My Lords, we recognise we are proposing a different model for policing accountability from the previous model. I feel with a number of the arguments which the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Harris, have made that they feel the current system is superb and any different system will be untested, untried, difficult and probably worse. Therefore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, said, we must insert safeguards; I think this would insert belt, braces and string as well.
The intention behind Clause 85—and the role of HMIC—is that HMIC should be there to inspect the professional forces. That is its job. That is what it does extremely well. In terms of funding, regular inspections will be paid for, as now, by the Home Office. The subsection which relates to police and crime panels being able to request additional inspections of part of the functions of those forces is precisely to give them added flexibility to request such inspections when needed. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable to say, as this clause says, that, "““such reasonable costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with the inspection””,"
should be reimbursed by the PCP.
In terms of who inspects the PCC, the whole relationship between the police and crime panel and the police and crime commissioner is intended to be that the checks and balances are provided by the police and crime panel. The regular check on the police and crime commissioner is provided by the police and crime panel. That is the process which we are trying to build into the new model. To muddy the role of HMIC by inspecting police and crime commissioners and police and crime panels does not seem appropriate to the model we propose. The model we are introducing through the Bill is that HMIC should continue to focus on the professional police forces and to report to the public as well as the Secretary of State on that. Police and crime commissioners will be held to account, under scrutiny, on a regular basis by police and crime panels. Police and crime panels are part of the structure of local government and local authorities and, I am sure, will continue to be held to account by their fellow councillors, particularly if they vote through precepts which rise rapidly year by year. On that basis, I hope that I have provided some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, although I am sure that she is completely unpersuaded that any new system can possibly be as good as that which we currently have. Nevertheless, I hope that I have persuaded her to withdraw her amendment.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 July 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c826-7 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:01:30 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_760838
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_760838
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_760838