In an earlier article for Progress, I suggested that in order to restore public confidence in the democratic governance of the police, the Labour party needed to develop its own policy on police and crime commissioners in good time for the 201 per cent general election. Seven months into the new arrangements and following yet further public disquiet, the need for Labour to outline its thinking is even more urgent.
The evidence thus far does not augur well for the future of PCCs in their present guise. Particular concerns centre on cost, scrutiny, decision-making and plummeting police morale. The cost element has already attracted critical comments from shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, who has hinted at their possible abolition in order to make savings. There have also been criticisms about gender imbalance and diversity.
The home affairs select committee, chaired by Labour MP Keith Vaz, has established from parliamentary research that already one third of PCCs are costing their communities more than the police authorities they were elected to replace. In addition to a local register of interests, Vaz has also called for a national register to cover pay, interests, costs, second jobs and offices, to obviate charges of cronyism and to enable effective comparisons to be made between all 41 PCCs. The select committee expressed concern that 10 ‘political or personal contacts’, some with little or no experience of policing, have been appointed as deputy PCCs on salaries of up to £70,000 each. Vaz said there was an urgent need to guard against ‘maverick’ decisions, citing the examples of the suspension of the Lincolnshire chief constable and the controversial appointment of the youth PCC in Kent. The recent forced retirement of Gwent’s chief constable, Carmel Napier, has similarly attracted considerable criticism of Gwent’s PCC, Ian Johnston. Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, has repeatedly argued that the present arrangements lack scrutiny and that it was ‘the worst system you can possibly have’. Peter Neyroud, former Thames Valley chief constable and former chief executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency, has also been a trenchant critic of PCCs in their present guise, describing their accountability as ‘scrutiny-lite’. He arned me recently that, ‘The oversight of the PCC is insufficient. There are some examples of innovative thinking but rather more of mis-spending, lack of transparency and broken relationships.’
The country’s first PCCs are overwhelmingly male (35 men and six women) and almost half of the 41 are former councillors or MPs, which was perhaps predictable. The absence of any ethnic minority PCCs is another area of concern.
That police morale has been badly affected by the government’s reform agenda is not in doubt. The Police Foundation commented on a poll in the Daily Telegraph, which reported that nine per cent of officers had no confidence in the government’s plans for the police. PCCs are also playing a role in that dip in morale and the case of Anthony Stansfeld, Thames Valley’s PCC, is a good example. It is alleged that Stansfeld, who denies the charge, set up a sham office in order to boost his travel expenses by 6,000 per cent. Thames Valley staff were far from impressed with these revelations. Jon Harvey, in his excellent blog, has shone a light on some of Stansfeld’s activities.
Bob Jones, the Labour PCC for the West Midlands, doesn’t believe the present model is working well and considers there should be a review, at least in the short term. In particular, he tells me that decisions taken by PCCs should be subject to review by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. As a former police authority chair, he asserts that budgets and policing plans are actually weaker under PCCs. Moreover, he sees no evidence of public confidence in local governance of the police, a central aim of the new arrangements. Surprisingly, as PCC of the largest police area outside the Met, he has not been consulted by the Stevens team. Given Labour’s high expectations of the Independent Police Commission chaired by John Stevens, this is disappointing. Jones is apprehensive about the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, since there is strong speculation that budgets will be cut by up to eight per cent. This, he says, will pose enormous damage to much of the proactive and collaborative work now being done in the West Midlands.
The Labour party disagreed with government proposals on PCCs and voted against the bill in parliament. The elections were contested by Labour because it didn’t want to ‘vacate the space.’ David Hanson, the shadow policing minister, is very aware of the need for Labour to formulate a clear policy on PCCs and insists no decisions will be taken until the publication of the IPC in late summer. In the meantime, Hanson and other members of the shadow team have been in regular dialogue with police staff associations. As will be evident from Balls’ recent speech, it is clear that future policy on PCCs will be dictated by cost, particularly at a time of police job losses.
The introduction of PCCs has not been popular and it is clear there are some fundamental flaws within the current model. There is no doubt that reform is needed and the Labour party needs to develop a clear policy on what that reform should be. Great store is being placed on Stevens. However, without key evidence from PCCs, it is difficult to imagine how its recommendations on democratic police governance will be as authoritative as Hanson would wish.
—————————————————————————————
Roy Bailey, a former Thames Valley Police superintendent, is a Labour councillor on Bracknell town council and vice– chair of Bracknell CLP. He tweets @RoyBailey
—————————————————————————————