The government’s radical reform agenda for policing has sparked widespread controversy. This is especially apparent with the introduction of elected police and crime commissioners on 15 November. A recent poll suggested that only 18 per cent of all voters support the idea, with nine out of ten people not having any idea as to the role. At last week’s Labour party conference, the PCC elections featured prominently and I met some of our excellent candidates at fringe meetings. The issues raised by this reform are manifold and, in this article, I shall explore some of them.
The shadow home secretary made it very clear in her conference speech last week that while she did not support the government’s proposals on PCCs, it was essential now that the legislation had been passed to contest the elections in all 41 police force areas. Labour’s position was expressed eloquently by Yvette Cooper, David Hanson, John Prescott, Tony Lloyd and Vera Baird. Central to their thinking is the absolute necessity to have progressive PCCs who understand the wider remit of policing, rather than many of the Tory candidates, who see policing as confined to crime-fighting. This narrow definition has been the mantra of Theresa May and the Home Office, who fail to mention crime prevention and order maintenance as key elements of policing. This is to misunderstand totally, indeed wilfully misrepresent, the policing function, since most causes of crime are outside police control. This neoliberal policy will therefore undermine prospects for an inclusive society and limit the police to containing some of the worst manifestations of increasing inequality and competitive individualism. The current austerity programme has brought this into even sharper focus because of the government’s simplistic view of police as crime-fighters.
According to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, 2011, chief constables retain their operational independence. My perception is far less sanguine. First, the line between a chief constable’s ‘operational independence’ and the remit of a PCC to ‘cut crime and maintain an effective and efficient police force’ is blurred, leaving plenty of scope for argument and controversy. Second, PCCs will wield enormous power in that they can appoint and fire chief officers. Given such patronage, how many chief constables will want to risk losing their jobs by challenging their PCCs? Finally, PCCs will be working to a narrowly defined notion of policing, where catching criminals is central. This is bound to generate conflict with chief constables, who have a much broader professional remit.
Democratic governance of the police is a legitimate concern, and calls for greater police accountability have come from both the left and the right over the last three decades. However, it seems to me that part of this government’s rationale might just be about scoring political points. Over recent years Labour has firmly established itself as the party of the police, a record of which it can be proud. The Tories, on the other hand, have consistently shown that they just don’t get it. Many in the service are questioning whether these latest changes are more evidence that the government has an active contempt for the police, a contempt which Andrew Mitchell articulated so eloquently at the gates of No 10. The 1992 Sheehy Inquiry, commissioned by Ken Clarke, recommended a reduction of police numbers, a £2,000 cut to the constable’s starting pay, the abolition of the housing allowance and a reduced rank structure. The 2012 Winsor Review, instigated by the coalition government, recommended a dramatic overhaul of police pay and conditions. Paul McKeever, the Police Federation chair, described the review as disastrous for the police service. For the Tories to claim to be the party of law and order is laughable. Given the government’s radical reform agenda, the police service has repeatedly called for a Royal Commission on policing. These demands have been rejected by the government. The Labour party has therefore commissioned an independent, far reaching, inquiry into policing by Lord Stevens, the former Met commissioner, which will no doubt inform the next Labour government’s policy on policing.
Police morale is at an all-time low, something I heard at first-hand from many of the police officers I talked with in Manchester. One young officer told me that, as a conservative, he felt betrayed and that he would never vote Tory again. His anger was palpable. Others told me they had joined the Labour party and that Tony Lloyd, the Labour candidate, would be the unanimous choice of Greater Manchester Police staff. Interestingly, several recently retired chief constables have joined the Labour party, something which is quite unprecedented. Peter Neyroud, former Thames Valley chief constable and recent CEO of the National Policing Improvement Agency, is now one of Ed Miliband’s advisors on policing. Thirty years ago, the police were proudly ‘apolitical’. It was always argued that policing and politics should be kept separate. However, what this really meant, according to Professor Robert Reiner, was that if you were anything other than conservative, you were political!
Many PCCs will be starting without a basic understanding of what policing is and we need them to learn fast. The pressure they will feel from the electorate may mean that some will be forced into following a populist, tabloid agenda, leading to the development of policing strategies that fail to address all sections of that community. This could undermine those who are most disadvantaged in our society and lead to inconsistent policing delivery across the country.
The PCC elections on November 15 are incredibly important for the Labour party and it is vital that our members and supporters campaign furiously to elect Labour PCCs, as I shall be doing in Thames Valley. The prospect of the alternative fills me with dread.
—————————————————————————————
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
—————————————————————————————
Photo: Metropolitan Police
The Tory candidate here brushed residents off as NIMBY when he was in another role, so I am staggered that he can even stand. It’s something ‘our’ Labour candidate should be using but as his campaign won’t even answer emails, I suspect won’t be doing.
The biggest concern I have is that the vast majority of issues should be being dealt with before they get to the policing stage and to be frank the reason for this mess is down to Labour and ‘our’ failure to ensure that the key objectives in the Community Safety Strategies ‘we’ claimed were in place were being fulfilled.
This, in my opinion, created all the bulk of problems we now have and why the Tories felt the need for change and worse have used the excuse for the need for this change.
They can highlight the areas and issues that most relate to in their promotional videos, the under aged drinking, the vandalism and the graffiti etc because in to many areas, despite them being commitments or key objectives in Community Safety Strategies to be a priority they simply haven’t, in far to many cases, been dealt with, despite the tools being in place to do it.
So ‘we’ gave them the need for the gimmick and the failures that will come with that gimmick, I suspect, will result in a member of the political elite blaming a Chief Constable, them losing their job with the issues surrounding the failure being largely untouched.
The Police are a partner of Local authorities but the PCC will not be challenging councils about them failing their remits (which they largely have no control over) but will be looking for scapegoats who they do control to save their own neck.
While I agree that PCC’s will need to learn fast how policing works, their greater priority, for me, will be to learn their partner responsibilities, establish what is failing which then, in turn, brings issues into the Policing remit and setting out watertight agreements that these responsibilities will be completely fulfilled.
That will be hard, it may even be nigh impossible if budgets for things like graffiti removal are seen as a council chest that can now be dipped into because the end crime is less council accountable more PCC to blame and that’s without even thinking of the working practices the PCC will have to have, if, for example, they are Labour and their partner councils are Tory.
What makes for a “better” police? What are the
qualities? How is it effectively accomplished and sustained? See my new book
for answers and direction, “Arrested Development: A Veteran Police Chief Sounds
Off About Protest, Racism, Corruption and the Seven Steps Necessary to Improve
Our Nation’s Police” (Amazon.com) and visit my blog at
http://improvingpolice.wordpress.com where I deal with issues confronting
police and their improvement.
If you re thinking of voting for a political candidate in the Police and Crime Commissioner elections then this should immediately steer you away from that path.
This article is written by an ex-police Superintendent who is now a member of the Labour party.
He was, and from this article still is, part of the problem and never to be part of the solution.
He is devoid of ideas and certainly solutions.
He advocates that it is right that a Police and Crime Commissioner starts without any knowledges of policing and seems to say that they can learn ‘fast’ all about policing. As an ex-Superintendent it makes you wonder how in touch with policing was he when he was serving?
If this is what ex-senior officers and the Labour Party are thinking then a vote for them is a vote for disaster.
Christopher E Wright, so Let’s get this right Roy Bailey in this article says that Politicised policing will happen despite the 2011 bill stating that the Chief constable will have neutral influence on matters,
Yet you say his criticism of the fact that who ever gets the elected job by the pressure put on them will have to be political, makes Roys attitude part of the problem as it was when he was A superintendent and nod now a councillor and you feel that he was that out of touch that when he was A P.C that he must be wrong to criticise the Politicization of police, Yet the other comments he’s brought up here about accountability police numbers and procedures and not appealing to popularity make him out of touch, Well If that’s your view it show how out of touch you are,