Policing UK 2013 - Police Federation

THE POLICE REFORM PROGRAMME
“If they succeed it is likely that more
powers and responsibility will come
the commissioners’ way.”
Unique position
That constitution is unaccustomed
to such creatures as these PCCs, who
will be unique in electoral, as well as
policing, terms. Unlike members of
Parliament, their election will endow
them with immediate powers and
portfolios, straight from poll to post.
There is no cabinet system or collective
responsibility, no inter pares context to
their primacy.
In contrast with elected mayors, who
have a broad remit for public services,
PCCs will be elected to large geographic
areas, but with a confined jurisdiction of
criminal justice. They will hold significant
administrative powers and will not,
beyond very widely drawn requirements
of disqualification, be subject to vetting.
They can only be democratically
removed every four years.
Here then is the essence of localism.
Its paradox is that, in order to work
– well or at all – some things have to
be done in the same way, to the same
standard at the same time. Examples
in policing include counter-terrorism,
public order and civil emergencies.
The Act addresses the obvious
club versus country tensions through
the device of a strategic policing
requirement (SP). Published by the
Home Secretary, the SP is essentially
a description of national threats to our
communities, recognising that some are
too big for local policing bodies alone.
Chief officers must have regard to the
SP when executing their duties, as
must PCCs when setting their police and
crime plans.
‘Having regard’ to the SP might
produce different approaches in different
places. The key success factor will be
the overall capability and capacity to
mitigate risk collectively. PCCs will have
to demonstrate how they have achieved
this – and all their other key functions –
to their local police and crime panel.
Made up largely of councillors
from local authorities these panels
will scrutinise the decisions taken
by their PCCs, making reports and
recommendations. The panels can veto
the local element of a PCC’s proposed
budget and must be consulted on key
appointments such as chief constables.
Again, the local arrangements will differ
widely across police areas. Panels also
have a duty to support their PCCs,
particularly relevant when it comes to
planning and partnerships.
Making real change
Having 41 individuals replace 00
existing police authority members is
bound to make it quicker and easier
to do the right things right without
careful administration it could enable
the reverse. The PCCs’ legal duties
and powers are very similar to those of
existing police authorities, suggesting
a heavy reliance on a new volition,
born of democratic accountability. And
while most attention has been focused
on the police element, it is clear the
government’s strategic intent lies more
towards the ‘and crime’ part of the
commissioners’ role.
With powers to award grants, duties to
form partnerships and obligations around
collaboration, these individuals could use
their compelling mandate to make real
change. If they succeed it is likely that
more powers and responsibility will come
the commissioners’ way.
Of course there is a risk of political
encroachment and what some have
called the brute attractions of machismo
politics. But policing is an inherently
political activity. The undeniable effect
of law enforcement on people’s lives,
liberty and livelihood arguably makes
the confluence of politics and policing in
maturing societies not only inexorable,
but inevitable.
The PCC has been democratically
designed as the ‘go-to’ person for all local
police and crime matters. Whether they
are destined to meet the expectations of
the electorate will, like so much in this
new landscape, be largely in their own
hands.
POLICING UK | 25