2 Public awareness and engagement
8. The consultation paper makes it clear that the
main impetus behind the Government's proposals for policing reform,
and Police and Crime Commissioners in particular, is the desire
to reconnect the public with the police. In her foreword, the
Home Secretary refers to "restoring once more the connection
between the police and the people".[7]
The consultation paper acknowledges that "many individual
members of police authorities have made great efforts in recent
years to improve police responsiveness and represent local communities".
However, it also states that "despite these efforts the public
are often unaware of police authorities themselves" and cites
a Cabinet Office review from 2007, which "highlighted that
only 7% of the public would know to go to their Police Authority
if they had a problem with policing in their local area".[8]
9. Mr Rob Garnham, the Chair of the Association of
Police Authorities, pointed out that the Cabinet Office review
was "three or four years ago" and stated that the Association
of Police Authorities would say that the figure was "much
higher" than 7%.[9]
Mr Garnham also commented that when people did need help or wanted
something "they rapidly find out who they can turn to".[10]
Mr Garnham acknowledged: "there is a question, we cannot
deny, over visibility".[11]
In written evidence following on from Mr Garnham's oral evidence,
the Association of Police Authorities stated that a local policing
survey across the Northumbria Police Authority area revealed that
88% of residents were aware of the authority, although we received
no evidence on whether that 88% knew that they could go to the
Police Authority if they had a problem with policing in their
local area.[12] The Welsh
Local Government Association stated that in a survey undertaken
in 2010 by the Police Authorities of Wales, "97% of those
surveyed either agreed or strongly agreed that they had heard
of Police Authorities and 82% agreed that they knew what a Police
Authority does".[13]
10. Mr Kit Malthouse, the Deputy Mayor of London
with responsibility for policing, cited several reasons why he
thought the public appeared to be largely unaware of the role
and work of Police Authorities. He stated that "police authorities
are quite weak" and "don't have the powers that make
them relevant, in terms of compelling or directing the police
to do things".[14]
This point is interesting in the light of the powers proposed
for Police and Crime Commissioners and we return to it in our
discussion in Chapter 4. He also commented that "police authorities
have largely been neglected by democratic politicians" and
"dominated by independent members" who, in his experience,
were "reluctant to get out in public on the front foot and
get involved in the fray of public debate".[15]
Councillor Richard Kemp, the Vice-Chair of the Local Government
Association, stated:
it is very difficult to get leading members in many
areas to go on the police authorities because they can do more
to influence crime and antisocial behaviour activity by being
a cabinet member within their own authority than they can by being
a member of a police authority that has very little real authority.[16]
11. The view that there was a need to increase public
awareness of and engagement in policing was voiced by many of
those who gave evidence. Mr Bernard Hogan-Howe, the former Chief
Constable of Merseyside Police, stated:
Each of the parties have agreed, I think, that there's
a democratic deficit, that in fact people do not have enough opportunity
to influence the priorities of the police and that has led to
some pretty wide gaps growing over time.[17]
Mr Hogan-Howe said that there were various options
"to fill the democratic deficit" and that all of them,
including Police and Crime Commissioners, involved some risks,
but that "the risk of standing still is quite significant".[18]
Although he was not prepared to say directly whether he supported
the proposal for elected Police and Crime Commissioners, because
he would have to work with whatever proposal became law, he did
say: "I think there is a genuine opportunity to both influence
public opinion and to receive their feedback, and sometimes criticism,
and do something about it, and if that focuses on the individual
that is a great opportunity." He thought that Police and
Crime Commissioners had the chance to increase public trust for
two reasons: "first of all, [there would be] a public debate
about what the priority should be and, of course, then the Commissioner
has to deliver".[19]
12. Other witnesses, while equally convinced that
there was a need to increase public engagement with the police,
were less sure about the opportunity presented by Police and Crime
Commissioners. Mr Rick Muir, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute
for Public Policy Research, told us that, although he agreed that
in the 1980s and 1990s a gap had emerged between the public and
the police, he would prefer to address this gap by having "a
wholly elected Police Authority". He stated: "I think
we need more accountability, but I think the Commissioner model
is the wrong way to do it".[20]
One Commissioner per force
13. Police Authorities usually have 17 members: nine
councillors appointed by local councils, and eight independent
members from the local area and selected following local advertisement,
to include at least one magistrate. Some, such as Greater Manchester,
have 19 members. One of the concerns that witnesses raised repeatedly
about the proposed Police and Crime Commissioners was summed up
by Sir Hugh Orde, the President of ACPO, who commented that Police
and Crime Commissioners would be "taking on a huge job"
in that "they are replacing 17 to 19 people with one person".[21]
Many witnesses, especially Police Authorities, expressed their
doubts about whether one person would really be able to take on
this role, in terms both of coping with the amount of work involved
and being able to represent an entire force area. For example,
Kent Police Authority commented: "We do not believe that
one person, acting alone, would be able to cover either the volume
of work, or be able to cover the ground in Kent or any other force
area and do justice to the people they serve".[22]
ACPO Cymru stated that in Wales "the current mix of elected
and independent members on Police Authorities ensures representation
in every local authority area" and commented: "We do
not consider that a single PCC [Police and Crime Commissioner]
will be able to represent our many diverse communities as effectively".[23]
14. The concern would be that if Police and Crime
Commissioners could not cope with the workload, or could not successfully
represent the entire force area, the public's opportunities to
engage with the police might get worse rather than better. We
note the experience of Mr Malthouse, who pointed out during his
evidence that his postbag of letters from members of the public
concerned about policing in their area had grown exponentially
since he became London's public figurehead for policing. A joint
submission by Avon and Somerset Police Authority and Avon and
Somerset Constabulary stated that they foresaw a risk of "local
tensions and public disenchantment in the proposed governance
model resulting from the inability of a single elected individual
to represent Avon and Somerset's extremely diverse communities".[24]
The ability of one individual to represent an entire force area
is a particular concern in the case of large forces such as Avon
and Somerset, which covers about 1,855 square miles and a population
of about 1.6 million people, but even in smaller force areas,
such as Warwickshire, which covers about 780 square miles and
a population of about 535,000, the ability of one person to take
on a task previously carried out by 17 people is clearly an issue.
This highlights the importance of Police and Crime Panels to the
Government's plans as a way to ensure representation from across
a population area. If properly designed, the proposed support
teams and Police and Crime Panels have the potential to address
concerns about the challenge of one Police and Crime Commissioner
representing a large force area. We
recommend that Police and Crime Commissioners are directed to
take the workload and the diversity of the community they are
representing into account when making support team arrangements.
We return to this point in our discussion
of Police and Crime Panels in Chapter 5.
Support teams
15. If Police and Crime Commissioners are introduced,
they will need support teams to assist them. The consultation
paper states that the Government "does not intend to prescribe
these support arrangements in detail ... although the Government
will, for example, require the appointment of an individual with
appropriate financial skills and establish process safeguards
to ensure that appointments are made with propriety".[25]
16. Mr Garnham, the Chair of the Association of Police
Authorities, said that he thought that the support teams required
by Police and Crime Commissioners would differ from those currently
required by Police Authorities. He commented that, if the theory
were correct and Police and Crime Commissioners were "better
than police authorities" at holding Chief Constables to account,
the "Police and Crime Commissioner is suddenly going to have
an awful lot more people knocking on their door" and "you're
going to need an organisation to deal with these public expectations
as well".[26] This
point is supported by the comments of Mr Malthouse, who, while
arguing that one person "allows there to be a kind of funnel
for public concern", stated that when he was first given
the title of Deputy Mayor with responsibility for policing, "the
postbag at City Hall on community safety went from 20 or 30 letters
a week up to 200 or 300", and added: "We had a problem
coping with it. That indicated to me there was a thirst for some
sense of responsibility and accountability in the political firmament
for the police".[27]
Given that the idea of Police and Crime Commissioners is to increase
public engagement in policing, Police and Crime Commissioners
must have a support team capable of handing a higher volume of
calls, letters and e-mails than Police Authorities currently receive—otherwise
there is a risk that public engagement will turn to public disillusionment.
17. Cheshire Police Authority commented: "There
is a real possibility of the loss of corporate knowledge if new
support teams are appointed each time a new Commissioner is appointed,
leaving the Commissioner exposed to difficult questions both from
the electorate and the Chief Constable".[28]
We recommend that consideration
be given to the importance of retaining experienced members of
staff in the team supporting the Police and Crime Commissioner
following the election of a new person to the post.
Local priority setting
18. The consultation paper emphasises the importance
of giving the public more influence over police priorities in
their local area. It refers to "a deal where the public are
in control" and Police and Crime Commissioners "give
the public a voice".[29]
It states: "we expect Police and Crime Commissioners to work
with their local communities to establish the crime and ASB [antisocial
behaviour] priorities that matter most locally".[30]
Mr Hogan-Howe, the former Chief Constable of Merseyside, agreed
that "generally" the public are best placed to decide
on local policing priorities, but said that "there has to
be a balance struck" because "sometimes people aren't
fully aware of all the threats and all the risks".[31]
Staffordshire Police Authority was one of several witnesses to
voice a concern that Police and Crime Commissioners "will
prioritise what can be seen by communities at the expense of the
less visible elements of policing such as protective services,
which are just as fundamental to community safety".[32]
19. Another concern is how to ensure that local priority
setting is truly reflective of the views of those living in the
area as a whole, and does not simply mirror the views of a vocal
minority with particular perceptions. Professor Jonathan Shepherd
of Cardiff University, who has carried out influential research
on violence reduction, made this point by comparing the crime
agenda with the health agenda:
there is an obvious parallel between the worried
well who can dominate the health agenda and consume resources
at the expense of people with real needs who do not come forward
and the fearful safe ... whose views and keen participation in
discussions about crime reduction could, potentially, divert attention
and resources away from locations and communities where people
are at far greater risk.[33]
To avoid the "worried well" syndrome distorting
local policing priorities it is therefore vital that Police and
Crime Commissioners effectively communicate with their electorate
about all the threats and risks they are facing so that voters
can make evidence-based decisions about local policing priorities.
The quality of data is crucial in this context: both to inform
the public in the first place and to help Police and Crime Commissioners
to reflect a true picture of the needs of the communities they
serve, rather than merely the concerns of those who shout the
loudest or voice their points most articulately. Mr Hogan-Howe
commented that data should be "as individual as possible,
as local as possible and, of course, finally [...] current".[34]
We endorse
the desire to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy in the police service,
but we emphasise that local record-keeping that enables people
to see what is happening in their neighbourhoods, and ideally
on their streets, will be crucial if local priority setting is
to be successful. This information must be made available to the
public on the internet.
7 Home Office, Policing in the 21st Century:
Reconnecting the police and the people, July 2010, p 3 Back
8
Home Office, Policing in the 21st Century, p
6 Back
9
Q 94 Back
10
Q 96 Back
11
Q 94 Back
12
Ev 43 Back
13
Ev w61 Back
14
Q 12 Back
15
Ibid. Back
16
Q 132 Back
17
Q 43 Back
18
Ibid. Back
19
Q 41 and Q 48 Back
20
Qq 28-29 Back
21
Oral evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 27 July
2010, Policing HC (2010-11) 362-i, Q 87 Back
22
Ev w25 Back
23
Ev w15 Back
24
Ev w22 Back
25
Home Office, Policing in the 21st Century, p
11 Back
26
Q 102 Back
27
Q 15 Back
28
Ev w41 Back
29
Home Office, Policing in the 21st Century, p
8 Back
30
Ibid., p 9 Back
31
Q 39 Back
32
Ev w63 Back
33
Ev 51 Back
34
Q 50 Back
|
