MPs call for clearer role for "ineffective" police and crime panels

Police and crime commissioners should not be able to evade scrutiny by police and crime panels when they sack a chief constable, a parliamentary inquiry has said.

The Home Affairs Select Committee said it was concerned about the circumstances in which some chief constables had been dismissed, as this undermined public confidence.

Its report into the commissioners’ performance said: “We are concerned that commissioners can side-step the statutory scrutiny process for the removal of a chief constable by simply threatening to use it.

“Accordingly, we recommend that police and crime panels inquire and report into the circumstances whenever a chief constable’s service is brought to an end.”

It was also “not right” that statutory scrutiny could be evaded where a commissioner chooses not to extend a chief constable’s contract and this process should be brought under panels’ scrutiny, the committee said.

The Home Office should make clear the grounds on which a PCC could sack a chief constable, the MPs said, since at present these were not stated and no sacked chief had seen the point of engaging panels’ scrutiny since the final decision would anyway rest with the PCC.

According to the report, many panels – made up mainly of councillors – had been ineffective since they had “struggled to understand their powers and define their role”.

Their political balance “is also a concern”, the committee said, calling for deputy chairs from a different party where the chair and commissioner came from the same one.

Commissioners should also be required to publish a forward plan of key decisions, and background information on each decision to assist with better scrutiny.

The report said the very low turnout in the 2011 commissioner elections had undermined PCCs’ legitimacy and there was little public awareness of their role.

Awareness had risen, but “not only from conscious engagement work, but also from a number of adverse media stories concerning [PCCs’] activities.

“These have included the controversial removal of chief constables, the hiring of deputy commissioners, and the resignation of police and crime panel members.”

The committee was concerned about perceived cronyism in the appointment of deputies and assistants.

Committee chair Keith Vaz said: “The concept of police and crime commissioners is still very much on probation.

“Some commissioners have fallen well short of the public’s expectations and urgent reforms are needed to ensure that this concept does not put at risk public trust and engagement in the police.”

Joanna Spicer, vice-chair of the Local Government Association's Safer and Stronger Communities Board, said: “Councils have warned that a lack of clarity about the role of police and crime panels can hinder them from fully holding their PCCs to account.

“We are pleased the committee has listened to our concerns and recognised the need for further guidance and funding which will strengthen the role of panels," she said.

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners chair Tony Lloyd, said: “We recognise the importance of transparency of decision making in terms of public confidence and commissioners are already working hard to further improve the processes they have in place. We are held to account at a local level by our communities.”