Joint memorandum submitted by Councils
in Lancashire
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— As Local Authorities for Lancashire,
we have a number of concerns regarding the introduction of directly-elected
Police and Crime Commissioners and supporting governance arrangements.
We believe this is being done too quickly and request that before
their role is determined that due care, attention and consideration
be given to these issues.— The 14 Councils in Lancashire
took the opportunity to respond to the consultation from the Government
regarding policing this submission is also from the same group,
12 District Councils, two Unitary Councils, the County Council
and the Police Authority.
— The Councils believe that elected commissioners
and Police and Crime Panels will only be effective in driving
performance improvement if they are integrated with existing mechanisms
and responsibilities, which have already led to significant reductions
in crime and anti-social behaviour. Lowering crime and anti-social
behaviour is not just the responsibility of the police but also
that of local authorities and other public agencies; the mechanisms
already in place enable joint decision making and joint accountability
for success and failure to communities; this would be diminished
under the current proposals.
— In Lancashire, the Local Authorities
believe that in an area the size of Lancashire, it is unrealistic
to expect one individual to deliver on all the various commitments
that will be demanded of this role. However, we would not support
the appointment of deputies by the Commissioner that do not carry
the same democratic accountability; we suggest that these be selected
from Local Authority members who hold the portfolio for community
safety in the area.
— We welcome the removal of unnecessary
bureaucracy in the police service through reducing central control,
promoting professional judgement, and reducing the data recording
burden. Although we support the removal of national targets, we
strongly believe that this must be balanced with sufficient national
strategic direction to enable forces to know what is required
of them in addressing national priorities.
— We also believe that further consideration
is needed to the proposals regarding referenda and that the consequences
of the cost of re-billing. The current proposal could see regular
referenda held in respect of the precept, with a potential to
re-bill if the commissioners 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. These costs would need to be
added to the financial forecast and budgeted for.
— We are particularly concerned that the
proposals for referenda on council tax could see referenda both
on Council Tax and on the Precept. The current proposal could
see regular referenda held in respect of the precept, with a potential
to re-bill if the commissioners proposals are challenged. The
cost of a referendum in Lancashire is likely to be in the same
order as elections which is approximately £1.4 million across
all 12 district and two unitary areas. The cost of re-billing
has previously been estimated at £1 million. These costs
would need to be added to the financial forecast and budgeted
for.
— We have structured our response around
the Committee's four key lines of enquiry contained within its
terms of reference, we have however made a number of comments
with regard to cost within the line of enquiry surrounding the
role of the PCP:
1. THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN CHIEF
CONSTABLES AND
ELECTED POLICE
AND CRIME
COMMISSIONERS
Governance and Accountability—Consequences
of the Police Accountability Model
1.1 The local landscape of partnership working
is complex particularly in areas such as Lancashire which is a
combination of two-tier and single-tier local government in the
force area. In Lancashire, we are making headway into rationalising
and reducing the complexity of this landscape by supporting closer
working between the Criminal Justice Board, the County Strategy
Group and Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs). This includes
the sharing of infrastructure services and setting joint priorities
in the future.
1.2 We believe that introducing directly-elected-individuals
with Police and Crime Panels at the force-level independent of
these existing arrangements would reintroduce complexity and have
the potential to fragment existing partnerships. It could also
create a duplicate system for holding public services to account
for their contributions to partnership working. Specifically,
the duplication or tensions would arise with the Police and Crime
Panel and Local Authority Scrutiny (particularly of County areas)
both having the ability to challenge the role of partners and
value for money in delivering community safety.
1.3 The obligation to scrutinise the contribution
of all Responsible Authorities to improving community safety and
tackling crime in partnership already exists within the democratic
accountability of local authorities. Therefore, it is our suggestion
that these committees be modified to enable them to take on the
role of the Police and Crime Panel. The scrutiny committees are
able to co-opt members from other agencies and independent representatives
as necessary and form a joint committee covering all upper tier
authorities for the area. In a two-tier area like Lancashire elected
member representation could be provided from both district, unitary
and county councils. Such a joint committee would not only be
able to hold the Commissioner to account, individually but would
also scrutinise partnership activity tackling crime and disorder
ensuring value for money, identifying duplication and resolving
conflicts of priorities.
1.4 Like many areas, we have already been reviewing
our structures and processes to identify areas where we can work
together more efficiently and effectively. Of particular relevance,
is the closer working and shared services between the Lancashire
Criminal Justice Board and Safer Lancashire Board (our county
strategy group), thereby integrating community safety and criminal
justice. Moreover, the Safer Lancashire Board, as the County Strategy
Group, already brings together CSPs and enables commissioning
of activity (including unitary authorities) on larger footprints.
Having worked to remove duplication of effort and resources, the
introduction of a separate role for commissioning community safety
activity for the Police and Crime Commissioner would re-establish
duplication and inefficiencies. It would also be contradictory
to the drive to having place-based budgets and joint commissioning
of services. We see the Commissioner as one of the key members
of this partnership and would advise that sole responsibility
is not appropriate, but rather shared responsibility with the
other relevant authorities.
2. HOW OPERATIONAL
INDEPENDENCE WILL
BE DEFINED
2.1 Although there may well be issues about
the relationship between the Chief Constable and the Commissioner,
in Local Authorities we also have reservations that the Commissioner
will not fully have regard to the landscape within the local area
and may seek to act without reference to the priorities of local
partners, accordingly our replies are focussed on the relationship
with Local partners within the Community Safety framework.
2.2 Currently, In Lancashire, we already have
systems in place to provide information to the public around crime
and police performance. Importantly, these are aligned to the
provisions required to gather information to produce strategic
assessments, partnership plans and county community safety agreements
as dictated in legislation. These are used not only to set the
priorities but to provide information on what all partners have
committed to and feedback what has been done to tackle the issues
identified. The Commissioner (and their support) should be integrated
with this existing provision, as it is not only an area where
services can be shared but also would prevent conflicting priorities
or delivery mechanisms being commissioned.
2.3 The statutory framework created in the Police
and Crime Act 2009, establishes bureaucratic requirements associated
with the creation of police force collaboration agreements and
police authority collaboration agreements. None of these regulatory
requirements are placed on forces or authorities in respect of
any collaborative agreements that they might have with other partners
in the public sector. In Lancashire, there are a number of shared
service arrangements involving the Police Authority and Local
Authorities to achieve effective back office or "below the
line" arrangements. It has been agreed in principle that
a County wide "Public Services Board" be established
to look at effective use of all public sector resources in the
County area. Public Service Boards have been effective in progressing
work and making efficiencies including in areas like community
safety. For example, in Blackburn the Public Service Board has
made considerable advances in areas such as substance misuse and
prolific offending by drawing together the different agendas of
health, economic development and community safety. The Police
are part of this process and we would like to ensure that the
Commissioner operates as other democratically elected bodies within
the area to be part of this process.
3. THE EXTENT
TO WHICH
THERE WILL
BE A
NEED FOR
NATIONAL TARGETS
3.1 Providing information to the public is crucial,
as is the need for consistent, accurate and readily understandable
information. The provision of information on crime to the public
appears to be based on an underlying principle that increased
information on crime will result in an increase in public reassurance.
3.2 We believe that Lancashire has implemented
effective working across the Partnership areas and has seen the
use of targets under the performance reward regime contribute
to falls in crime and anti-social behaviour.
4. ROLE OF
POLICE AND
CRIME PANELS
4.1 We believe that the role of the PCP needs
to be looked at alongside the role of the commissioner. Whilst
the Government recognises that Commissioners should come from
a wide variety of backgrounds, it is not clear how this can be
achieved and whether one individual will be able to represent
truly the views of the whole population of Lancashire.
4.2 We take the view that under the current
proposals a single Commissioner will not have the capacity to
scrutinise police performance. We believe that the model should
be revised to give the Commissioner a better support and access
to relevant information and expertise. Independent deputies would
further fragment partnership working and create multiple lines
of accountability. Deputies should instead be chosen from existing
local government community safety portfolio holders. These portfolio
holders not only have the democratic accountability through election
but also have a remit of governance as set out in statute of representing
constituents on community safety partnerships and the county strategy
group. These members would also have the support of and access
to existing mechanisms of community engagement undertaken by local
authorities and other partners which could further support the
Commissioner.
4.3 From experience, we have recognised that
joint working between public services and the voluntary and private
sector is essential to tackling crime and disorder. The police
cannot tackle crime on their own and as such the established multi-agency
partnerships have been a vital part of our success. Success in
Lancashire has been largely due to the district and unitary partnerships
delivering locally with the ability to establish clustering arrangements
on other footprints under the guidance of the County Strategy
Group, eg Basic Command Unit, Primary Care Trust and County to
tackle priorities appropriately. The powers of the Police Commissioner
at a force level should not displace the established and effective
Community Safety Partnerships and County Strategy Group arrangements
already in place, which have led to much of the recent reduction
in crime and anti-social behaviour. This model of working would
ensure we get more localism, in line with the Government's general
vision, rather than less.
4.4 It is not clear how the elections would
be resourced or by whom they would be conducted (ie police authority
or district/unitary authorities). In respect of financing election
costs, it is estimated that the cost of these elections would
be in the region of £1.2 million to £1.4 million across
the 12 district and two unitary areas. Even if the Home Office
funded the initial set up costs of the accountability structure,
this would still represent a recurring expenditure commitment
every four years and would place a significant additional burden
on resources. (In Lancashire, this amount of money would equate,
for example, to a 2% increase on the Police Authority's Council
Tax or approximately 20 Police Officers.) However, it is recognised
that there is a price to democracy and that significant expenditure
is already incurred on local government, parliamentary and European
election processes.
Cost of Elections and Referenda
4.5 Of much greater concern is the proposal
for multiple referenda on council tax. As local authorities, we
are concerned that there could potentially be referenda both on
Council Tax and on the Precept. The current proposal could see
regular referenda held in respect of the precept, with a potential
to re-bill if the Commissioner's proposal is successfully challenged.
The cost of a referendum in Lancashire is likely to be in the
same order as elections (approximately £1.2 million to £1.4
million). The cost of re-billing has previously been estimated
at £1 million. If these costs are to be met locally this
will mean a reduction in the funds available for delivering police
services in Lancashire. At a time of diminishing public sector
expenditure, these additional costs for referenda are difficult
to justify and do not represent value for money.
Given costs of referenda and re-issuing of bills
should a precept be changed, we would advocate that the committee/panel
have a power to amend the budget on an appropriate majority. For
example, a two-thirds majority of the Greater London Assembly
as used in the London mayoral model and recommended by the Local
Government Association in their response.
Transition from existing arrangements
4.6 The consultation paper contains no details
regarding transitional arrangements from the existing police authority
structure to the new Commissioner model. A number of Local Authorities
in Lancashire have experienced periods of transition, such as
during local government reorganisation, and the amount of work
involved should not be under estimated. A safe and seamless transition
to the new accountability model will be required to ensure police
performance does not deteriorate during this period, which could
have an impact on the wider community safety landscape.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
Our key recommendations can be summarised as
follows:
5.1 We recommend that the Commissioner take
the place of the police authority as a responsible authority for
community safety, participating in community safety partnerships
and county strategy groups as an equal participant.
5.2 We propose that the Commissioners should
be implemented in line with existing legislation (and proposed
amendments) and structures that already exist in local areas.
5.3 We recommend that deputies for the Commissioner
be selected from elected members who hold community safety portfolios
within the local authorities in the force area.
5.4 We recommend that the Commissioner participate
as a responsible authority in providing transparent information
with other partners, thereby limiting the need for additional
and duplicate effort.
5.5 We would recommend that urgent clarification
should be provided on the full costs of the Commissioner's policy
and how it is proposed to finance this expenditure.
5.6 We recommend that urgent consideration is
given to the process of transition from the existing structure
to the new Commissioner model.
5.7 We recommend that the Commissioner participate
as a responsible authority in working collaboratively with partners
within the Constabulary area as well as with other forces and
the wider policing family.
Lancashire County Council Blackburn with Darwen
Borough Council
Blackpool Borough Council Burnley Borough Council
Chorley Borough Council Fylde Borough Council
Hyndburn Borough Council Lancaster City Council
Pendle Borough Council Preston City Council
Ribble Valley Borough Council Rossendale Borough
Council
South Ribble Borough Council West Lancashire
Borough Council
Wyre Borough Council Lancashire Police Authority
October 2010
| 
