Police commissioners "could weaken ability to cut crime"

The introduction of directly elected police commissioners “could weaken the ability of the police, councils and other public services to cut crime", the LG Group has warned.

In written evidence to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill committee, the group – whose members include the Local Government Association and Local Government Regulation – also suggested that the legislation could fragment local partnerships.

Its key message in relation to the licensing changes proposed in the Bill related to the cost of the licensing system, which the group claimed had cost council tax payers £100m more than anticipated.

“The LG Group welcomes government’s intention to ‘enable licensing authorities to set….fees based on full cost recovery’ although we urge the committee to seek an amendment to the Bill that would insert a new locally-set fees structure based on full cost recovery,” it said. “In the current economic climate, the opportunity to do so via this Bill must be seized upon.”

Specific comments from the group in relation to policing included:

• In the last few decades the Home Secretary has acquired greater and greater powers at the expense of the other two elements of the tripartite police accountability structure: chief constables and police authorities. This has led to an increasing focus on centrally set targets and performance measures at the expense of local priorities
• The police are unable to prevent and cut crime on their own and effective partnerships are vital to cut crime. “Any changes to police accountability need to strengthen partnership arrangements rather than weaken them”
• Introducing directly elected individuals as commissioners could lead to a focus on more visible forms of local policing at the expense of less visible “and just as important” work such as tackling serious and organised crime
• The LG Group’s alternative model for improving police accountability would reinforce the links between neighbourhood policing teams, councillors and residents; and strengthen community safety partnerships. The model proposes replacing police authorities with Local Government Policing Executives made up of policing ‘champions’ appointed by councils and which could reflect the overall political balance across the authorities. A joint overview and scrutiny committee drawn from councils across the area would hold the executives to account
• The government’s commitment to protect police operational independence will make it difficult for commissioners to hold chief constables to account. “Operational independence should be replaced with the concept of operational responsibility developed by the Independent Commission on policing for Northern Ireland”
• An area of weakness with the current system is the lack of clarity around how much the police cost and how they spend their funding. “Consideration should be given to there being a separate bill from police commissioners sent out with the council tax bill, with the precept collected by local authorities”
• The group welcomed the proposal to establish police and crime panels made up of councillors to hold the commissioners to account, and strongly supported having representation for every council in a force area. It also supported the powers for panels to veto by vote the commissioner’s proposed precept and their recommended appointment for chief constable.

In relation to the licensing changes proposed by the Bill, the LG Group said:

• It welcomed the government’s desire to rebalance the Licensing Act by providing greater powers to licensing authorities to take action locally
• Including a new fees structure within the Bill would be the quickest and simplest way to bring about implementation of the government’s intention to enable licensing authorities to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery
• The group’s analysis of the proposed late night levy is that it is “highly bureaucratic and administratively expensive, meaning it will only be worthwhile for a minority of councils (those with a large number of late night premises in their area)”
• The levy does not address the “fundamental problem” of council tax payers subsidising the licence fees as the bulk of the levy is payable to the police
• “The group believes that a fully flexible, locally-set licence fee framework which allows councils to recover all costs associated with licensed premises, including those costs incurred by licensing authorities and all responsible authorities, including the police, would be simpler and fairer”. This could be used by all councils, in contrast to the levy
• The proposal for councils to have a new power to suspend licences where annual fees are not paid was welcome. “This will help councils to recover money owing and to tackle the minority of rogue businesses who do not comply”. However, the fee-paying regime set out in the Bill is excessive and does not reflect other regimes. “This is an example of unnecessary and costly legislation, and the administration costs will be passed on to the trade in fees”
• That nothing had been included on the face of the Bill on the below cost price sale of alcohol was a matter of regret
• The group was pleased that environmental health departments would be able to object to temporary event notices and that councils would be given more flexible powers to allow temporary events to go ahead. However, it was concerned at the extension of temporary events from three days to seven. “This change could result in more contentious, costly disputes between operators, the police, councils and the local community”
• It was unconvinced that operators who previously often accepted a two-day closure over the under-age sale of alcohol, would be willing to consent to a seven-day closure. “[They] may instead opt for trial at the magistrates’ court and attempt to delay or avoid closure”.
• Requiring licensing authorities to advertise license applications it receives is a potentially expensive and administrative burden. There should be clarification that this will only for online adverts.