Comment: Policing should not be politicised

Elected police commissioners threaten the bedrock independence of the British police service.
By Rachel Robinson
In the halls of Westminster, radical change is afoot for British policing. Since February this year MPs have been debating the police reform and social responsibility bill, which proposes to abolish regional police authorities, replacing them with directly elected ‘police and crime commissioners’. More revolution than evolution, these changes will be permanent, far-reaching, and threaten the bedrock independence of the British police service.
In the past weeks and months we have heard prominent dissenting voices from within parliament. Last week former Met police commissioner Lord Imbert – a man who knows a thing or two about policing – wrote a letter to The Times condemning the proposed new scheme on the grounds that it would undermine the crucial political independence of the police. Also telling is the lack of support for the proposals amongst the British people. When it comes to protecting our families from crime, a recent poll conducted by YouGov revealed that only 15% of us would trust an elected commissioner more than the present system. The statistics speak for themselves: the public don’t want policing to be politicised.
As far as British democratic traditions go, one of the most robust is the independence of our police forces. For centuries, our senior police constables have made operational decisions not at the behest of government and the political whims of the day, but based on their professional view of how best to uphold the law and keep the peace, dealing with everything from petty theft to major terrorist plots. In doing so they are, crucially, independent of politics, making decisions not on the basis of where a vote lies but on the basis of what will protect us and keep our communities safe. And at all times they remain accountable not at the ballot box but to the rule of law, bound by their oath to act with fairness, diligence and impartiality. Indeed, this was the vision Sir Robert Peel first set down in the Metropolitan Policing Act of 1829; a vision which has made British policing exemplary across the globe. But all this may be about to change.
If the police reform bill is passed, from May 2012 you will be asked to vote for one person who may, for up to eight years, take effective control of local policing. This police and crime commissioner will have the power to hire and fire your chief constable, set the police budget and produce the policing strategy. A ‘police and crime panel’ of seven, drawn mainly from local councillors, will provide the sole check on the exercise of power and will, for the most part, only be armed with the underwhelming tools of recommendation and report. If something goes wrong, even a gross misconduct, your only choice will be to vote out the commissioner at the next election.
This new system will, so we’re told, give us all a definitive say in how we’re policed. Having a greater say in policing can certainly sound attractive. After all, there’s no question police ought to be held to account for their actions; indeed it was for this very reason that Liberty was founded 77 years ago. The key question is how the police are held to account, and by whom?
The dangers of infusing policing with politics are nowhere more obvious than in the American model of directly elected sheriffs. Alarmingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, those elected by the majority to run local police forces are frequently unconcerned with the interests of minority groups. In the US a number of locally elected sheriffs are reported to have aligned themselves with white supremacist groups and one has reportedly sanctioned racial profiling. There is little in the bill to protect us from divisive decision-making by an elected commissioner, which may have more to do with re-election than overall public safety. Minority groups should be incredibly wary of policing by majority rule.
Once you look beneath the lofty rhetoric, it is doubtful whether this bill will deliver the enhanced accountability that it promises. In many areas of the country there is no one unified community. A prime example is the largest geographical force in Britain, Devon and Cornwall, which stretches from the Dorset and Somerset borders in the east 180 miles west to the Isles of Scilly, with 1.5 million residents and a diverse range of localised concerns in between. At the moment the police authority, intended to provide oversight and the opportunity for local involvement in policing, is made up of 19 members from five different local councils with nine independents. The idea that one person will be able to adequately take over the work of 19, and give all these diverse communities a voice, seems improbable at best. Other police authorities, such as Hampshire, have spoken out openly against the proposals.
The last government gave itself ever greater powers to interfere in local forces; introducing reams of new paperwork and imposing centralised monthly targets for arrests. The roll-back of these powers and this unnecessary bureaucracy by the current government has accordingly been hugely welcome. But introducing local politics into policing risks political decision-making, much closer to the frontline, and simply replaces one type of undue interference with another. Parliament must take stock of what is at stake before passing a bill which will turn 180 years of British policing on its head.
Rachel Robinson is policy officer at Liberty.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Speakers Corner are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.