Memorandum submitted by the Derbyshire
Police Authority
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— Further clarity required on the roles
and responsibilities of the Police and Crime Commissioners alongside
those of the Chief Constable.
— A definition of operational independence
is required.
— Direction or principles of the supporting
architecture are required in order to enable a seamless transition.
— Police and Crime Commissioners should
be given additional powers of direction.
— Police and Crime Panels should be dual-roled
to both support and scrutinise Police and Crime Commissioners.
— Elections and appointments of Police
and Crime Commissioners should mirror the normal electoral process
in order to minimise transitional costs.
2. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
a submission to the Select Committee Enquiry into Police and Crime
Commissioners. We responded formally to the Home Office consultation
document "Policing in the 21st Century" on 27
August as part of the Home Office consultation process and our
response is enclosed for completeness. This is a subject that
the Derbyshire Police Authority feels very strongly about, and
following a meeting of the Authority at which the Home Office
paper was discussed in detail we respectfully submit this, our
submission.
3. This submission will be limited to two key
issues highlighted in the scope of your work, namely: the relationship
between Chief Constables and the elected Police and Crime Commissioners
and also the role of Police and Crime Panels. We also raise our
concerns on the considerable costs of implementing this scheme.
RELATIONSHIPS OF
THE POLICE
AND CRIME
COMMISSIONERS WITH
CHIEF CONSTABLES
4. From the limited detail provided in the scoping
document we are concerned that the relationship issue has not
been fully thought through. We believe that if the Home Secretary
is saying that police authorities have not been effective (and
as an aside she has produced no evidence to support this assertion)
that there is a direct need to build on the role and responsibilities
and powers of Police and Crime Commissioners to make them more
effective and not reduce them as is being proposed; the current
situation we believe is in danger of building up Police and Crime
Commissioners to fail. Reducing their roles from that of police
authorities provides them with no meaningful responsibility and
risks their ability to add any real value. We believe that Chief
Constables should be expected to concentrate on the delivery of
the operational needs of policing, and that as a generalisation;
everything else should fall to the Police and Crime Commissioner.
5. What is not entirely clear are the responsibilities
of the Police and Crime Commissioners. If Police and Crime Commissioners
are to be held accountable for "the whole of Force activity"[41]
then we need to have a clear definition of where the dividing
line is and in particular what is meant by operational independence.
Without this there is a danger of confusion and for potential
conflict. For example is the selection of an IT system, or the
restructuring of a BCU and the subsequent closure of police stations,
an operational decision for the Chief Constable to make or will
the Police and Crime Commissioner be held accountable, and therefore
should the decision making fall to the latter? Where is the line?
We note that this is being addressed by the Home Affairs Select
Committee and we look forward to seeing what the outcome will
be.
6. If the PCCs are to be held accountable for
policing then we would expect them to lead on the following as
a minimum, and that the associated resources should be so aligned:
(a) Appointments of senior police officers and
senior police staff. No change from current duties of police authorities.
(b) The handling of all complaints and appeals.
This is an extension from what is currently undertaken by police
authorities; we feel that it is an anomaly that the police are
responsible for investigating themselves under the direction and
control of the chief constable and the Police and Crime Commissioner
should be allocated this role, supported by the IPCC. We also
feel that the complaints process is complicated with too many
involved. This should be made more simplistic with the Police
and Crime Commissioner being tasked with being responsible for
all complaints and ensuring that lessons are both identified and
learnt.
(c) The setting, and oversight, of the budget.
No change from current duties of police authorities.
(f) The setting of local priorities and the agreement
of a strategic policing plan. No change from current duties of
police authorities.
(g) The use of resources including collaboration.
No change from current duties of police authorities.
(h) The commissioning of community safety work,
in co-ordination with partners.
(i) The management of the police estate. No change
from current duties of police authorities.
7. As a consequence the Police and Crime Commissioners
should be given the resources to achieve this and some further
direction or principles on responsibilities should be provided
in order that supporting structures and re-organisation can be
put in place to allow for a smooth a transition as possible. Police
Authorities will be required to put in place some form of supporting
architecture ahead of May 2012.
8. Finally we believe that the Police and Crime
Commissioner needs to be given some power of direction. There
may be times that a firm hand is required to steer a Chief Constable,
particularly where there is intent for the Home Office to become
less involved. In parallel we believe that it would be helpful
also if there was a requirement placed on a chief constable to
co-operate with a Police and Crime Commissioner in order for the
latter to achieve his/her statutory duties. Without this power
of direction it could be very difficult for a Police and Crime
Commissioner to direct what the policing priorities and their
implementation might be, and the only recourse that (s)he might
have would be the threat of removal should this not happen; by
adding this to the legislation will provide the clarity that is
required. In sum, we believe that there is a need to rebalance
the relationships and provide the Police and Crime Commissioner
with the means to fulfil his/her role.
THE ROLE
OF POLICE
AND CRIME
PANELS
9. We have some concerns with the detail that
has been provided to date on Police and Crime Panels. Under the
current arrangements there is a danger that the Chief Constable
could be pulled in two directions answering to both the Police
and Crime Commissioner and the Police and Crime Panel. Police
and Crime Panels will require the knowledge of the policing environment
and landscape in order to hold to account the Police and Crime
Commissioner and will therefore need to be kept informed of policing
activity; this can only be provided by the Force. The strategic
landscape will as a consequence be in danger of being confused
and the tripartite relationship could be in danger of becoming
a quadpartite relationship. That said, it is recognised that there
is a need to provide the checks and balances of the Police and
Crime Commissioner, and the Police and Crime Panels we suggest
will need to do this in the same manner that a chair of a police
authority is held to account by the members. We feel that the
responsibilities of the Members of the Police and Crime Panel
should be widened to make the appointment more fulfilling; by
not doing so may make it difficult to appoint independent members
to support these panels. Police and Crime Commissioners will require
support and the expertise and skill sets of Police and Crime Panels
members could be exploited to fill this vacuum in a cost effective
way. In sum we suggest that they should have a dual function of
both supporting and holding to account the Police and Crime Commissioner.
MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS
10. We have made other comments in our response
to the consultation document. Whilst not part of the terms of
reference for the Select Committee we do feel that they have some
relevance. Our key concern is the implementation of this proposal
outside the timelines of the normal electoral process. There are
no county wide elections in Derbyshire in 2012; the costs, not
including other transitional costs, (expected to be in the region
of £.75 million and approximately £60 million in the
country) we believe are not tenable in this current financial
climate. Whilst accepting that the appointment of Police and Crime
Commissioners may happen we believe that the process should be
staggered across the country to tie in with the normal electoral
process keeping the electoral costs to the minimum.
October 2010
41 Presentation by Mr Stephen Rimmer to APACE dated
6 October 2010. Back
| 
