A long, ignominious line of home office ministers have opted for a quiet life and done ACPO’s bidding. But for today at least, Ms May deserves two cheers for not being one of them. Her challenge, however, as always in government, is to turn rhetoric into action.
One of the immutable laws of British politics is that any hint at radical reform to British policing disappears without trace, entering a sort of Bermuda Triangle of public service reform, never to be seen again.
Back in 1993 Sir Patrick Sheehy recommended radical (and quite justified) restructuring to police ranks to cut costs and improve decision-making. The report was shelved. More recently, Charles Clarke’s more modest effort to reduce the number of police forces from 43 to 12, ending the ludicrous, duplicating, county constabulary system, met with a similar fate.
So current incumbent, Theresa May, deserves some credit for standing her ground this morning when she told police chiefs at the Association of Chief Police Officers conference in Manchester a few home truths about the need for them to modernise in the face of “big” budget cuts.
This followed leaked warnings from Sir Hugh Orde, President of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), that police numbers were not “sustainable” in the face of home office budget cuts.
In her speech the home secretary announced a long overdue review of police terms and conditions, saying:
“It cannot be right, for example, that police overtime has become institutionalised. We may not win popularity contests for asking these difficult questions, but it is time for them to be asked.”
She also pledged a review into procurement, asking:
“Does it really make sense to buy in police cars, uniforms and IT systems in 43 different ways?”
Of course, Ms May is approaching police reform inadvertently – from the position of a dutiful minister with responsibility for spreading the pain of public spending cuts. But necessity is the mother of invention and the net result of her direction of travel should be a leaner, more modern and accountable police service – a result progressives should applaud.
And the Tories are on the right lines with elected police commissioners too. The sheer opacity of current police force governance makes a mockery of public accountability. Unelected police authorities made up of appointed councillors and lay people – who no-one elected and who pay minimal heed to the needs and wishes of their local communities – are little more than a fig leaf to preserve the feudal powers of chief constables.
At the very least, an elected commissioner provides a rallying point for local communities to focus on if their particular local priorities are not met. As the home secretary argued:
“It means a directly-elected individual at force level, setting the force budget, agreeing the local strategic plan, playing a role in wider questions of community safety and appointing – and if necessary removing – the local chief constable.”
But the police argue that stronger democratic control would skew operational matters, in a similar way to how some health professional argue targets in the NHS alter clinical priorities. But let’s be clear: policing, quite literally, is not brain surgery. The police’s job is, as the home secretary reminded them this morning, is to cut crime, “nothing more, and nothing less”.
But ACPO is a formidable opponent and adept at the political black arts that force politicians into headlong retreat. And little wonder with the high opinion it has of itself. Its Statement of Purpose claims that it “leads and coordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland”.
Now it’s fair enough for any professional body to want to be a collective voice for its profession, or to share best practice, but leading the “direction and development2 of the police is surely a matter for Ministers and Parliament?
In fact, nowhere in its aims and objectives does it even talk about ‘best practice’. The truth is that ACPO is a producer interest group, pure and simple. And a powerful one too. It works to create a consensus for political inaction; fighting for greater autonomy for its members and vetoing any changes it doesn’t like.
So in a bid to ameliorate her hard message on budgets and reform, the home secretary foolishly caved-in on other issues, promising, for example, to scrap the 10-point policing pledge. She would have done better to stand her ground and demand ever greater customer focus from the police. They still face too few of the public guarantees now common to other public services, as the BBC’s home editor, Mark Easton, has pointed out.
But Ms May was more tactically adept in inviting ACPO to produce a “national plan for the way the service does business”. Either the police top brass comes up with its own cuts and reforms, or they have them imposed by the long arm of HM Treasury. It is perhaps ironic that it takes the threat of severe public spending cuts to kick start reforms that should have been made years ago.
And there’s a lot to do. Instead of pioneering moves to share back office services, redress the balance between police and civilian staff, increase the use of IT, or becoming more customer focused (have you ever tried emailing the police?) they are literally years behind the rest of the public sector.
A long, ignominious line of home office ministers have opted for a quiet life and done ACPO’s bidding. But for today at least, Ms May deserves two cheers for not being one of them. Her challenge, however, as always in government, is to turn rhetoric into action.
28 Responses to “Theresa May is right to take on ACPO and reform the police”
Andy Sutherland
@leftfootfwd: Theresa May is right to take on ACPO and reform the police: http://bit.ly/aKZ3Le <Sticks in the throat but she does seem right
andy williams
Why is elected police commissioners a bad thing? Is it because Labour is scared of allowing the people a direct say? So what if a hang ’em, flog ’em merchant ends up elected somewhere. That is the pergoative of the electorate and to deny them their say and the grounds they will generate the ‘wrong’ result is absolutely pathetic and control freakery beyond contempt.
Look at what happened in the euros. The cause? Denying people their right to vote over ‘Lisbon’.
Stop centralising control and power and start delegating it as low as possible. Just because Labour wants to run it’s own party along sham ‘democratic’ lines that have outsiders laughing in the aisles, does not mean the country should be run the same way.
Mr. Sensible
Sorry but I just do not agree with this.
These elected police commissioners certainly are not a good thing. The Councillors who serve on authorities are, after all, elected by their constituents.
How much are these going to cost?
And what if people elect some extremist?
And, finally, what does politicizing the police service do to cross-border policing, which as we saw played an important role in dealing with events in Cumbria?
andy williams
How much are these going to cost?
You’re having a laugh right? The amount of dosh that’s been ppoured into public sector spending and wasted and you worry how much these will cost? PMSL.
And what if people elect some extremist?
So what if they do. That is the people’s perogative. The country belongs to the people not the establishment and the political parties.
the police service
The Police prefer being referreed to as a Force not a Service. They regard being called a Service as apolitically correct intrusion. As for politicising the Police, this is actually quite the opposite. The individuals who stand will be appealing directly to the public in each of the Constabularies, not to the givernment. In turn, it allows the people of a given area the right to decide how they want to be policed and not how some out-of-touch Westminster creature thinks they should be Policed – it is the people after all who are bloody paying for it. Make the Police responsible to the people not the politicians.
Kevin Meagher
Wow. Some of you don’t seem to like the idea of proper democratic oversight of one of our key public services. When did democracy and accountability become the problem? Personally I hate the idea of the right making all the running with such a transparently sensible and justified idea…