Bob Jones, of Maudlin Drive, Teignmouth, writes:

Your Comment More time needed to make the right choice regarding the

election of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) rightly raises awareness of this extremely important issue. There appear to be significant unanswered concerns, which is disturbing considering the vital nature of the role of the PCC and the fact that the public is somehow expected to make an informed decision when voting in a few weeks' time.

I am given to understand that it is considered necessary to create the role of PCC because existing police authorities are considered to have failed in their present role, but nowhere have I been able to establish what precisely failed with the authorities and what other measures might have been considered to correct any alleged failures.

If police authorities were considered democratically deficient then why weren't we given an option to elect a body based, say, on parliamentary constituency boundaries? The Devon and Cornwall Police Authority could have had the same number of members as the number of MPs that currently represent the same area and we might have had our own local member who might have really known about local policing issues.

When the House of Lords considered this matter, they proposed to the House of Commons that the role of PCC should not be undertaken by a single individual but should be entrusted to a body of people. The House of Commons rejected this amendment for reasons that I have been unable to establish.

When I raised this matter with my MP, I was advised that the PCC will have local knowledge and understanding to set policing priorities.

It does not seem credible that any one individual will have the same depth of knowledge as a body of, say, 18 people covering the same area. It appears to me (and the House of Lords) to be fundamentally flawed to put such immense power and authority into the hands of any one single individual and I am currently reluctant to give my support to such a proposal which has never had a democratic mandate in a general election.

In addition, I think it is highly unlikely that I will be given sufficient information to make a fully and properly informed decision and, in any event, none of the current nine candidates has inspired me to believe that they are properly qualified to fulfil such a vital role. I believe that the PCC should, at least, have no political affiliation (past or present), should have experience of running a multi-million pound business or organisation and should have significant indirect experience of the work of the police.

As things stand, I cannot identify such a 'best candidate' and I shall refuse to vote for the 'least worst candidate'.

It is not widely known that the work of the PCC will be overseen by a Police and Crime Panel made up of councillors from across the two counties. In effect, this panel will do very similar work to the old police authorities so in electing a PCC all that will have been achieved is to add another layer of bureaucracy, at a cost of £85,000 plus staffing costs.

I have sought an assurance that this new arrangement will cost no more than the existing arrangement but none has been forthcoming so far.

Your report of a meeting of the PCC candidates with representatives of various bodies but excluding the public only serves to add to my frustrations. Perhaps we 'plebs' are not considered worthy of being involved in such discussions.

I sincerely hope that the sentiments at the end of your Comment are acted upon and the public do demand that this ill-considered arrangement is scrapped.

Our police service is far too valuable to be treated in this appalling manner.

THIS AND OTHER LETTERS IN OUR DIGITAL EDITION