The APA has warmly welcomed the publication this morning, 06.05.11, of a report by the cross party House of Lords Constitution Committee, into the constitutional implications of the Government’s proposal to introduce Directly Elected Police and Crime Commissioners across England and Wales next May.   

The full report (1,421 words) is here.

APA Chairman, Cllr Rob Garnham said

“The APA shares Peers’ clear, succinct summary of concerns about the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, and we thoroughly endorse the learned and informed findings of this cross party committee. We join Peers in urging the government to respond constructively to these serious, substantial concerns.”

Committee Chairman, Baroness Jay of Paddington, said, “The radical reforms promised by the Government must not come at any cost. These proposals risk seriously compromising the independence of police operations. It is therefore essential that the Government publish the promised protocol [about the operational independence of Chief Constables] before the Bill starts its committee stage in the House of Lords.” (Committee stage starts on Wednesday, 11^th May and further meetings are scheduled for 18.05 and 24.05)

The report’s summary of concerns about the Government’s plans for police reform includes:

9: “The Government needs to do much more to ensure that the constitutional imperative of the operational independence of the police will not be compromised.”

13: “We note the concentration of powers in the hands of individual police and crime commissioners. The Government must ensure that the values of pluralism, equality and diversity adequately inform the new arrangements for representation and engagement with communities by individual commissioners. Further, the Government must ensure the strength of the arrangements for engagement with communities in geographically-large force areas.”

15: “The Government should explain why they consider that the strategic policing requirement is a sufficiently strong arrangement to meet the risks of fragmentation and insufficient attention to national threats. In particular, the Government must explain why they consider that the duty to "have regard" to the document is sufficiently compelling.”