Watching the detectives
Author: James Morris, Local Government Lawyer |
Boris Johnson was fully within his rights to sack Sir Ian Blair and he did not step over any political divide. The reason for this is simple: elected politicians with a remit for community safety must be able to remove police chiefs who are not focusing on and delivering the outcomes they desire.
But let us be clear: this is not about operational control or efficiency. It is solely about ensuring that resources are diverted to the priorities of local people. And the best way to move towards this is through powers of appointment and dismissal being held by either elected mayors or local council leaders or indeed a body of local councillors. And whichever is these is adopted should be up to the local area.
Along with these powers for appointment and dismissal, clear lines of accountability must follow. Without these a new structure will be inherently flawed. The public must be provided with clear understandable information about crime rates and community safety within their locality. Alongside this information must come transparency within the decision-making process. If an elected figure or pool of councillors is determined to flex their muscles, it must be absolutely clear what led to this decision and they should be expected to explain themselves to the public.
However, having a model like this alone is not enough to ensure that local people are aware of the work the police are doing, and nor it is enough to assume that this approach is necessarily leading to better local outcomes. Better local outcomes can only be achieved by refocusing resources to follow key outcomes, rather than the funding following institutions.
The Total Place initiative is ongoing at the moment and it so far has reached some worrying conclusions about how money is spent within a local area. The pilots have suggested that as little as 5% of spending within a locality is controlled by the elected members. So from a total spend of around 7,000 per head, just 350 comes under democratic local control. This needs to change if resources are to be targeted towards the priorities of local people. It is not enough to provide an air of increased accountability; funding streams must follow too.
Local partnership working is generally a valuable way of ensuring that funding does follow outcomes. Effective partnerships can create safer communities and tackle anti-social behaviour. An example is the Families at Risk Programme, which Westminster City Council has been successfully using over the past 12 months. This programme has brought together all of the agencies working in the area together to seek better outcomes for those considered to be ‘at risk’. It is this type of partnership which other local authorities should be seeking to put to the core of their community policing strategies.
Partnership working usually leads to increased information sharing across institutions, although this is an aspect of the process which needs to be addressed. The police, for instance have been unwilling in some areas to share data with councils about the specific locations of crime. The NHS has also been known not to allow councils to have data on new births within their areas, thereby undermining early intervention opportunities. A rethink on this is critical.
This new model outlined above would therefore lead to the following: local people electing local officials based upon outcomes which they have argued the local area needs. Once effective partnership working and democratic control over funding streams occurs, then this funding can be specifically diverted towards these locally determined priorities. Clear lines of accountability to the public will ensure that operational control remains with the police themselves. This is therefore a model that strengthens the position of local people and councils, whilst maintaining the functioning independence of the police.