Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

I do not think that police authorities are as bad as they are portrayed. There is some variation among them, but many do a reasonable job. Perhaps they are not as visible as they might be, and perhaps people do not understand exactly what they do, but people such as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who sits on the Kent police authority, do a good job. As for elections, let us say this. We can come forward with different models for this election or that election. However, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will have heard me say in Committee, whatever the arguments about direct elections, the Government's model is at totally the wrong level of accountability. I do not get people queuing up at my surgeries to say, ““Do you know what, Mr Coaker? Nottinghamshire police's counter-terrorism strategy””—or its fraud strategy or trafficking policy—““is wrong.”” People come to my surgery to say, ““Mr Coaker, we're absolutely fed up with the kids at the end of our street,”” or, ““We're totally fed up with the drug dealing going on from cars in a car park down the road.”” I am sure that that is true for most hon. Members. That neighbourhood, street-level accountability is what people want, which is why, to be fair to the hon. Member for Cambridge, his party proposed elections at a very local level. Whether that was the right model or the wrong model, if we are looking at where we need to strengthen accountability arrangements, it is precisely at that neighbourhood and street level where we need to strengthen accountability arrangements. We can have neighbourhood policing, community meetings, beat meetings, and so on—all the things that have happened in a calm and measured way, and which have made such a difference to confidence at that level.