The police minister, Nick Herbert, had a go at John Prescott’s campaign against police outsourcing plans this week by accusing those who have concerns of being anti-reform. Come off it, Nick. These plans are about saving money. I’m (notoriously) keen on a bit of contestability and outsourcing in public services if it means that the people who most need the service get a better deal. But privatisation doesn’t equal reform. The latest plans for private sector involvement in police services piloted in Surrey and West Midlands risk stifling reform, limiting flexibility and reducing accountability.
It’s fashionable in some progressive circles to argue that policing is the unreformed public service. I disagree. Labour in government had considerable success in changing the way the police work with the public, with non-police staff and with other partners. Police community support officers and neighbourhood policing teams in every neighbourhood have increased visibility and confidence. Other civilian staff and modern technology helped with the ‘back room’ and administrative jobs. The best community safety partnerships brought police, local authorities and others together to innovate in tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. The publication of crime information, training local people as community crime fighters, and monthly beat meetings were beginning to empower local communities.
There are real budget pressures for police authorities. There would have been if there’d been a Labour government too. I can understand the need to test whether back room tasks can be provided more cheaply at a time of cuts. However, this has always been possible for police forces. The new pilots go much further. As John Prescott points out, the tender contracts also include ‘patrolling neighbourhoods’, ‘investigating crimes’ and ‘responding to incidents’.
This weekend, we learned that there are already 5,000 fewer ‘first responder’ police officers. These officers aren’t in the back office. They are responding if you’re burgled, are sent to riots, and work to tackle the increasing levels of personal crime. One of the biggest reductions is in the West Midlands – does the chief constable really believe that privately employed security guards will give him the flexibility that even a smaller number of police officers provides?
Many policing reforms of the last few years would also suffer from big reductions in police numbers and outsourcing. We’re already seeing neighbourhood policing being weakened and the definition of neighbourhood being stretched beyond recognition. My neighbourhood isn’t ‘Southwark’ or ‘South Worcestershire’. and a team covering that area is unlikely to inspire me or my neighbours to get involved or to boost our confidence.
Finally, this government has made much of the need for greater police accountability. I share the aim, even if I don’t think elected police and crime commissioners are the way to achieve it. How will private sector providers be held to account by the public for their delivery of service? Will they be subject to IPCC investigations?
In the next six months, there will be elections for PCCs across the country. They will have responsibility for strategic direction and budget setting. Isn’t this an opportunity to involve the public in a discussion about where they would be willing – or unwilling – to see private sector involvement in policing?
As Labour warned, cuts made too fast are reducing frontline policing. But the government is even failing on their own terms. Reform and flexibility is being restricted not promoted by cuts and outsourcing. And the public is being denied a say on a key element of police restructuring. It’s not John Prescott who’s a roadblock to accountability and reform in policing – it’s Nick Herbert and his government colleagues.
—————————————————————————————
Jacqui Smith is former home secretary and writes the Monday Politics column for Progress
—————————————————————————————