Few will mourn the loss of Police and Crime Commissioners following the news that the government intends their abolition in 2028. An unloved part of our democratic settlement, many of those elected as PCCs failed to capture the public’s interest in the way that was intended when Theresa May as Home Secretary legislated for their creation in 2011.
PCCs were a valiant, but ultimately poorly implemented, attempt to hold Chief Constables to account for fighting crime
But in the rush to celebrate their demise – and in building what replaces them – we should not forget their original purpose: to expose chief constables from behind the shroud of accountability which they operate, and to increase the democratic connection between police forces and the public they serve.
It was, after all, when PCCs risked allowing themselves to be the victims of ‘producer capture’ – effectively acting as a mouthpiece for the Chief Constable – rather than truly acting on behalf of the public, when they were at their weakest. The example of the Conservative Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex defending the force’s handling of the Allison Pearson ‘hate crime’ investigation last year being one such very high profile example.
The government’s plans include retaining the existing settlement where a Mayor is the ‘local policing body’ with oversight responsibilities for a local police force. This is currently the case in five of the forty-three territorial police forces of England and Wales, including London and Manchester where the Commissioner and Chief Constable are accountable to Sir Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham respectively. Next year a further five police forces will come under the auspices of a Mayor through the government’s plans for English devolution.
A positive development over recent years has been the involvement in policing of ‘big beast’ Mayors. Because the public know who the Mayor of London or Mayor of Greater Manchester is, they therefore know who to blame and who can be booted out of office if policing is failing to deliver. The many and varied failings in the capital’s Metropolitan Police, of course, show that this is not alone sufficient – a muscular Home Secretary is also required – but it is certainly better than the opaqueness that went before.
Following today’s announcement, in 2028 the remaining thirty-three police forces – the vast majority – will revert to a local ‘Policing and Crime Board’ who will collectively oversee the performance of their local force and the Chief Constable. In doing so, the government risks returning police accountability to the shadows; to an era where policing oversight was conducted by obscure members of the local ‘great and the good’. The Policing Minister, Sarah Jones, told the House of Commons in her statement today that: ‘preventing crime is everyone’s business’. While this is a nice line, the reality is that when something is ‘everyone’s’ business it usually means it is no-ones.
So, when it comes to these bodies we need to know: how will they be selected? In whose special interests will they act? How can we get rid of them? When, if ever, will they be replaced by a ‘big beast’ Mayor?
In making changes to policing’s governance and oversight regime, the government must also recognise the fundamental imbalance which exists in the system. The weight of accountability is overwhelmingly felt, not by Chief Constables and their senior colleagues, but by the most junior frontline officers: constables and sergeants who are arresting criminals, doing stop and search and, rarely but sometimes necessarily, shooting dead armed gangsters. So often these officers are subjected to lengthy investigations by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, misconduct hearings and even prosecution just for doing their jobs.
Meanwhile, genuine accountability for the performance of policing’s middle and senior managers – and particularly their performance in the fight against crime – is negligible. When was the last time a Chief Constable or local police commander was actually sacked for just being rubbish at fighting crime? It is very rare indeed – and under the new regime it risks becoming even rarer.
The response of the useless and lazy in policing – of whatever rank – is often to retaliate by making their own complaints. It is not unusual for these self-styled ‘victims’ to claim they have been subjected to ‘overbearing conduct’ or one of the many ‘isms’ which the very mention of in policing throws the bureaucracy into fearful paralysis. Cue a potential misconduct investigation for the manager who had the temerity to attempt to improve their force’s performance on the public’s behalf.
None of this is unique to policing of course – as previously shown by Policy Exchange, the public sector is riddled with this. But policing is one of the worst examples the British State has to offer.
As the government overhauls the oversight and accountability regime for policing, Ministers must ensure that for middle-ranking and senior officers there is genuine accountability for performance in the fight against crime. Data should be published by the Home Office on every senior officer’s performance on crime-fighting throughout their leadership career.
The terms of employment for senior and middle-ranking police officers should be changed so any too useless to work in an operational policing role can be more readily dispensed with. This is rather than, as is the current situation, they are merely despatched to departments such as: ‘Strategy and Transformation’ (the Met has 130 police officers here), ‘Culture, Diversity and Inclusion’ (24 officers) or one of the very many of the alphabet soup of organisations on policing’s periphery (88 officers).
The Home Secretary must be willing to fire Chief Constables who don’t meet the grade when it comes to fighting crime. Most importantly, when the government’s long-awaited white paper on police reform is finally published, it must correct how out of kilter the entire police performance and accountability regime has become. Life needs to become easier for those at the bottom of policing, and tougher for those at the top.
PCCs were a valiant, but ultimately poorly implemented, attempt to hold Chief Constables to account for fighting crime and strengthen the democratic connection between those who run policing and the law-abiding public. To be worth the candle, the government’s reforms will need to be a significant improvement on what they are replacing.
Comments