There is now draft legislation to replace Police Authorities with elected Police Crime Commissioners. As we await the passage of the legislation into law, the debate is continuing about how these new PCCs will work - or indeed whether they should happen altogether. Today the Civil Service Live Network put up a debate between a past Home Secretary and a think tank Chief Exec about the pros and cons of this new policy. You can access it here.
It is a debate that I felt moved to add my six pennyworth - here is what I wrote:
Not being able to name the chair of local Police Authority is not a powerful argument. Not even knowing that such a body exists is perhaps more convincing. Certainly, despite their best efforts, the awareness of Police Authorities is still very low amongst the general public. But there again, how many citizens really understand how all public services join up and are governed?
Quoting the research about public satisfaction with the police is not best placed since that has far more to do with how members of the public feel treated by police officers & staff (sadly) following a crime that it does about concerns about the setting of overall priorities.
The gap between reality (crime has been going down significantly in recent years) and perception (fear of crime & antisocial behaviour is still high) is notable. I ran my own one person campaign to get fear of crime included in the responsibilities of the local Crime & Disorder partnership legislation (1998) but failed. I do wonder, had it been in there whether things would be different now?
The gap is down to many factors not least the media coverage of crimes, the doubt over 'statistics' (lies, damned lies etc) and the ability of many in and involved with the police to really 'connect' with the public. PCSOs have been doing a remarkable job here and local PC led neighbourhood teams have been making real inroads. But, how many of these structures will survive austerity measures is yet to be seen. I do worry that expectations on these new PCC's will be so high whilst at the same time front line services will be cut back (there is only so much money to be saved by reducing the IT department to one person and an electronic dog) - that a perfect storm will be created. And in this storm, the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour and broad acquisitive crime will have a field day. Crime and fear of crime will rise together. I hope not, of course, but the omens are not good.
But on the other hand, over the years I have been working with the police as an independent adviser / coach / facilitator - I have seen the police HQ car parks grow and grow...
I don't think the last Government 'chickened out' - I think they ran out of legislative time. By the same token, one could argue that this Government has chickened out of a national restructuring and moving away from 43 independent police forces in E&W. Interestingly though - Scotland and possibly Wales are moving towards whole country forces in each case.
It is vital "that local people had a real say over the policing in their area" but I am just not sure that PCCs alone will be the answer. They may be part of the answer - but on their own - almost certainly not. I speak as someone who has lived and worked in the Thames Valley Police for nearly all of my adult life. It is a very large patch which extends from Milton Keynes to Witney to Reading to Slough to Eton and so forth. The idea that all these geographically (and otherwise) diverse communities could all feel represented by a single person is a stretch of the imagination. What will be critical, assuming the draft legislation becomes law, will be to elect a person who has a very clear and convincing plan for how to 'stay in touch' with the broad sweep of the area. I can only hope that the preferential voting system that the Government is proposing to use for electing these PCCs will be able to ensure that the best possible people - politically and otherwise - become the new PCCs. I also hope that the rigour of scrutiny and challenge that must happen as part of the selection processes and subsequent campaigns of all the candidates will tease out the wheat from the chaff (ie the really committed, knowledgeable and citizen focused people from the 'place people' that the central political parties may try to parachute in).
Once these people are in place - yes there will be some very tricky issues around governance and relationship with the Chief Constables to resolve. On its own, I don't think that is an argument against having the new PCCs. However it is an argument for some very clear thinking about roles and boundaries before the PCCs are elected. Perhaps some simulations, thought experiments and the like would not go amiss. This is not wholly new terrain since PAs have had the lead responsibility for Best Value while the CC is operationally independent. It was never really tested when (say) the PA decided the 'Dogs Section' should be closed down on BV grounds while the CC said that it was an operational matter over which he/she had complete autonomy. This was never tested.
So it is a big debate - which will only kick into gear when / if the legislation is passed into statute. When that happens, I hope that Civil Service World will host more debates like this (on and offline) to flesh out just how this new leadership role will operate in the context of 150+ years of policing.
Debate: Elected police and crime commissioners
http://network.civilservicelive.com/pg/pages/view/535437/
I am left pondering on how the new PCCs (assuming it becomes law) will impact upon leadership in the police service - not just at the chief officer level but also throughout the organisation.
Jon,I think conflicts and tensions over the legitimacy of the different leaders at the head of the police service in each area are inevitable. I don't think the job title of 'commissioner' is very helpful, but of course it harks back to the very beginnings of the modern police service, when Mayne and Rowan were jointly the first commissioners of the Met Police.The implicit challenge is exemplified by the fact that both Mayne and Rowan were sure of their roles; one a barrister, the other a military man, and they complemented each other. The new system doesn't preclude that happening, but it doesn't guarantee it, and there doesn't appear to be much of a consensus behind the changes that could provide a powerful narrative to bring people together.
ReplyDeleteIf the driving desire is to give local people control over the policing in their communities, then the answer is to devolve the governance of neighbourhood policing teams to the Local Action Teams. This is clearly not on the table so the Politicans should be honest. If the driving desire is to control the actions of Chief Constables and challenge their power then offering the strongest politician in the force area single handed control (rather than the consensual based model at present) is the answer. This has nothing to do with local accountability. In an area the size of most forces, the strongest political party will nominate its candidate for the Police Commissioner and we will be obliged to vote them in. In a few areas there will be something of a contest. However we will still end up with a Council Leader or similar getting yet another Non Exec size payment for slapping the local CC around for three days a week. The risk is that we exchange the best operational leaders who will find alternative roles in the private sector, with the 'best' political heavyweights.
ReplyDeleteWhilst the senitment of appointing someone to hold accountability at a local level is a noble quest, has it not escaped the policy makers behind such an idea that the Home secretary themselves are respoonsible and accountable for matters of crime and disorder.To think these commisioners could undermine a Chief Constable in their daily objectives is frightening and could go further to increase fears of crime in communites where levels of crime or fear of crime are already high.Why does it matter so much that strategic priorites are set by someone who you know the name of exactly? For a number of years now, overall crime has been falling - of course a number of variables have contributed to this, but we cant escape the impact of crime & disorder reduction partnerships and effective neighbourhood policing at a local level.Strategic direction is based on quantitative information by and large - and maybe this could be a place that allows more flexibilty to allow qualitative data inform more local priorities for Police services? THis doesnt get around the argument that on finite resources, the Police and their partners deliver a huge amount in local communites, particularly increasing capacity and involving these communities directly to problem solve and reassure them.I believe it very naive to assume that by appointing a PCC, people will suddenly a)know the name of that person and b) feel reassured and comforted that if they have (or percieve to have) a crime problem they know it will be dealt with effectively?If the argument is about accountabilty and transparency, more needs to be done to communicate the strategic priorities and emerging threats to local communites, then if they are not acheived in real terms or percived terms, then they can vote with their feet at the ballot box?!There is a huge risk that the new PCC in post will be driving a political agenda not only to claim accountability by declaring he or she has 'listened' to communities but also by virtue of popularism.Challenging times call for a far more pragmatic approach to the way we Police and police society. Installing a PCC will only lead to a system that politicises the Police service and will leave communites no less fearful of crime than they were before.
ReplyDeleteJon,I wonder if it will only be the diversity of communities that the PCC will struggle to represent. In the West Midlands, for instance, will the relatively low crime areas such as Dudley and Solihull feature on the Commissioner's radar when Birmingham, Coventry, Sandwell and wolverhampton vie for attention. If the role does eventually include the responsibility to commission crime reduction work, it may well be argued that resources go to the areas with greatest need, but will that leave boroughs such as ours to regress to our starting position ten or more years ago?I am agog to know how the people of Dudley will have a real say over the policing in their area within such a regional setup.
ReplyDelete