Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:26 am on 22 January 1991.
Mr Philip Oppenheim
, Amber Valley
12:26,
22 January 1991
Funding relates directly to Derbyshire police force, because one of the arguments is that the force is underfunded and that that has caused the problems which have given rise to this devastating report by the inspectorate.
I seek to refute that argument by asserting that Derbyshire has been extremely well funded and is one of the highest spenders per head. Therefore this has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with priorities. Other counties spend far less per head, yet manage to spend more on their police force or have fewer problems with its administration. This has everything to do with priorities because Derbyshire county council has been more than happy to put its money into many other areas but the police force has been starved of funds. The council has been willing to put money into Insight and is considering putting Insight on to video, yet too often simple requests for extra funding for the police have been turned down in a manner which has been prejudicial to the well-being and the running of Derbyshire police force.
An early-day motion on this subject mentions the need for democratic accountability. The problem with Derbyshire police force is not that a lack of democratic accountability is undermining the police force, but that local councillors, who are using their democratic role to politicise the force, are undermining it.
The county council has consistently run Derbyshire county constabulary in a fashion that verges on turning it into a department of the council, which is virtually unconstitutional and an absolute disgrace.