I cannot; I have not got time.
I have dealt with subject of the wrong level of accountability, and it is also unclear how police and crime panels are to work. Are they to hold commissioners to account or to work with them to deliver what they want? They have a power of veto in only two areas—namely the precept, or budget, and the appointment of the chief constables—but they must have a three-quarters majority for that veto to be effective. That is a greater majority than the Government have passed for the Dissolution of Parliament. A three-quarters majority would mean that virtually every person on the police and crime panel would have to agree for that veto to happen.
In conclusion, the political independence of the police is as important in a democracy as the independence of the courts. Political views and opinions may ebb and flow, but the police remain. That allows every individual, whatever their race, religion or politics, to feel protected. A single person who is politically motivated elected to oversee the police will make it increasingly difficult to ensure that this political independence is maintained. For that reason, above all, the Government must think again.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Coaker
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 13 December 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
520 c768 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:57:37 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_693259
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_693259
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_693259