5 Police and Crime Panels
Q
4 The current proposals
57. The Government proposes to introduce Police and
Crime Panels as a core element of its proposals for "appropriate
checks and balances to the power of the new Police and Crime Commissioners".[110]
The consultation paper states that Police and Crime Panels will
be created in each force area and will be made up of locally elected
councillors, and independent and lay members. The Panels are intended
as a check and balance on the Police and Crime Commissioner, rather
than on the force itself. The consultation paper proposes that
they will:
- be
able to advise the Commissioner on their proposed policing plans
and budget and consider progress at the end of each year outlined
in a "state of the force" report;
- be able to
summon the Commissioner to public hearings, take evidence from
others on the work of the Commissioner, and see papers sent to
the Commissioner as a matter of course except where they are operationally
sensitive;
- hold confirmation
hearings for the post of Chief Constable and be able to hold confirmation
hearings for other appointments made by the Commissioner to his
staff, but without having the power of veto;
- have a power
to trigger a referendum on the policing precept recommended by
the Commissioner.[111]
The consultation paper states that if the panel objects
to the Commissioner's policing plan or budget "they will
be free, in the interests of transparency, to make their concerns
public, or, in cases of misconduct, to ask the Independent Police
Complaints Commission (IPCC) to investigate the Commissioner".[112]
58. The overwhelming majority of witnesses who commented
on Police and Crime Panels, as described in the consultation paper,
were of the opinion that they had little real power. Sir Hugh
Orde, for example, commented that, judging from the consultation
paper, the panels had "no particular power" other than
the power relating to the referendum on the precept. He added:
"I don't think they have any teeth".[113]
The language used in the consultation paper makes it sound as
though Police and Crime Panels will have more power than is in
fact the case: the Panels will be able to hold "confirmation
hearings" for the post of Chief Constable and other appointments
made by the Commissioner to his or her staff, but will not have
the power of veto, so these are not in fact confirmation hearings;
they are merely information sessions.
59. One of the few powers that Police and Crime Panels
do have under the current proposals—the power to trigger
a referendum on the policing precept set by the Police and Crime
Commissioner—also gave rise to concerns. A joint submission
by councils in Lancashire stated:
The current proposal could see regular referenda
held in respect of the precept, with a potential to re-bill if
the commissioner's proposals are challenged. The cost of a referendum
in Lancashire is likely to be similar to the cost of elections,
approximately £1.4 million across all 12 district and 2 unitary
areas. The cost of re-billing has previously been estimated at
£1 million.[114]
Suggested modifications
60. Mr Mark Rowley, the Chief Constable of Surrey
Police, summed up two different views of the role of Police and
Crime Panels—and made it clear which he favoured—when
he said: "One question for me is whether they are working
together with some sort of shared responsibilities, the panel
and the commissioner, or whether there is a very adversarial relationship,
which probably wouldn't help".[115]
61. The Welsh Local Government Association, while
explicitly seeking a "consensual rather than an adversarial
approach", was of the view that the Police and Crime Panel
"must be independent of a Police and Crime Commissioner".
It referred to the consultation paper's silence on the subject
of what sort of support teams Police and Crime Panels would need
and expressed some concern about "the question of how the
running of a PCP will be funded".[116]
62. Surrey Police Authority, on the other hand, stated
that it would be better for the public if the Police and Crime
Panel were to "work with the Commissioner—to be able
to scrutinise before decisions are made, not afterwards".
It commented:
A more influential Panel would also assist with the
workload of a Commissioner, ensuring that decisions are made with
due care in balancing the interests of local people and policing
needs. By having a Panel working with the PCC, this would also
avoid the potential for duplication of having to have two sets
of supporting staff and potentially calling the police force into
account twice for the same issue.[117]
The question of who would be the deputy for the Police
and Crime Commissioner was raised by several witnesses, including
Sir Hugh Orde.[118]
If the Police and Crime Panel were to work with the Police and
Crime Commissioner, rather than be set up as a separate scrutiny
body, the Police and Crime Commissioner's deputy could be drawn
from the panel.
63. Lancashire Police Authority pointed out another
difficulty with setting up the Police and Crime Panel as a separate
scrutiny body: the lack of logic in having one person to scrutinise
the Chief Constable and a whole panel of people to scrutinise
the Police and Crime Commissioner. It stated: "We do not
believe that a model where there are more people scrutinising
the Commissioner than the Chief Constable and the performance
of the force can be held up as sensible".[119]
64. The membership of the Police and Crime Panels
was also discussed by witnesses. Councillor Kemp, the Vice Chair
of the Local Government Association, was clear that Police and
Crime Panels should consist of "elected members"—by
which he meant elected councillors rather than that the Panel
should be directly elected—and said that the Local Government
Association had difficulty with the current composition of Police
Authorities because "we don't believe that magistrates or
independents should be there" except in a "co-opted
or advisory" role.[120]
Again, there seems a lack of logic in having an elected Police
and Crime Commissioner held to account by a Police and Crime Panel
consisting of some unelected members. However, Mr Garnham, the
Chair of the Association of Police Authorities, and a councillor
who chairs Gloucestershire Police Authority, emphasised that the
role of independents was "worthwhile" and stated: "We
police by consent. Having an independent view sometimes helps
us achieve that rather than just play with, shall I say, politics
or local politics".[121]
The Association of Police Authority Chief Executives stated: "A
strong Panel with some independent members and responsibility
to work with the Commissioner would mitigate any risks that might
accompany greater politicisation".[122]
65. The Government needs to clarify the role of Police
and Crime Panels. There is also a need to define more coherently
and straightforwardly the extent of their powers. In Chapter 2,
we discussed the concerns about the ability of a single Police
and Crime Commissioner to undertake the workload previously undertaken
by 17 or 19 people, and to represent successfully an entire force
area. We see merit in using
Police and Crime Panels as a means of providing advice to Police
and Crime Commissioners before final decisions are made, as opposed
to setting them up as a separate scrutiny body with a separate
support staff, examining decisions after they are made, which
we do not believe would be a good use of public money. We recommend
that Police and Crime Panels be comprised primarily of elected
representatives from county, unitary and district councils in
the force area—in particular portfolio holders with appropriate
responsibilities, and having regard to the political balance—and
of a significantly smaller number of independent members. Ultimately,
the Police and Crime Commissioner, as the elected representative,
must be able to make what decisions he or she sees fit, but decisions
made against the advice of Police and Crime Panels must be recorded
as such and these records must be available to the public.
110 Home Office, Policing in the 21st
Century, p 15 Back
111
Ibid. Back
112
Ibid. Back
113
Q 74 [Sir Hugh Orde] Back
114
Ev w35 Back
115
Q 74 [Mr Rowley] Back
116
Ev w63 Back
117
Ev w34 Back
118
Q 66 Back
119
Ev w40 Back
120
Qq 131-32 Back
121
Q 106 Back
122
Ev w9 Back
| 
