Analysing PCCs at the two-year mark. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

After two years of Police and Crime Commissioners, we must assess their democratic value

As we hit the two-year mark of the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners, it’s time to look forward and assess what needs to be done to improve democratic governance in policing.

“One year on: warts and all”: this was how the Home Secretary, Theresa May, chose to entitle her speech on the first anniversary of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Clearly, even she had to admit that things weren’t going as well as she hoped. As we hit the two-year mark, problems remain about her flagship reform and so it’s time to look forward to the future, to assess what needs to be done to improve democratic governance in policing.  

Over the past two years we have seen PCCs, from across the political spectrum, try to make the most of their position. Indeed, we have borne witness to many innovative projects led by them. Northumbria’s Vera Baird has led impressive action in order to combat domestic violence, while in Surrey, Kevin Hurley is ensuring collaboration between blue light emergency services. There is a real focus on mental health in Greater Manchester, where Tony Lloyd is pushing the agenda. However, despite these and many more examples of good work, the system is flawed.

The independent Stevens Commission on policing, released a year ago, called the creation of PCCs a "failed experiment". Reflecting on the first year of PCCs Stevens made it clear that the problems with the system were not merely "teething troubles" but that the model is systematically flawed and "should be discontinued". We agree with his conclusions for three reasons. First, the rule of law. The police must be accountable to the public through elected representatives but day-to-day operational independence of the police should never be compromised.

Second, democratic legitimacy. The initial election in November 2012 was run without any major publicity push, resulting in a desultory turnout of just under 15 per cent, which even May admitted was "disappointing". But worse still, when the Home Office provided information leaflets to each home in the West Midlands for this August’s by-election, turnout fell, only managing to crack the 10 per cent mark. The election cost almost £4m. Despite claims of democratic empowerment, the PCC system has not fulfilled its main objective, which May claimed would be bringing a "strong democratic mandate" to policing. There is nothing "strong" about 15 per cent.

Third, there have been too many scandals ranging from cronyism, in appointments to a system that did not allow for Shaun Wright to be recalled in Rotherham in spite of calls from the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Wright eventually stood down when it was made clear that his position was untenable.

Looking to the future, with police reeling from some of the most severe cuts to public spending threatening the loss of a staggering 68,000 officers and staff, it makes it all the more difficult to justify spending millions on the maintenance of the office and the cost of the elections. The next set of elections alone will cost at least £50m. 

Even the Chancellor recently sought to overrule the Home Secretary by announcing that he intends to abolish the position of PCC in Greater Manchester, instead rolling the responsibilities into a Mayoral position. Even behind the closed doors of Cabinet, we now know that there is little support for May’s misguided policy.

Let me be clear, however, our intention is not driven by criticism that I level at any individual PCC. The biggest problem with PCCs is the premise on which they are based. Of course, the police must be held to account.  However, creating a position at considerable expense which has proved to be problematic and which the public never called for has led to a lacklustre response.

Instead, Labour will devolve police accountability right down to the neighbourhood level. Through this, elected councillors and neighbourhood commanders will be accountable to the public, with new statutory underpinning for public meetings, consulting on local plans and even deciding who the local police unit commander should be.

At force level, budget setting and holding the Chief Constable to account will be carried out by the Police Governing Body. The Body will comprise of leaders in local government across that police force area, as well as lay members and third sector representatives. Victims, the probation service, the criminal justice system, the health service should all have their voice heard on the board.  Labour is currently consulting on other aspects of our proposals including the potential of the appointment by the Body of a strong Chair, similar to chairs of NHS trusts.

The principle of democracy and democratic accountability is paramount. As Lord Stevens said, “there must be no retreat from the idea of giving people a voice in how they are policed.” And there must be no return to old style Police Authorities. However, it is clear that May’s flagship reform is floundering. These last two years have been two years too many; the Government has wasted time and money pursuing a flawed policy. What we now need is fundamental reform, which is exactly what Labour is proposing. Accountability rooted in the new democratic settlement of devolution, with locally elected representatives holding the police to account.

Jack Dromey MP is the shadow minister for policing 

Jack Dromey is shadow policing minister.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.