Proceeding contribution from Lord De Mauley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 July 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
I see the noble Lord’s point. He is right to point out that there is a compromise in that concession. However, the chief constable has to be responsible for his force. He or she is the person invited to attend with the PCC. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, if they do not know an answer they should go away and find it, like a Minister does at the Dispatch Box. We are trying to avoid a situation where the force is split by allowing the same question to be addressed to different people. That would risk undercutting the authority of the chief constable.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 729 c70
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Accountability Crime City of London Council tax Finance Governing bodies Eligibility Greater London Dismissal Police Local government finance Public appointments Mayor of London Political impartiality Metropolitan Police Standards Witnesses London Assembly Community safety partnerships Police and crime commissioners Police and crime panels
- Legislation
- Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 17:32:12 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756384
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756384
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756384