functions to a lower level. Those amendments represent progress. Clearly, the Home Office has listened to the strong representations from Members of Parliament in Wales and has acted as a result of those representations, for which I am grateful. Of course, I will therefore support those amendments.

Although the amendments go some way towards helping with the situation that we foresee in north Wales under an all-Wales police force, does my hon. Friend agree that significant problems remain, and that the Government could do a lot more work to make a north Wales police force more viable? One of the other things on which he might want to press the Government is ensuring that the powers given under the amendments are enforced and used if—as, unfortunately, seems likely—we have an all-Wales police force.

My hon. Friend presages many of the remarks that I intend to make. The amendments represent progress, but they are not the result that I, as a north Wales Member of Parliament, seek. I accept that there is a recognition that governance issues are extremely important in Wales, because of the peculiar geographical circumstances in Wales and the practical difficulties of improving level 2 policing in Wales, given the country's identity and geography. However, the financing of policing in Wales is crucial.

Since 1997 there has been investment in creating the community policing teams that have been so effective in improving both the performance and my constituents' perception of the North Wales police force. The concern is that if a reorganisation takes place, the progress that has been achieved will be undermined by the transfer of the funding that North Wales police currently receive away from north Wales to other areas of Wales, which currently have lower performance, lower detection rates and higher crime. An all-Wales police authority, most of whose members are likely to come from south Wales, will be tempted to shift resources away from north Wales to south Wales.

My hon. Friend echoes the sentiments of the North Wales police authority and the fear that resources will go to other parts of Wales. He says that the amendments are important in the sense that they move towards what the North Wales police authority has been requesting. Does he therefore think it appropriate for the Government to pause and take that on board, so that we can find out how these important changes will impact on policing in Wales? Does he therefore agree that the Home Secretary should take some time out and extend the period, so that those authorities can meet to discuss the amendments?

My hon. Friend the Minister has been in his current position for four days, as has his boss, the new Home Secretary. I am sure that there will be a period of reflection in the Home Office. I am sure that the difficult practical issues that I am raising will be looked at closely by the Home Office and that, to satisfy me, they must make proposals to ensure that the current financing for North Wales police is maintained.

Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising that important work was done with council tax payers to explain that extra money was being invested, with a higher precept, but that they were getting more front-line policing with those resources? It is important that we demonstrate to them that we are ensuring that that extra money is being protected and spent on policing in north Wales.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Investment pays off in policing. Community police teams, of which we are very proud, have been created in north Wales. We are leading the way on that issue. We do not want the progress that has been made in north Wales to be undermined by any proposal being taken forward. I welcome the amendments and the continuing dialogue with the Home Office on this issue, and I look forward to receiving responses in due course from the new Minister to the concerns that I have expressed today.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the composition of the local teams that he has referred to should reflect the most local level? Whether resources are devoted to fully trained police constables, police community support officers or wardens, the decision should be made to reflect local need, and should not be made centrally.

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. One of the interesting innovations and developments that has taken place in north Wales is that there has been a large-scale devolution of budgets from the North Wales police to the basic command units. The crime and disorder partnerships—as they are called in Wales—in each area have been developed. They can see which particular areas have policing issues that need addressing and can allocate resources accordingly. It is important that that localism should continue.

I hope that the Home Office and the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, whom I wish very well in his new post, will listen to the concerns. I thank the Home Office for moving thus far, and I hope that it will be able to resolve the concerns that I have expressed.

We have just had a 25-minute debate on community policing in north Wales in the middle of a debate on the reorganisation of police forces across the country. I would like to drag the debate back to that broader' subject. I want to speak in support of amendment No. 82. I am not, in general, in favour of referendums. I take the points that the Minister made and I think that, on the whole, Governments should make those decisions and then be responsible to the House and to the electorate for them. However, in this case there has been so little consultation and consideration of the alternatives that a referendum may be one of the only ways in which we can air matters.

The former Home Secretary had made up his mind what he wanted to do. The regional agenda was at work and he was not prepared to entertain the concept of the federalisation of forces or of having multi-level, two-tier police forces. I was told that very early on by one of the Ministers concerned—I was told not to bother to write about that. Within days of the so-called consultation period finishing, the Home Office had reduced our options in the west midlands to two—and it made it very clear that it did not like one of them. There has not been a proper consultation.

On the question of referendums and the Conservatives, when police forces were last reorganised—this is a once in a generation thing and it is important that we get it right, because Governments of different political colours will have to live with the arrangement—there was a royal commission and all the different options were studied. I do not know whether we came to the right conclusion, but nobody could pretend that there was not a full consultation and examination of the alternatives, which there has not been in this case. [ Interruption. ] I was in favour of a referendum on the European constitution—that is perfectly true. So, in the end, was the Prime Minister.

I realise that there is a trade-off, which the Home Office is trying to deal with, between the need for high-tech intelligence-led modern policing to deal with the professional criminal gangs, serious crime such as armed robbery, and terrorism, and the need for local community policing, which is what most of our constituents want and feel that they do not get. I can see the argument that, at a big regional level, a west midlands police force with 15,000 police constables will be able to have dedicated units to deal with drugs, organised crime, armed robbery and terrorism, whereas that cannot be done on an amalgamation basis or by having one police force taking the lead. On the other hand, there is no doubt that a police force such as Warwickshire, with 1,000 policemen, will provide a far greater level of local accountability and community policing than would be the case if it were part of the west midlands force. I am concerned about that.

The good thing about the old arrangement was local accountability and community policing in rural areas. The bad thing was the lack of resilience. If a couple of murders occurred in Warwickshire, until they were sorted out, that was the end of about half of the community policing. Under the new arrangements, those good and bad aspects are reversed. The arrangements will be good for serious crime and resilience, but bad for local policing and accountability. We need to consider another way of dealing with the matter.

I hope that the Minister will be able to address my specific concerns when he sums up. First, the high levels of crime in the conurbation of the west midlands—the Birmingham conurbation—will suck police forces out of rural areas. That seems inevitable. The problems that are faced in the conurbations will always result in higher crime rates than in rural areas. I do not see how there will be protection. I would be grateful if he could reassure me about that.

Secondly, there is the issue of accountability. Warwickshire police force is accountable to one county council, five district councils, five crime and disorder reduction partnerships and five Members of Parliament. If I want to speak to the chief constable, it is very easy, and, to be frank, there are so few of us that he has to take my call, but in the case of the west midlands police force, there will be about 70 Members of Parliament, about 14,000 policemen and about 32 basic command units. He will be as far from rural Warwickshire, or rural Staffordshire, or rural Shropshire—both in his head and geographically—as it is possible to be. He is going to say, "Gee, they don't have any problems in south Warwickshire. Crime there is half the rate it is in Wolverhampton. I am worrying about Wolverhampton." There must be some accountability in relation to the basic command unit.

Thirdly, we do not have the ability to manage forces of that size. I know that the Met is held up an example and I think that the police force is quite strong on leadership in some areas, but it is not particularly good on management. It is a feature of the public sector that it does not appreciate or put into operation a distinction between leadership and management. The management of a force of 14,000 policemen and probably 6,000 or 7,000 civilians is a really big task. We have not proved at all that we are up to that. I am concerned that the Government never allowed us to examine the two-tier option. We could have done, because it exists in many other countries. France and the United States are two examples. We could have had a west midlands police force that dealt with big serious crimes and strategic issues, built in the necessary resilience, and dealt with terrorism, intelligence, and serious and organised crime. We could also have kept a Warwickshire police force, and other county forces, to deal with community policing.

The police say that there would be a problem of interaction between the two forces. That is true, but that exists at the moment between head office and basic command units. That would be a small price to pay for getting the two objectives that we want. The Government want a high level force to work well, but are sacrificing the value of community policing and community accountability at a lower level. A two-tier force would at least have given us the best of both those worlds and it would have been worth examining the issue of the weaknesses in communication—often clues about big, serious, organised crime are picked up at local levels by community officers. That would have been a smaller price to pay than the one that we are paying in the Government's reorganisation proposals. I bitterly regret that we were never given the opportunity to consult on that. We should have been, because, as I say, we are reorganising the forces for a generation.

I hope that the Minister can deal with the question of community accountability at a basic command unit level, or some other level that means something—rather than just having a dotted line that involves going along and talking to the district council once every three months. There should be a real obligation to take notice of what locally elected politicians and communities want.

The resources for community policing in rural areas should be protected from the demands and inevitable predations of policing and crime problems in urban areas. We all pay our taxes. The transition costs in the west midlands are estimated to be £50 million and the annual savings £30 million. When I wrote to the Minister's predecessor, I was told that part of the police's capital budget for those two years had been set aside to pay for that. I am glad that the money is not coming out of the current budget, because then it would be a long time before we saw the benefit of any savings, but I am concerned that the money is coming out of the capital budget. Will the Minister tell us exactly what that means? Does is mean that the police will not be able buy computers, fingerprint kits and police cars, or whatever else they need to buy out of their capital budgets, or that criminal justice centres will be set back?

Finally, I would like some reassurance that the police precepts, which tend to be higher in rural than urban areas, will be allowed to find an average level without that being rigged. There will have to be one police precept across the west midlands under the new arrangements. Given that that will benefit rural areas—almost uniquely in the context of anything that the Government have done in that respect for nine years—I suspect that local authority finance will be rigged to take that benefit away so that we will lose grant to make up for the fact that we have had our police precept reduced. I would like some reassurance on that, too.

It is always a pleasure to listen to Mr. Maples and I always enjoy doing so, but, in following him, I realise that I have to try to match his eloquence. That is somewhat difficult, especially as I approach this issue with a very heavy heart.

I apologise for arriving late in the Chamber. I had a huge backlog of admin work to do because I was in Committee all day yesterday, from morning until night, as the senior Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Education and Inspections Bill. I have to return to Committee very soon, so I will be making a bit of a breathless contribution to the debate. I want to complain not about policing standards, or police conduct and discipline, but the reorganisation.

The matter is nothing new to the House because I secured an Adjournment debate on it in Westminster Hall. It was probably the most heavily attended debate on any subject discussed in Westminster Hall, and I must say that I enjoyed it. I spoke for rather too long, but nevertheless the subjects were covered in adequate detail.

I point out to the Minister and the Government that ever since the topic came on the agenda and we were given three weeks in which to consider the proposal and come up with our options, I have consistently opposed it resolutely, in every syllable. I made the previous Home Secretary well aware of my opposition not only through the debate in Westminster Hall, but in private meetings with him and when he chose to raise the issue with me in the Tea Room—I did not chase him; he came to me. On each and every occasion, I had to make it plain to him and his then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend Hazel Blears, that I thought that the proposal was unjustified, unwarranted, illogical and unaffordable.

I am not against change to the structure of the police force. Modernisation is certainly needed, as are re-equipping and new methods of detection and pursuit, especially to take account of the changes that are occurring in not only terrorism, but drug and commercial crime. However, simply coming up with a set of proposals, giving people three weeks to consider them, stating that options could be put forward, but sweeping those options to one side without even considering them, was not only illogical and impolite, but verging on the insane.

I find it difficult to express myself in terms that are clear and polite. We were asked to concentrate on forces that would be able to supply 4,000 officers. When one questioned the basis for that figure, no logical justification was given. One then pointed out that there are forces in Scotland—they will not be affected by the measure because it will not impinge on Scotland at all, which must be rather comforting for a Home Secretary who comes from Scotland—with only 400 officers, so how are they going to survive and provide protective services if we must have forces with 4,000 officers in this country?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

If I must.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is he aware of any evidence that is adduced to sustain the argument that that 4,000 is some sort of magic figure? The Leicestershire force, with 2,000 officers covering 1 million people, is being absorbed into one with 9,000 officers covering 4.5 million people, but that will create serious risks, especially in relation to localised policing. Is he aware of any such academic or other professional evidence?

Search as I might in all sources available to me, I can find no justification for asserting that particular criterion. It does not bear examination or stand up to scrutiny for me, although it did for the former Home Secretary. I have to say to the Minister, who I see is assiduously making notes, that although I can offer him sympathy in his new job and welcome him to it, I cannot offer him support—he will not get it from me.

We were told that there was to be no money, so the forces were supposed to change livery, get new equipment, reorganise themselves and restaff new establishments with no money. We asked about the police precept—we heard about that earlier—and were told that it would take care of itself, but will it? After last Thursday, I do not suppose that that will be very much the Labour party's problem in the next five or 10 years if what we experienced in the south happens in the north.

We were told much later that the money would be provided. "Ah, fine," said I, when I returned to this country after duty abroad, "They've found the money. Okay, that's another one of my arguments gone, so I'm a little weaker than I was before." However, I was told, "Yes, Frank, but there's no new money." I asked where the money would come from. I was told that it would come from the Home Office, and when I asked where the Home Office would get it from, I was told, "Oh, they'll find it somewhere," but then we heard about the financial problems with the Home Office. The whole situation is approaching a fantasy. Walt Disney ought to make an epic on this one—it is absolutely crazy.

I have tried to conduct my arguments through correspondence, so I have quite a large file. I have also had to argue with some policemen who seem keen for the changes to go through, although I must say that they are the ones who think that they will get the top jobs. I hope that the Minister will take this point seriously and make it his business to watch the interview with the chief constable of West Mercia in a recent episode of "HARDtalk" on BBC News 24. The interview will give him great cause for a rethink. There was a man who was special branch and had anti-terror responsibilities, with a remarkable record and a force with an astonishing track record on policing efficiency. He was really given a hard time by Stephen Sackur—he was not on a soft hook at all—but gave a great account of himself, as have many police officers throughout the country who object right from their roots to the form of the reorganisation. It is not that they are against reorganisation—they will go for it if it is needed. However, they are professionals. They are right into policing and have spent their lives doing it, although the previous Home Secretary and the Minister have not, as I have not. I am not an expert. The only thing that I am an expert in is mediocrity.

Not true.

You bet—I will prove it.

I appeal to the Minister, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, please, please, please go back and think again. Go back and re-examine, and think about the 82 per cent. of the people throughout the north-east who want a referendum. Go back and think of the 65 per cent. of people throughout the north-east who do not want the merger. Those people are talking to us. We are in the House because of the people. They send us here and pay us to be here, so let us listen to them for heavens sake—we might make history.

I do not enjoy voting against my Government and party, although I have done, I think, about 14 times in 23 years. It has always been painful, but I do it because of my conscience—believe it or not, I have got one. On this issue, the Government cannot count on my support, so I beg you—I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg you too, in a way. I beg the Government: for God's sake, think again.

It is a great honour and a pleasure to follow Frank Cook. He made a powerful speech, and spoke extremely well when he landed his debate in Westminster Hall.

I endorse virtually everything that the hon. Gentleman said. He may have been out of the Chamber when I intervened on the matter of Scotland, but the situation is rather worse. A report in Scotland on Sunday suggested that party insiders are saying that the enormous Strathclyde police force may be broken up because, according to certain members of the Labour party, it is not close enough to the community. We are subject to the extraordinary constitutional outrage of a Home Secretary from Scotland, who has no remit whatsoever for the Strathclyde police force, dictating to us—in the north-east in the hon. Gentleman's case, or to the West Mercia force in mine—and forcing a massively unpopular amalgamation when his own party is doing exactly the opposite, back in his own home patch. On those grounds alone, this process is illegitimate and the Government should think again.

The process is illegitimate also, as my hon. Friend Mr. Maples has said, because of the outrageous rush with which it has been conducted. On 16 September, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary published the report entitled "Closing the Gap", which referred to the utterly arbitrary figure of 4,000 police officers.

My parliamentary neighbour, Ian Lucas, was talking about resources. The issue is not all about resources, but some of us are caught financially. I am not making a call for more money, but it should be noted that West Mercia constabulary receives £94.38 per head from central Government while North Wales police receives £116. If West Mercia received the same as North Wales, our force would be well over 4,000 strong. If that were so, I would probably not be speaking in this debate, because there would not be an issue to discuss. As we have only 2,380 officers, we are, however, caught by the absurd black-and-white figure of 4,000, for which there is no basis.

The West Mercia force has a splendid chief constable in Paul West. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, he was given a hard time last night on television, but really stood up for himself. There is also a strong police authority under Paul Deneen. The force polices a huge area—Shropshire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire. Despite the low rate of funding per head from central Government, when the HMIC base-line assessment and the police standards unit assessment of performance is taken into account, which includes level 2 performance—it must be the most comprehensive independent assessment of police forces, which took place in the autumn—West Mercia was rated as the No. 1 police force in the country. In terms of geographical area, that force is responsible for the fourth largest in the country. Yet we are to be rushed headlong, helter-skelter, into an amalgamation with Warwickshire, Staffordshire and the west midlands force.

A document was issued on 16 September, and the Home Secretary wrote to the police authority on 22 September saying, in effect, "You have got to be amalgamated and 4,000 is the limit." I have been involved in this matter and meetings took place down here. For instance, I got the chief constable and the chairman to meet the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Fiona Mactaggart. Our chief constable was pretty straight with the hon. Lady and told her that it was nothing short of scandalous to reconfigure British policing in a few weeks. He said to her, directly:

"In my professional judgment as a Chief of a high-performing force"— he was being modest because it is the highest-performing force—

"in a regional structure it would be extremely difficult to give the same level of performance as at present in West Mercia."

To touch on my political neighbour's comments on local policing, the chief constable said:

"BCU commanders will have much less influence. The proposal is untested and the regional model is not supported by the people of West Mercia. The way it is being imposed is outrageous; there is scant regard for professional advice on the ground."

Most importantly, the chief constable said:

"Level 2 could be delivered by collaboration and joint working."

As an example with regard to level 2, West Mercia officers are not only helping the West Midlands force after the incident at Lozells last year but helping the Met following the bombings last year. West Mercia officers are also in the Balkans helping authorities there. There must be collaboration across forces and we support that, but that does not mean subordination and a complete loss of the relationship between the smaller local force and the people.

In the Westminster Hall debate—

Will the hon. Gentleman consider for a second the amount of co-operation that took place between different and various police forces during the miners' strike?

I was pursuing another profession at the time of the miners' strike and I am not qualified to speak about that. However, I am sure that there was collaboration. I am sure also that the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. There has always been collaboration between forces. The issue has been made even more pertinent following the arrival of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, as my hon. Friend Mark Pritchard said. SOCA is carrying out level 2 strategic work on terrorism, so there is no need to go through this massively expensive and unpopular process of amalgamation. Local policing should be as near as possible to local people.

As a final crushing comment, Paul West said:

"This is not some superficial numbers game. The analysis of 4,000, if written by a GCSE statistics student, would have been returned."

That is the opinion of the professional. I repeat that that is the view of the chief constable of the No. 1 police force in the country. His view on statistics were supported by Tony Lawrance, who is professor of statistics at the University of Warwick. He published a statistically based opinion which completely undermined the HMIC review, which is the only basis for the figure of 4,000.

I suggest that professors of statistics are not commonly known for colourful or exciting language, but I shall give a flavour of one of Tony Lawrance's comments. He said:

"This is an almost perfect example of how not to present a graph— no scales on either axis, no data plotted to justify the lines drawn. It is almost impossible to obtain any critical understanding from it, except that it is intended to prove that score for protective capability increases with force size...I can see little hard evidence in pages 30 and 31 to justify the figure of 4,000."

Touching on collaboration, that professor of statistics went on to say:

"Effectiveness of smaller forces depends on arrangements they have to deal with policing matters which outstretch their resources, by collaboration with adjacent forces. If these are good then they are effective. This would apply to the larger forces and the most serious matters needing massive response."

That is exactly as was cited.

Does the hon. Gentleman fear for the amalgamation in which his own force will be involved, which is parallel to the concern that many, including me, have in the east midlands, where forces such as Leicestershire and Derbyshire—good and effective forces that are adjacent to Nottinghamshire, which, unfortunately, has a higher than average crime rate and other concerns—face the prospect of resources being sucked in that will weaken the existing effective structures in those forces, which were always good? Leicestershire has always been good at collaborating and in dealing with serious and organised crimes, drug offences and terrorism.

I entirely agree with that. There is no question that the targets will be set by the Home Office; those targets will be set by conurbations that are big centres of population and big crime centres. The current efficient handling of crime matters and policing in areas such as that represented by the hon. Gentleman and myself will definitely be damaged. That is inevitable.

I return to the professor, whose comments are extremely relevant. Time and again the Government come back to HMIC. They say, "We are only following what HMIC says." It is one man's opinion, which is trashed by Tony Lawrance, a professor of statistics, who has said:

"It is hard to believe that professional statisticians were heavily involved in planning, analysing and presenting the quantitative information used by the report, or suggesting conclusions to be drawn from it."

His conclusion is damning. He says:

"The quality of the statistical information gathered for the HMIC report...is questionable. The statistical treatment of the data collected is largely unjustified and appears open to criticism in its combination of scores. The graphical presentation of the data is poor and trend lines could be misleading; The use of computer-produced statistical collaboration is unjustified...The conclusions drawn in respect of the 4,000 minimum force size almost totally ignores the variability of protected services performance at each force size, and no evidence is provided that this will be small at the 4,000 level."

How can the Government base the largest change in policing in 100 years on a report that is utterly flawed in its basic statistics?

The hon. Gentleman has been generous in accepting interventions. Did the professor make a comparison between the HMIC report and the report that was jointly published two years before by the Home Office and Downing street, which rejected the proposal? The Home Secretary, however, has refused to allow me sight of that report.

No, the professor's analysis was purely of the HMIC report. Given that it is constantly thrown at us as the justification for a revolution in British policing, it is pertinent that a politically neutral professor of statistics rubbishes the data. Even though he uses such extraordinarily colourful language, the Government continue to produce that report as evidence.

Given that basic evidence and given that it is extremely unpopular, the proposal is illegitimate. The Prime Minister said before the Liaison Committee:

"the reorganisation of local police is something where it really is sensible to listen to local people."

On 18 January, he said:

"It is important that we listen to local people, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do so."—[ Hansard, 18 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 836.]

A week later, on 25 January, he said:

"Obviously, we will listen carefully to what people say.

Later that day, he said:

"I entirely accept that some people are in favour of mergers, that some are against them and that some are in between. We will have to take a decision on what is best for local forces, but we will do so listening to what local people say. In the end, surely, what we both want to see is the most effective form of policing."—[ Hansard, 25 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1426-29.]

A comprehensive survey of public opinion has taken place in West Mercia. Not one of the area's 13 Members of Parliament wrote to the police authority to support the regional proposal, including a Parliamentary Private Secretary, Mr. Foster, who is now a Government Whip and, lo and behold, Jacqui Smith, the Government Chief Whip. None of the county and unitary councils supports the measure, and neither do any of the nine district councils. None of the 108 parish and town councils supports it, and neither do the 11 police consultative groups or 15 community groups. They all support the proposal that West Mercia should become a strategic force, achieving that rank using its own resources. In more than 100 public meetings, overwhelming support has been expressed for the proposal that West Mercia handle level 2 crimes.

In a telephone poll, 94 per cent. of respondents were in favour of West Mercia promoting itself to level 2 within its own boundaries. Similarly, 96 per cent. of written responses supported West Mercia as a level 2 force. Why on earth do the Government think that the proposal, if it is rammed through, will be legitimate? The Minister effectively said that carefully selected Government toadies will have a little debate in a closed Statutory Instrument Committee to enable the measure to go through.

My hon. Friend will have had conversations with police officers in his area, as I have had in mine. Those officers say that they police the public with the public's consent, and that they cannot do otherwise. If the measure goes through without public consent, as he clearly demonstrated, that will not assist the strengthening of the relationship that the police need to have with the public, and with which they have had difficulty in the past few years and months.

That is a prescient intervention, as I was about to say that policing began as a civic duty in Elizabethan times. Then, as now, jury service was a civic duty and, the citizenry were also the police. My hon. Friend is right to raise the matter, because Sir Robert Peel's second principle stated that

"the ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police...actions".

Sir Robert continued:

"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public: the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interest of community welfare and existence."

In 1839, the royal commission on policing recommended that there should be a national police force, but that recommendation was rejected by Parliament, which understood that policing could work only with public support and co-operation.

Having cited the figures, how can the Minister possibly believe that a new west midlands force will have any support or legitimacy, given the strength of public opinion? On 14 February, the West Mercia police authority unanimously rejected the merger proposal, and it supported my calls for the local referendum that is the subject of amendment No. 82. Only yesterday, seven policy authority chairmen from all parties stated that opinion polls show overwhelming public opposition, and pointed out that only two police authorities have volunteered to proceed with mergers. Some of them have initiated legal proceedings to halt the process; West Mercia will pursue the legal avenues against the measure, and it will seek judicial review at every stage. Last night, the chief constable appeared on "HARDtalk", and gave a robust defence in the face of probing questions from Stephen Sackur.

Is my hon. Friend concerned about something that has not been mentioned in our debate—the negative impact on the morale of police officers and other staff? He is fortunate to have one of the best performing police forces in the country. On the other side of the equation, however, my force is in the bottom 10 per cent, but the ill-thought-out proposals will have a massive impact on staff morale and performance in both the best-performing and worst-performing forces.

My hon. Friend is quite right—there will be chaos when the proposal is introduced. On the television last night, my chief constable made the point that there will be only one winner. There will be only one chief constable and one deputy, so four good deputies and four good chief constables will be fired. The police will lose a huge swathe of experience across the country, as chief constables, their deputies and other senior personnel such as financial staff will go. It is an extraordinary act of vandalism to get rid of that talent, given that SOCA, which should handle level 2 crime, only began its operations in April, and that forces such as West Mercia have proved that they can handle level 2 crime.

This is a bizarre story, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North said. The measure was rushed through at a week's notice on the basis of a bogus report and utterly false statistics that have been rubbished. It will be rammed through in my area in the face of extraordinary public opinion—I have cited opposition of 94 and 96 per cent. It lacks legitimacy and it has been rammed through in the teeth of professional advice from the most successful chief constable in the country and from police chairmen, who have made it clear that they will take legal action against the Government. To suggest that it can be introduced without a local referendum is insane, so I support amendment No. 82.

This important issue has not received the airtime that it deserves. I shall confine my contribution to police structures. The Bill generally is a missed opportunity and will do nothing to tackle the underlying issue—the scourge of crime and disorder. The Prime Minister, we are told, is always looking for actions that will be his legacy. In the wake of the removal of Mr. Clarke from the post of Home Secretary, one could have been to listen to the massive opposition of people throughout the country to these ill thought-out proposals and to tackle the last bastion of restrictive practices, sclerotic working practices, bureaucracy, inefficiency and buck-passing. I am not speaking about ordinary policemen and women.

Under the Bill, we are moving, although the Government would no doubt deny it, towards a national police force, entrenching central control by the Home Secretary and the Home Office and reducing local accountability, not least by changing the role and responsibilities of members of police authorities. Some of the proposals in the Bill begin to infringe on operational police matters.

Through the Bill, we are embedding the general concept that senior police officers should be accountable upwards from their local area to the Home Office, not accountable downwards to residents, taxpayers, or even Members of Parliament and local elected councillors. We have strategic plans, police performance assessments, national policing plans, frameworks, the national policing improvement agency and so on. They are all part of a centralised, top-down, tick-box culture. The views of long-suffering residents are largely irrelevant. More importantly, the proposed reforms will have no discernible effect on the reduction of crime.

Nothing so perfectly sums that up as the obdurate disdain for the views of local people that we have seen from the Government over the past six months. In the teeth of opposition from hon. Members in all parts of the House, not least hon. Members from north Wales and other Labour Members, the forced police amalgamation plans are unwanted and unworkable and are being foisted on local authorities by the departed right hon. Member for Norwich, South.

I pay tribute to Cambridgeshire and Suffolk police authorities for refusing to be bullied into a so-called voluntary amalgamation. I commend to the House the views of Councillor Ian Bates, the leader of Huntingdonshire district council in Cambridgeshire, who challenged the Home Office unilaterally to submit its proposals for Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk to a plebiscite of local people, to gauge whether the Government have a mandate to wreck the police service in Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk. Like the councillor, I believe that the Government's plans are hasty, intellectually incoherent, as my hon. Friend Mr. Paterson said, and flawed.

Councillor Bates asked some pertinent questions of the Home Office, which bear repetition. He pointed out that the amalgamations will detract from the ongoing operational improvements that we have seen in Cambridgeshire, such as Operation Harrier, a major drugs operation in Peterborough three years ago. The amalgamations will have a major impact on operational and financial risk. They will undermine the concept of neighbourhood policing. It is interesting that the Minister fought his own successful by-election campaign in Hodge Hill on neighbourhood policing and other policing issues, yet there is a dichotomy between neighbourhood policing and the drive towards regional government and regional policing, which he must know is motivating many of his hon. Friends to oppose the proposals.

As I said earlier, morale is a major issue. Cambridgeshire could be construed as a failing authority, but we are through the worst, things are improving and the force has the strong leadership of Chief Constable Julie Spence. Yet all the senior officers in the three counties are now engaged in a game of musical chairs to try to get the best position. They are, therefore, focusing not on crime, but on new badges, new management suites, new structures and new buildings.

Questions remain. Will the Home Office meet all the net costs associated with mergers? I listened to the Minister but I remain unconvinced by the damascene conversion. What will the impact be on my constituents' council tax bills? Will democratic and lay justice representation be the same in Cambridgeshire as in Norfolk and Suffolk, under the proposals? Will the Home Office grant remain the same to fund more police, community support officers and other specialist police operational needs, in 2007 and in 2008? We know that the Government are obsessed with change, reform and altering structures. There will inevitably be consultancy costs for the amalgamations and reorganisations. Who will pay them? I do not want taxpayers in the Peterborough constituency to pay for the Government's administrative folly.

I fear that the Bill focuses on structures and ignores people's everyday experience of crime and disorder. Last week I visited South Bretton, part of the Peterborough Development Corporation development in the west of my constituency, where residents were plagued by youth crime and appalling antisocial behaviour. They were miserable about that and about the response from the police. I am taking the matter up with the chief constable. One lady who works on the night shift in a local factory told me in tears that she fears coming home from her shift. She knows she will not sleep because she is worried about criminal damage, harassment and youth crime. Is that any way to live?

What will be the outcome of the amalgamations? Will decent tax-paying people see a reduction in crime? Yes, we have action areas, a prolific and priority offender strategy, a joint working party locally, a safer schools partnership and a local respect action plan, and goodness me, there is a respect academy in the pipeline.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the scenario that he is describing, his constituents and mine are likely to find that not only are police management structures further away from them, but so is democratic accountability for the police? Larger police forces will have elected or partly elected police authorities, further removed geographically and in their thinking from the people about whom my hon. Friend and I are worried.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am extremely concerned that we will see reductions in full-time police officer numbers in basic command units, as we have seen in Peterborough over the past three years. Fifty-two full-time police officers have been lost, and violent crime has risen from 2,761 offences in 2001 to 5,827 in 2005. In my basic command unit, detection rates are 15 per cent. for burglary, 28 per cent. for sexual offences and 20 per cent. for robbery. I worry that the democratic deficit that will be a consequence of huge regional police forces will mean that the particular policing needs of my constituency and other urban areas will be ignored, as will the specialist policing needs of rural areas under the new regional structure, as my hon. Friends have pointed out.

The changes will do nothing to stop the erosion of people's faith in the criminal justice system. I make no bones about my views. In my maiden speech on 6 June last year, I called for an elected police official for Cambridgeshire. If such an official is called a sheriff, that is fine. I believe that that is important, because I believe that the democratic deficit must be filled.

Accountability is needed not only on policing, but on prosecutions at a local level. I know that that issue is slightly different, but it relates to people's lack of faith in how structures work now. Council tax payers in the Peterborough unitary authority area now pay £46 a head for local policing compared with £20 a head in 1998, and I could entertain the House, if that is the right word, with many similar examples.

The Bill reveals the Government's fetish for structures, rather than focusing on delivery of outcomes. The Government want to talk about structures and avoid real reform, and the police service needs real reform. We need proper accountability by means of an elected sheriff or similar official. We must reform the pay and conditions of police officers, which should relate to skills, competence and results in combating crime, rather than length of service, Buggins' turn or the canteen culture. Incidentally, I speak as the son of a policeman and as the brother of two policemen, one of whom is serving and the other of whom is an ex-policeman.

We need to move away from situations in which policemen have two jobs.

Order. I have been fairly generous with the hon. Gentleman, but he is going very wide of the new clause and amendments under discussion.

I am grateful for your tolerance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The proposals do nothing to tackle crime as it affects my constituents and others. There are many examples of best practice across the country, such as Middlesbrough and Essex. We must solve the epidemic of street crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour. As my hon. Friend Mr. Paterson has said, it is important that the police are supported and have the active sanction of local residents and local voters. For that reason, I cannot understand why the Government, who pay lip service to involvement and engagement at a local level, are afraid of the views of local people. They may have had their nose bloodied in the referendum in the north-east, but they may win the next referendum. Why are they afraid to put their views and policies to the vote and to trust the people, our constituents?

I support amendment No. 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend Nick Herbert. I join my hon. Friend Mr. Paterson and Frank Cook in their impassioned plea for greater democratic accountability through a referendum on the Home Office's extraordinary policy of merging police forces.

I had thought, perhaps naively, that, given last Friday's change of regime in the light of last Thursday's disastrous local election results for the Government, new Ministers might have had the nous to review whether it was sensible to proceed with a set of mergers that has united the vast majority in local communities against the Government's proposal. As the Minister said in his introductory comments, however, the new regime at the Home Office is not prepared to think again, and it seems determined to continue the mistakes of the old regime.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire has said, we have a police service and police system that carries out its duties with the consent of the population. One criticism made over a period is that there is not enough communication and visibility between local communities and the local police force, which relates to the introduction in the '60s and '70s of motorised policemen rather than bobbies on the beat. Community after community and politician after politician have called for more bobbies on the beat, and in the past decade or so there has been a realisation that the needs and desires of the local community must be met. In my county of Essex, for example, the chief constable took over relatively recently, and we have seen a deliberate and successful policy to ensure that there are more policemen on the beat not only to reassure the local population, but to deter opportunistic crime. That approach has strengthened links between the local police force and the community, and the problem with mergers that create large police areas is that that local affinity will be broken.

Essex is one of the largest counties in the country geographically as well as one of the largest in terms of population, at just less than 2 million. To many people, Essex should, could and, I believe, must have a stand-alone police force, but we were told by the previous Home Secretary—this is being continued by the new Home Secretary—that Essex must be merged against its wishes and those of all national politicians in the county. Those politicians do not include the hon. Members for Harlow (Bill Rammell) and for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), who, to be fair to them, are bound by collective responsibility as members of the Government and have not therefore voiced an opinion. However, the other Labour MP in the county, Andrew Mackinlay, is totally against the proposal, as are Liberal Democrat MPs and all the Conservative MPs. The Prime Minister told us at Question Time that the Government would listen to the wishes of local people. The campaigns by hon. Members, local authorities, the police authority and the chief constable in Essex have made it plain that Essex wants to remain a stand-alone force and not be merged.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

With respect, I will not. This debate has been going on for almost two hours, but the hon. Gentleman has hardly been present in the Chamber.

Despite all the representations and wishes of the local community, the Government refuse to listen and allow Essex to remain as a stand-alone force. That has confused many people in Essex, because the next-door county, Kent, has been allowed to remain as a stand-alone police authority, as has Hampshire. I would be grateful if the Minister reassured me that it is not because the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee happens to be a Hampshire MP and that there are a number of highly marginal Labour seats in north Kent that those counties have been allowed to have their way, while Essex has not.

Amendment No. 2 is particularly attractive, because the Government, despite the promises and rhetoric of the Prime Minister, are not prepared to listen. When the previous Home Secretary told the House that he would listen to the views of people in the next phase of the process, I asked whether he would listen if the overwhelming majority of people in Essex voted in a referendum in favour of keeping a stand-alone force, and he at least had the decency to say that he would not. That shows that the Government have paid lip service to listening to local people and consultations, which are a waste of time. They have no intention of listening.

As was said earlier, the last Home Secretary put before the House a set of proposals that he was determined to maintain, come hell or high water, and for appearance's sake he came out with all the usual platitudes about listening and consultation, but with no intention whatever of paying attention to what he was told or what he heard in the consultations. That is what is so frustrating, and it shows that we should have more referendums in this country, so that issues can be put to the people. If those most directly affected by proposals overwhelmingly support what the Government are doing—the evidence up and down the country seems to be that they do not—they can vote for the mergers in a referendum. If they are not supportive of what the Government are effectively ramming down their throats, they can vote no, and the Government would have to abide by the result, failing to continue with the mergers. That would follow as a result of the context set out in our amendments.

That is the best way forward and I shall certainly support my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs. I hope that anyone else who is disgusted, upset or disappointed by the Government's attempt to create these large police forces, which so few people want, will join us, so that we can force the Government to listen to the people, if they are not prepared to do so voluntarily.

I apologise to the House for having missed the first part of the debate, but it was for the good reason that I was finishing the details of a letter that all 11 Surrey Members are sending to the new Home Secretary, begging him to review the proposals to merge the constabularies of Surrey and Sussex. I shall focus my remarks on amendment No. 82. The letter that I mentioned is now on its way to the new Home Secretary.

I have listened to the passionate arguments of my hon. Friend Mr. Paterson, who has led a fantastic campaign to try to save the West Mercia constabulary. He has built up an enormous level of public support, providing an object lesson to the rest of us. I can tell him that opinion in Surrey is equally resolute and determined to sustain the Surrey constabulary. We may not have had quite so many public meetings, but I have to say that, at the moment, we are both having precisely the same effect on the Government—none at all.

I was intending to begin by larding the new Minister with praise for his wisdom and intellect. When one is on a hook and an opportunity to get off it presents itself, it seems sensible for one to take it. I heard my hon. Friend Mr. Burns say that the Minister had made it clear in his opening remarks that he was determined to remain firmly on the hook, which was immensely disappointing. Speaking on behalf of all Surrey MPs, I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends representing the county believe that the only reason for larding Ministers is to put them on a spit over a large fire, particularly if they are going to continue to ignore all opinion within the county.

I beg the Minister—I repeat, I beg him—to re-examine the proposal. He may have noticed one or two other changes in the organisation of public authorities over the last nine years. Those who represent people across the piece as MPs—I am speaking for myself and for hon. Members throughout the House—are left bewildered about exactly who is doing what as a result of the various reorganisations. There is always a price to be paid with any reorganisation. Of course there will always be arguments for improving things by better co-ordination and more effective organisation, but this particular reorganisation of the police is pitched at one particular type of policing—level 2 policing.

The former chief constable of Surrey was an outstanding policeman, but I am sorry to say that his report has been taken and extended far beyond the remit that he would have anticipated as inspector of constabulary. I can tell the Minister that the price that will have to be paid for the reorganisation is simply not worth the benefits that it will produce.

Before my hon. Friend leaves his encomium—stillborn—on the new Government Front Benchers, he might like to remind them that, particularly in view of the scant support for their proposals, they would not have so much difficulty with their own Back Benchers if they rowed back.

My right hon. Friend puts the point extremely well. Far from there being any cost to the Government in withdrawing their proposals, there would be enormous benefits and great relief among the bodies that are going to have reorganisation imposed on them against their will. If police forces and police authorities believe that the reorganisation is a good thing, let them get on with it. I understand that there are one or two of them, and they will have to carry the people they represent on the police authority with them; that is their job.

It has to be said that amendment No. 82 is a pretty desperate last throw of the dice as an attempt to rescue the position. I shall be voting for this desperate last throw, although I do not necessarily approve of the ideology of referendums and all the rest of it. The problem is that the official Opposition have nothing other than the amendment left to rescue the position.

The Minister should reflect on what has happened in other public authorities—health and social services, for example, with whom the police are expected to co-operate. Under the latest health reorganisation in Surrey, we are moving towards having just one primary care trust for the county, so there is an opportunity for the borders of the PCT and the police to be coterminous. Yet just at the moment that we get health and social services in one shape around the county, along comes the reorganisation of the police, blowing all the potential benefits apart. Once again, I beg the Minister to think again. I know that opinion in Surrey is united on the matter.

I finish by stressing the important issue of identity for the police force and the areas it represents. The county of Surrey has had a constabulary on a county level since 1851. Since then, we have seen other bits and pieces of constabularies representing towns or other communities as the area has developed, but only in the year 2000 was part of Surrey policed by the Metropolitan police. We have just gone through a reorganisation, affecting half of my constituency, whereby the Surrey police force has taken over from the Met and now, fewer than seven years on, we are facing yet another change to the senior management of the police force. I say again that the price of this reorganisation is simply not worth any conceivable benefit that will come from it.

I add that as a marriage partner for the people of Sussex, the police of Surrey are a complete nightmare because the enormous subsidy that Surrey council tax payers give to their police dwarfs anything happening elsewhere in the UK. We have moved from a position in 1997 where 86 per cent. of the Surrey police's budget came from the Home Office vote to about 50 per cent. today. About half the money for Surrey police comes from Surrey council tax payers.

Surrey county councillors will wonder why they should vote taxes on to their council tax payers for a police force that is no longer theirs. The council tax payers of Surrey, led by their county councillors, have decided to protect their police force from the huge changes and swingeing cuts in funding that it has undergone since 1997. That determination on the part of Surrey county councillors has worked to the benefit of policing in Surrey and of the central Government budget, which has been significantly subsidised, in that respect and in many others, by the council tax payers of Surrey. The loyalty of the people of Surrey, through their police authority, to their police will disappear, along with any reasons for it, if it is no longer their police force. Yet that is what the Government propose to do.

I beg the Government, as do my 10 right hon. and hon. Friends who are writing to the Home Secretary today, to review this decision. I will support amendment No. 82 in the rather desperate hope that it will enable us to prevent this measure going forward, but it would be infinitely better if the Home Office took the opportunity of a new team reviewing the situation to pull this dreadful proposal.

I, too, support amendment No. 82.

I represent a constituency on the far east of the west midlands area, in the metropolitan borough of Walsall. The drift of modern politics is anything but local. We refer to local government, but Walsall is no more local than a fly in the air. We talk about local policing, but we are constructing great structures that are questionable as regards whether they will meet the tests of loyalty and a sense of time and place that my hon. Friend Mr. Blunt mentioned.

If it would be a comfort to my hon. Friends and to my friends in Staffordshire, West Mercia or elsewhere in the greater west midlands, I would stand up for the principle of localism and the right to local policing. I note with regret that my own constituents in Aldridge-Brownhills—in Pelsall, Streetly, Rushall, and all the communities that form it, which are very much part of Staffordshire, historically and by linkage to the coalfields of south Staffordshire—have very little confidence, alas, in the policing that they are experiencing. We are divided between two command units based in Walsall and Bloxwich. They report, in theory, to central Birmingham, and a chief constable makes his dispensations. We are already some way down the line; goodness knows what would happen to Staffordshire or West Mercia if we were to go yet further down that line.

The sense of localism is important. The mantra is, "Let the people feel confident with their institutions and structures." In all my political career, the attachment to those structures has shrunk. We should let the people speak. That used to be a cry of the Liberal party, and I would expect it to stand up for that localism and the rights of people as regards the things that most matter to them—education, a health service and policing. As I said, in the former villages now coalesced into Aldridge-Brownhills, there is little confidence in centralised policing .

The huge proposed west midlands area gives us even less confidence that Bloxwich and Walsall will manage with due diligence the affairs and protection of the people of Aldridge-Brownhills. In vast structures, people do not look laterally or downwards, but upwards. This Government can testify to that. My chief superintendents want to curry favour with the chief constable, who in turn wants the indulgence of the Home Office and the Home Secretary. We become so utterly centralised that it squeezes out the judgment as to who is competent and who is incompetent.

This is a question of how the way in which we govern ourselves through our central administrations—through the Home Office and through Whitehall itself—echoes what the people of the country want. We speak from our local perspective; we vote with the party machine. That reinforces the strength of the centre. Where we over-centralise—that is what the whole Bill is essentially about—in the health service, education and the police service, we see the decline and fall of public confidence in those institutions. I hope that the House takes the amendment seriously and votes for it.

I wanted to intervene on Mr. Burns to support the case that he was making, but he has not returned to his seat in the past 15 or 20 minutes or so. He expressed the view of all Essex Members of Parliament, the district councils, the borough councils and the unitary authorities. We now have an opportunity for the Government to get off the hook on which they have put themselves in defending a line that everybody acknowledges is unpopular.

I invite the Minister to explain why Essex, with a population that is larger than several sovereign nation states in the European Union, is deemed incapable of having its own police force, whereas Kent, on the other side of the River Thames, is apparently competent to do so. The people of Essex are perfectly entitled to ask why that is okay for Kent but not for Essex. If there were to be mergers in the six counties of the east of England, the logical amalgamation would have been of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. We are getting the worst of all worlds.

Lest it go unnoticed, Suffolk does not wish to be amalgamated with Essex, Norfolk or Cambridgeshire. It is one of the best police forces in the country. The Government cannot find any support for any such amalgamations, so the hon. Gentleman should not tempt me on Essex.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my point. If there were to be a case for amalgamation—I am not accepting that there is—those three eastern counties would be more logical than the artificial creation of Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire. A readers' survey in the Colchester Evening Gazette showed that the solution that the Government have come up with is complete nonsense. There is absolutely no community of interest between the counties of Essex and Bedfordshire. A few communities on the Essex-Herts border may speak the same language, but if the Government are suggesting that there is a logical community of interest right across Essex, the most populous county in the east of England, and up into Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, they must have a different map of the United Kingdom—or rather England and Wales—from the one that I have.

I recognise that there is a requirement to hold the line on what has been inherited, but I urge the Minister and the new Home Office team to listen to what is being said by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. That would be to their advantage. I recognise that the Government will whip the vote through, no doubt with the assistance of Scottish votes. However, I hope that after a few days' reflection they will say, "Is this right? What is more important—holding the line on what the previous Home Secretary proposed or what is right for the police forces of England and Wales?"

I am grateful to Nick Herbert for his warm words of congratulation and I sincerely look forward to debating many issues with him.

The hon. Gentleman ranged widely beyond the Bill, as is his right, to the subject of amalgamations, as did the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Colchester (Bob Russell), along with my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and for Stockton, North (Frank Cook), in whose Disney epic I look forward to appearing.

Amalgamation is not the subject of the Bill, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I confine my remarks on the matter to only two points. First, there is a balance to be struck between accountability and effectiveness. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon put his finger on the nature of that balance. The Government are not the first Administration to be worried about the current structure of police forces. I recently read a Government report that was written not too long ago and stated:

"This pattern"— of 43 forces—

"is partly the result of historical accident and the merging of organisations which were established haphazardly over more than 100 years... The result today is a patchwork quilt of forces of widely varying sizes and types."

It continued:

"The Government considers that for all these reasons it may be desirable in the long term to reduce the number of police forces."

That is taken from the police reform White Paper of June 1993.

Governments of all persuasions have therefore realised for some time that effectiveness must be tackled. When Her Majesty's chief inspector puts the question in such stark terms, surely it is right for the Government to respond.

Will the Minister give way?

I shall not because we have debated the matter at length.

It is right to add accountability to the mix and that is precisely why the measure does so much to strengthen the basic command units by making them coterminous with local authorities and giving police authorities the right to devolve functions and powers to members of local partnerships. The Bill enshrines the community call for action and gives new powers to local police forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham was right to say that genuine affinity and real relationships are built with local forces and local officers. That is why 18,000 more police community support officers will be recruited in the months and years to come.

The second point is accountability for change. I am intrigued by the late conversion to referendums. I heard many of the arguments against and some of scepticism about them in the past. My political history is not especially strong, but I cannot remember Conservative calls for a referendum when the Greater London council was abolished. None the less, the conversion to referendums is a curious and interesting feature of modern political life.

We elected the House for a purpose and it would be wrong to abrogate responsibility for decisions such as the one we are discussing. Any proposal that the Home Secretary makes is subject to affirmative resolution, not only in this House but in another place.

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made one or two more points that I want to tackle. I am sorry that he has not received answers to the questions that he put to the Home Office. I shall personally try to ensure that they are forthcoming.

The hon. Gentleman alluded to the ability to appoint additional deputy chief constables. We do not believe that that should be a free-for-all, which is why we seek the Home Secretary's sanction should that development occur. He also mentioned the national policing board. We are considering the case for such a non-statutory national board, which would need to reflect the tripartite nature of current arrangements.

Martin Horwood, who is not in his place, mentioned the flexibility that we propose for the Home Secretary. I emphasise that it is devoted to one thing—securing the improvement of policing in this country. I hope that he would sign up to that agenda.

The hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Peterborough mentioned restructuring costs. We said that we will meet 100 per cent. of the net costs of restructuring. That commitment covers capital and resources.

I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.