Why PCCs must go: a better way to do local policing

We must address the failed experiment with Police and Crime Commissioners.

Ian Loader is professor of criminology at Oxford University and a member of the Independent Police Commission

On Monday, the Independent Police Commission launched its report, Policing for a Better Britain. Chaired by Lord Stevens, the Commission brought together leading figures from the police, academia, business and civil society to tackle the deep challenges that confront the police today.

Over two years, we have held witness hearings and public meetings, surveyed police officers, staff and the public, and commissioned over 30 background papers. The result has been the most extensive examination of the police service in England and Wales since the 1962 Royal Commission. In effect, we have been the Royal Commission on the Police for which many have been calling.    

Our report sets out a bold and radical vision of how to deliver better policing in straitened times. Our vision is of a police service that is professional, democratically accountable and serving the common good.

We set out a new deal for police officers and staff combining reform of working conditions with fairness at work. We outline measures to forge the police into a profession including a new role of chartered police officer. We propose a new Independent Police Standards Commission to deal effectively with complaints and raise standards. We make proposals to clear-up the mess that is police procurement and lay out principles to guide police collaboration with the private sector.

The golden thread of our report is that local policing is the building block of policing by consent. We propose a radical localisation of policing in England and Wales. Since 2010, the government has made much of its commitment to locally responsive and accountable policing. But it has chosen the wrong means to deliver this. We believe there is a better way.

This requires that we protect and focus neighbourhood policing during times of fiscal restraint. Neighbourhood policing is being hollowed-out, reduced to a name-plate on a door. It is compromised by the government’s myopic insistence that the police are ‘crime-fighters’. The police risk a retreat to a discredited model of reactive policing.

We need to reclaim the Peelian idea that the police mandate is to prevent crime, harm and disorder. We propose a ‘local policing commitment’ which includes a guaranteed minimum level of neighbourhood policing. We aim to create a police service that listens closely to the demands of all communities and treats people with dignity and respect, while focussing resources where they are most needed and can do most good.

We must also address the failed experiment with Police and Crime Commissioners. There are Police and Crime Commissioners doing good work. But this new office remains unpopular and most Commissioners are unknown to the public. Their first year of operation has been riddled with poor practice in terms of appointing staff and working with chief constables. These are not teething troubles. They are systemic flaws of a model whose proponents mistakenly believe that a single elected individual can effectively hold an entire police force to account.

We propose that this experiment be discontinued at the end of the term of office of the 41 serving Commissioners.

Police and Crime Commissioners should not be abolished just to save money. Nor should we reinvent police authorities or return to trying to run the police from Whitehall. Instead, we need to find better ways of giving effect to the principle of democratic governance.

Our clear recommendation is to devolve these powers to lowest tier local authorities. These authorities should have the power to spend some of the police precept, be given a voice in the appointment of local police commanders, and formulate policing plans for their town, city or borough. At the force level, we propose options for creating a Policing Board of elected politicians to set the strategic priorities of the police and hold chief constables to account.

These proposals to radically localise policing will create the conditions for a sensible public debate about structures. There is broad agreement that the present structure of 43 forces is no longer cost effective or equipped to meet today’s crime challenges.

Yet there is no consensus about a better alternative. We believe there are three serious candidates for change: locally negotiated mergers, regionalisation, or the creation of a national police service.

All three options need to be costed and scrutinized.

If we embed the idea that localities are the cornerstone of good policing, and create effective arrangements for making the police locally responsive, we can have a much needed discussion about structures free from the fear that creating fewer, larger police forces will mean less local democratic accountability.

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

6 Responses to “Why PCCs must go: a better way to do local policing”

  1. Boston_scoundrel

    “We must find better ways of giving effect to the principle of democratic governance”. So it’s better to replace a directly elected commissioner with oversight by a body which is not directly elected for that purpose and may be voted in on the basis that it will empty the bins more often. In what sense is that better?

  2. swatnan

    The point is it is localism in action, just as refuse collection is local, so policing should be local. Its all part of the services provided by LOcal Govt., which means that if we had locally elected Mayors, then they could appoint a Policing Commissioner or Commander, who would still be subject to scrutiny, by the locally eleced Police Committee of councillors. Rather like the London model.

  3. Boston_scoundrel

    So a directly elected, local, police and crime commissioner is less democratic than electing a mayor, who would be responsible for a whole range of services, who then appoints one of his mates as police commissioner? I see. The scales have fallen from my eyes…

  4. swatnan

    Its more about different Agencies working together.more closely. If all kept under one roof, minor crimes and villans could be better sorted; they often turn to crime because of their ‘situation’ in the local community eg they may have housing isses or education issues or drug related problems, etc. For major crimes, we could do with more streamlined Regional Policing Forces sharing information, not the 43 Police Forces we have at the moment.

  5. Boston_scoundrel

    But that’s a completely different issue to democratic accountability. As it happens, I agree entirely that the way in which we manage offenders, and those at risk of offending, needs to be joined up more effectively. Would I ask local councils to do that? It may be fine in theory, but in practice, they are inefficient, dominated by petty politics and on the whole terrible at what they do now.All of that is quite aside from the fact that pretending that a committee of the local council represents genuine democratic oversight of the police is simply wrongheaded

Comments are closed.