---   Coming Soon   ---

Here are the basic outlines of my next set of articles which will be completed and published, not necessarily in this order in the near future. I hope you enjoy reading them: Comments, Article Suggestions and Queries are welcomed through Twitter: #M_Martin2 and I would be appreciative if readers would Re-Tweet this Blog if they find it of help or interest.

Kind Regards

M. Martin

Privatisation and Policing Accountability


This article will discuss the consideration and in some cases implementation of privatisation contracts by G4S into police forces. Whilst the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill was enacted by government to improve policing accountability, it is unclear where a private security solutions firm stands in this new reform of accountability. Just one month away from the London Olympics this article will ask questions of the swiftness by senior management to incorporate privatisation into their forces before assessing the performance of G4S during the games. Further points will also be discussed regarding the legal standpoints a security firm should have in a policing environment.

Finally I will offer my opinion, (‘which I won’t normally do without evidence’) on how I feel the government should approach privatisation of the police, through the development and creation of a ‘Privatisation of Policing Act’, designed to control and hold to account private sector firms in a crucial frontline public service.

by Mathew Martin

#M_Martin2

--------------------     Coming Soon     --------------------

New Legislation and policing reforms: The risks to community engagement

With the Nationwide Riots of 2011, the Communities and Victims Panel highlighted many issues surrounding police community engagement and interaction. This article discusses the risks posed to these policing practices through the implementation of policing reforms, changes to legislation such as the new Criminal Behaviour Orders / Anti-social Behaviour powers and how the introduction of PCC’s could see prioritisation of frontline policing over neighbourhood duties.

The race riots and civil disturbances of 2001 led to the development of Community Cohesion and community policing, a strategy that saw policing priorities shift from high level policing issues such as robbery to community issues such as graffiti, dog fouling etc. This also led to the creation of Police and Community Together meetings, National Indicators, Public Service Agreements etc.

With the removal of these measurement targets along with budgetary and officer cuts, examination of the risks posed to community engagement will be assessed.

--------------------     Coming Soon     --------------------

Community vs Frontline Policing Statistics

Despite Stephen Greenhalgh’s ‘complete shambles’ performance during the London Assembly Committee hearing on Thurs 21^st June, his views regarding misleading frontline statistics brought to light a number of key issues. There is a large network of statistical data surrounding policing, however frontline policing figures remain vague and inconsistent and this article will discuss the issues as to why this occurs.

One debate surrounding frontline figures is the inclusion of Neighbourhood Policing Teams and Officers. Despite their duties primarily focusing on policing wards, Neighbourhood officers are still required to respond to frontline and emergency calls which it is argued makes them frontline officers.

Assessment of frontline and neighbourhood duties and how they should be defined will be discussed, and issues and implications should these two forms of policing be separately defined considered.

--------------------     Coming Soon     --------------------

Bureaucratic vs Democratic Accountability

This item will look at the PCC elections taking place in November and consider if the Coalition Government’s changes to remove public sector indicators / service agreements and introducing single elected commissioners is truly representative of the public’s requirements.

The single top down measurement of ‘public confidence in the police’ and reassurance commitments such as the policing pledge will be analysed, and examples of new strategies being used will highlight how policing schemes mirror the very systems the Coalition Government removed after coming into power.

-------------------     Coming Soon     --------------------

Police: The Coalition’s new Tripartite System of political interference.

Police and Crime Commissioners, Tom Winsor announced as favourable Chief of HMIC, is the Home Secretary really improving policing accountability?

With the elections of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC’s) taking place in November and the recent controversial announcement by Home Secretary Theresa May wanting to appoint Tom Winsor as Chief of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), there is apprehension across forces in England and Wales that politicisation will soon have a stronghold over policing.

The current Tripartite System of policing accountability has long been criticised for its imbalance, particularly Police Authorities who it has been described are invisible and their roles unknown to the public. Furthermore the Coalition Government felt that the role of Chief Constable remained unaccountable by the public and changes were required to re-balance the accountability structure of policing.

(Current policing tripartite model)

This led to the development of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, the Home Secretary’s new radical reform strategy that would see the abolition of Police Authorities and have them replaced by a single elected Police and Crime Commissioner.

IPSOS MORI announced during the ACPO Conference in Manchester that 40% of the general public are aware of PCC elections in November. I strongly question the statistical strength of this figure, whilst the public it seems may be aware of the elections I query the depth of knowledge by the public as to what changes these elections could have on the structure and future of policing.

A single elected PCC’s duty is to develop a Police and Crime Plan and hold the Chief Constable of each force to account in his/her duties across England and Wales. Current Police Authorities have a similar task to develop a Strategic Policing Plan, constructed and agreed by the full 17 members, consisting of 9 local councillors and 8 independent members, one of whom must be a Magistrate.

A recent publication of standing PCC candidates highlights that an overwhelming majority are from political parties, arguably over 95%. This has raised a number of concerns. The main being ‘Operational Independence and Discretion’ for Chief Constables:

Lord Denning described operational discretion as "No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must or must not keep observation on this place or that; or that he must or must not prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any Police Authority tell him so. The responsibility of law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law alone.”

PCC’s are obliged to develop a police and crime plan, the Home Secretary may also guide electorates on areas that need to be included in that plan. With the likelihood of party members becoming PCC’s and the Home Secretary’s guidance, it is difficult to determine how this process will not be detrimental to the operational independence of Chief Constables. In comparison, it appears that the current 17 member Authority system whilst perhaps slower due to the higher numbers and decision processes, ensures a wider safety catchment when considering a crime plans impact on policing independence.

Further issues in the lead up to and during the election stages may also arise. Firstly is the transitional period between the dissolution of Police Authorities and the new PCC’s and how long it will take a newly elected Commissioner to ascertain the overwhelming wealth of knowledge required to perform effectively, and how whilst developing this knowledge they are expected to create a policing plan at such an early stage in their role. How much time Chief Constables will have to spend providing this knowledge to the very people who hold them to account is also questioned, particularly whilst having to implement numerous reforms to their forces including budgetary and officer cuts.

Politicisation also comes under scrutiny, with the London Mayoral Elections earlier this year the public were provided with a number of televised and radio debates, which in most cases diverted away from the very remit of the roles they were standing for and became defamatory attacks on personal and financial livelihoods of the candidates. Questions arise as to how this form of election would be healthy for the future of policing, and how the debates expected to occur prior to the November elections could draw crucial focus away from the decisive matters of policing.

Additional politicisation fears occurred amid the controversial decision by the Home Secretary to announce Tom Winsor as her favoured candidate for the role of Chief of HMIC. Despite his announcement in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee today that he left the Labour Party in 2006, it appears hard for senior police members to support Mr Winsor considering it is his report that has led the very officers he could be representing having to implement numerous redundancies and changes to their forces, a report that ties in very comfortably with Coalitions’ policing reforms despite his political affiliation denials.

Tom Winsor, former rail regulator and lawyer could be the first Chief of HMIC not to have served as a police officer since its creation in 1856. Reports suggest that two serving Chief Constables were not considered for a role that primarily focuses on operational proceedings within the police. This has elevated fears of politicisation in that Chief Constables now not only face the Home Secretary, who has the potential to influence and guide single elected PCC’s, but also has influence over a non police experienced HMIC Chief.

A number of previous Metropolitan Police Commissioners and senior officers have raised their alarms over the Home Secretary’s HMIC decision, expressing that Chief Constables should have senior policing support not only in their duties, but at times of crisis from the HMIC by strongly experienced ex-serving officers.

(Diagram showing how the new political changes are likely to effect policing operational independence and accountability)

The new Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act was assembled to re-balance the tripartite policing structure of accountability, considering the numerous changes however and the politicisation risks associated with them, it appears that the role of Chief Constable has been removed from the tripartite model altogether, instead making them accountable to an ever increasing political movement that is inevitably going to interfere with operational independence.

In previous weeks the Coalition has made numerous U-Turns in its policies, including its no U-Turn policy. Reported estimates of PCC implementation and election costs have ranged from £100m up to over £300m for the four year electorate term, funding it is argued could be used to provide forces with extra police officers or could have been used to improve the visibility of Police Authorities thereby balancing the tripartite model by less intrusive and invasive means.

This new model of political control could see Chief Constables being kept uninformed on crucial policing matters and reduce their abilities to communicate information effectively due to the inexperience of the fundamental outside roles that will soon govern policing.

By Mathew Martin

Twitter: #M_Martin2

Ask me in 2 years then!!

Questions arise about the preparedness of Police and Crime Commissioners ahead of elections in November

On Thursday 21^st June, Stephen Greenhalgh made a dramatic appearance in front of the London Assembly Committee as Deputy Mayor of Policing and Crime in what can only be described as a “complete fiasco”.

Deputy Mayor Greenhalgh after three weeks in his position advised the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe that he was not required to attend the Committee meeting, despite receiving advanced knowledge of the agenda that contained a majority of questions outlining Operational Policing. This judgement began a thirty minute angered discussion between the Deputy Mayor and Committee.

Assembly members considered adjourning the meeting and described Mr. Greenhalgh as having a “cocky attitude”, most notably after he advised the Committee that their role is to hold him to account and he failed to acknowledge why the Police Commissioner was required to attend each monthly meeting considering his busy schedule.

Comments made by Assembly Member Jenny Jones however raised concerns about the preparedness of Mr. Greenhalgh in his new role.

Jenny Jones “you cannot possibly answer all the questions that we have today on your own and I don’t think even in 6 months time you would be able to”.

Mr Greenhalgh then criticised the Assembly’s preparation for the meeting claiming that he only had 48 hours to review the agenda and areas of questioning. Some Assembly members accepted this was a short review period but nevertheless highlighted that many areas of Committee questioning are topical.

Jenny Jones: “In two years time 48 hours will be more than plenty”

Stephen Greenhalgh: “Give me two years then”

In November Police Authorities will be disbanded and single elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC’s) will begin their roles with duties to develop a Police and Crime Plan and hold the Chief Constable of each force to account in his/her duties across England and Wales, a role that contains the same requirements as the Deputy Mayor of Policing and Crime Stephen Greenhalgh.

The lack of preparation by the Deputy Mayor acts as a caveat ahead of PCC elections and creates apprehension as to whether a single individual has the necessary abilities to fulfil the legal requirements associated with the role.

Comments by Green Party Assembly member Jenny Jones emphasised the length of time it will take PCC’s to acquire the relevant knowledge to perform successfully, but will this be effective or a burden for Chief Constables?

Whilst there will be a transitional period between the dissolution of Police Authorities and the introduction of PCC’s, the wealth of knowledge required to undertake the role will take a substantial amount of time to ascertain, added to the obligatory development of a police and crime plan it seems the tasks will necessitate strong assistance from the very person they hold to account.

PCC elections will occur every four years and should the position require 6+ months to assemble the colossal amount of information needed to execute the role successfully, it brings to question how this new form of policing accountability proposed by the Home Secretary will be enhanced?

The sensitivity of ‘operational independence’ for Chief Constables remains a fundamental factor in the future of policing, but a PCC’s position is to ensure effectiveness, efficiency and value for money for each force, objectives it is hard to believe won’t be detrimental to operational independence, particularly at a time where police forces face budgetary and officer cuts.

By Mathew Martin

#M_Martin2