We have blogged a number of times about the role of Police & Crime Commissioners (PCCs) but events of recent weeks in Dorset have encouraged us to have a closer look and what they do and how they do it.

The history of local oversight of territorial police forces (TPF) is somewhat convoluted and we do not intend to go into great detail here as it is irrelevant to the concerns we have about the present system.

Prior to November 2012 a Police Authority (PA) existed for the area of each territorial police force (TPF). The PA was comprised of elected members of local councils and ‘independent’ members, at least three of whom were usually magistrates. A typical PA was made up of seventeen members – nine elected members (who were drawn from the local authority or authorities for the force area, and would be reflective of the political makeup of those authorities). The remaining eight ‘independent members’ were appointed from the local community for fixed terms of four years by the PA itself.  

The greater portion police funding came by way of an annual grant from the Home Office. This grant was calculated on a proportionate basis to take into account the differences in population, geographical size and crime levels and trends. The PA had power to set a precept to Council Tax thus raising additional funds, subject to Home Office approval.

In the 2010 general election campaign both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives outlined plans in their manifestos to reform the local management of policing. Once in coalition they stated: “We will introduce measures to make the police more accountable through oversight by a directly elected individual, who will be subject to strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives.“

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 established PCCs and Police and Crime Panels (PCPs) within each TPF area in England and Wales (excluding Greater London). These PCPs consist of at least one representative from each local authority in that area, and at least two independent members co-opted by the panel. PCs are responsible for scrutinising PCC decisions and ensuring this information is available to the public. The PCC must give their comments “due consideration”, nothing more. The PCC must produce a ‘police and crime plan’. That plan must include his or her objectives for policing, what resources will be provided to the chief constable and how performance will be measured.

In practice PCPs have little power. A National Audit Office report published in January 2014 found that there were “few checks and balances” on the 41 PCCs between elections. It said police and crime panels, which were set up to scrutinise PCCs, “lack powers” to act on the information they receive.

To sumarise the way in which funding for the territorial police forces is allocated has not changed greatly but the abolition of PAs means that the power once held by a committee of around seventeen members is now concentrated in the hands of a single individual. That single individual now holds the purse strings of each TPF and can appoint, suspend or dismiss the chief constable and set the local ‘police and crime plan’.

As most PCCs are sponsored by a particular political party it is not unreasonable for the public to assume that they are supportive of the views of that party. This is particularly relevant in the area of wildlife crime. Although they have not attempted to repeal the law on hunting with dogs the Conservative Party have made it clear that they do not support it. The public see that many members of the Conservative Party in both parliament and local government are involved in hunting and shooting game birds. Many people might feel that they are less likely to be concerned with the enforcement of laws that prevent or impinge on such activities.

We do not suggest that any individual PCC is acting contrary to his or her oath to serve “without fear or favour” but public perception is cruciaL to law enforcement. The law of the land must not just be enforced “without fear or favour” it must be SEEN to be so. The “strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives” that we were promised in 2010 are lacking.

The creation of PCCs has concentrated too much power in one person with little or no real oversight. This needs to change if the public are to have any faith in the impartiality of law enforcement.