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”
Anon E Mouse
Mr.Sensible – Are you so slavishly supportive of that last useless government that you believe that everything the coalition does is wrong?
Added together more people voted for this coalition government than the last useless bunch – do you think they are all stupid?
Were you one of the supporters of the last incompetent government’s 90 day detention scheme I wonder? hmmmm
I realise after your pleasure at Gordon Brown, (Britain’s most useless chancellor and never elected Prime Minister or even Labour leader) being forced on the electorate may have suited your views but to suggest the public shouldn’t have the right to ditch useless police leaders stinks. Who pays their wages Mr.S?
Why do you want to give power to people you can’t easily get rid of? Are you mad?
Obviously you missed my last link to North Korea so here is another: http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Flights-g294443-North_Korea-Cheap_Discount_Airfares.html
bobigb
All those that back pompous May…will be singing from a different hymn book
when her ridiculous cuts… means you will probably get mugged walking home…because of her brainless cuts!
Eirwen Pierrot
Kevin – To suggest that those who are opposed to elected police commissioners are opposed to proper democratic oversight is incredibly unfair.
Police Authorities already provide scrutiny of the police and put accountability into the hands of local people. Councillors, elected by the people, sit on those Boards, along with people appointed for their skills and expereince. Police Authorities allow a breath of knowledge and experience, of diversity of background, and of appropriate geographical spread that having a single individual could never achieve, and nor would be likely to be brought out by the electoral process. Looking at the experience in America, it is likely that turnout for such elections would be very low and puts a high risk of those with extremist views getting through.
Police Authorities often divide up their area into patches, which means that a single individual can have thorough oversight of a very specific area, get to know residents and be available to help. PAs do so much more for neighbourhood policing in that sense than a directly elected commissioner could. The idea simply risks people running on populist agendas without knowing or understanding the complexity associated with national and international policing strategies.
It is quite right that we don’t elect absolutely everyone in our public services. We don’t elect our magistrates, our NHS boards etc It would be unfeasable to do so. It is a basic principle of 200 years of policing in this country that the police are not politised. The police should be fighting crime, not running campaigns.
To abandon the policing pledge at the same time as making calls for more accountability makes no sense. The pledge is not a ‘target’ but a statement of a minimum standard that people are entitled to. And one of the items in that pledge is that the police need to be visible to local people and responsive of their concerns. It ensures that local people are empowered to attend beat meetings, to be involved in consultations. The pledge, combined with PAs does make the police accountable. Elected police commissioners will be a disaster.
bobigb
Mr.Sensible – Are you so slavishly supportive of that last useless government that you believe that everything the coalition does is wrong?
Added together more people voted for this coalition government than the last useless bunch – do you think they are all stupid?
Were you one of the supporters of the last incompetent government’s 90 day detention scheme I wonder? hmmmm
I realise after your pleasure at Gordon Brown, (Britain’s most useless chancellor and never elected Prime Minister or even Labour leader) being forced on the electorate may have suited your views but to suggest the public shouldn’t have the right to ditch useless police leaders stinks. Who pays their wages Mr.S?
Why do you want to give power to people you can’t easily get rid of? Are you mad?
Obviously you missed my last link to North Korea so here is another:
Mouse by name and mouse by nature…who elected cameron pm pray…certainly not the electorate of this country…the man is an unfunny ideologist joke as is his crass amateur chancellor
BTW don’t start sitting too comfortably..you will probably be involved in civil unrest very very soon!
john p Reid
When in 2001 it was revealed police figures were falling <Stephen Pound at PMQ's drew attention to the sheehy report as being a disaster for the police to Blair agreeing with him, the sheehy report was dropped as Paul condon threatened to resign-Remember it was the 9% pay rise that police with less than 8 years in were given to substain numbers, Police joining in the mid 90's were leaving in their droves as they couldn't afford to stay in, Comparing charles Clarkes admirable police mergers with the disastrous Sheehy reforms is a joke,
Not wanting to agree with Shami Chakrabarti, But the polce are supposed to be politically independet as all the Attacks on ian Blair showed, surely having elected police chiefs would compromise this