Bernard Rix – mostly re policing…

The Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) today published their First Report on Police and Crime Commissioners. Amongst its conclusions and recommendations, the HASC noted that…

We are disappointed to note that not all Police and Crime Commissioners are meeting the standards of openness that we would expect [from HASC Recommendation 7]

The report goes on to look at whether individual PCCs have fulfilled their statutory obligations on publishing financial data. In this blog, I’ve looked at another area – what PCC-related governance information is routinely made available. I’ve examined three aspects:

• Audit Committee minutes. PCCs are responsible for establishing an Audit Committee – do they publish their Audit Committee’s minutes (and related papers) online in a timely manner?
• Holding the Chief Constable to account. This is a core responsibility of PCCs. How clearly does their website set out information on how they are doing this?
• Police and Crime Panel. These are the bodies that themselves (try to) hold PCCs to account. Are these Panels themselves transparent in the way they operate, publishing their minutes and related papers in a timely manner?

Some caveats before I go any further. It is hugely difficult trying to trawl through PCCs’ websites – the information is very rarely presented in a visitor-friendly  manner. The material I present below (which does NOT provide any assessment of “quality” – it’s either “present” or “absent”) is based on my “best endeavours”. I cannot, though, guarantee that I’ve visited every relevant PCC website page. But I’ve done my level best to do so. If you have any corrections to make on what I present here – do please get in touch.

Audit Committee dates/agenda/minutes

Available online: Avon & Somerset (though not minutes), Bedfordshire (not minutes), Cheshire, Cleveland, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Dorset, Greater Manchester, Hampshire, Humberside, Kent, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Northamptonshire,  North Wales, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire,  Staffordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley, West Yorkshire, Wiltshire

Not found online: Cambridgeshire,  Devon & Cornwall, Durham, Dyfed-Powys, Essex, Gloucestershire, Gwent, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, Northumbria, South Wales,  South Yorkshire, Warwickshire, West Mercia, West Midlands

Holding Chief Constable to account

Mechanisms reported online: Cheshire, Cleveland, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Dorset, Dyfed-Powys, Essex, Greater Manchester, Gwent, Humberside, Kent, Lancashire, Merseyside, Norfolk, Northumbria, Nottinghamshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley, Warwickshire,

Mechanisms not found online: Avon & Somerset, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire,  Devon & Cornwall, Durham, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, North Wales, North Yorkshire, South Wales, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, West Mercia, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Wiltshire

Police and Crime Panel

Minutes published online: Avon & Somerset, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Cleveland, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Devon & Cornwall, Dorset, Durham, Dyfed-Powys, Essex, Gloucestershire, Gwent, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Kent, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Northumbria, North Wales, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, South Wales, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley, Warwickshire, West Midlands, Wiltshire

Minutes not found online: Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Mercia, West Yorkshire,

PCCs took up their posts six months ago today.

Here’s a screenshot of one PCC’s website earlier today…

“PCC Progress: coming soon”.

Yes please. The sooner the better.

And please put “updating your website” (and the statutory transparency you should be delivering) near the top of your “to do” list.

As I go about preparing this month’s CoPaCC Report, I see a great deal of material that – I believe – helps me understand what’s on PCCs’ minds. Perhaps the most powerful of these are the risk registers (and related materials) that PCCs and their staff put together. Here are three PCCs’ lists of their key risks: two are “screen shots” of the relevant material, whilst the third is my verbatim extract (the original document doesn’t lend itself to a screen shot).

Third PCC (register as at 1st March):
1. Failure to produce a coherent first short and medium term Police and Crime Plan linked to resources and with widespread support from key stakeholders.
2. Failure to deliver key manifesto promises now enshrined in the Police and Crime Plan.
3. Failure to deliver all the key promises of the Police and Crime Plan.
4. Failure to put in place adequate processes to effectively hold the Chief Constable and the Force to account for performance and use of resources as per statutory requirements.
5. Failure to effectively commission services and work with partners generally to deliver the Commissioner’s key objectives and priorities.
6. Failure by the PCC to ensure effective financial control and financial planning processes for the ‘group account’ of the Chief Constable and Office of the Commissioner combined.
7. Failure to put in place a fit for purpose longer term structure with the right capacity to support the PCC, deliver the PCC’s priorities and ensure a motivated and appropriately skilled office of the PCC.
8. Failure to manage the combined impact of CSR2 (reduction in central funding) and other national changes to police pay and conditions eg Winsor review and changes to pensions.
9. Failure to plan for and execute the Stage two transfer of staff effectively.

I’ll be putting a full analysis of all PCCs’ published risks and mitigations in to a future CoPaCC Report. If you’re interested in more detail, do please subscribe.

Yesterday, Martin Pantling (a former Bedfordshire Police Authority member and Luton Councillor) asked me about PCC attendance at Police and Crime Panels. I replied that I’d looked at all (to my knowledge) published Panel minutes, and that most PCCs attended most Panels.

I thought I’d review that comment by looking at the last published minutes for each Panel. The notes below show the date of the last Panel meetings for which minutes have been made available online, whether the PCC attended (and, if absent, who represented them if known).

It’s worth noting that those writing the minutes for some Panels do not always list the PCC amongst “those in attendance”, but on reading the minutes they explicitly state that the PCC has presented a particular section, or responded at the meeting to a particular question. This analysis is based not simply on the “those in attendance” list, but on a reading of the full minutes to establish whether the PCC appears there. In some cases, PCCs were present for only part of the Panel meeting. Of course, it’s entirely possible that the Panel decided not to invite a PCC to a particular meeting – in which case the PCC would not have attended!

It is also worth mentioning that Chief Constables (or one or more ACPO officers) appear to attend many of these Panel meetings, and in several cases that they take and respond to questions from Panel members. This is of note as Panels are supposed to hold the PCC to account and not the force: it is down to the PCC to hold the force (and its Chief Constable) to account.

If anyone can provide me with links to Panel material where I have not yet found these online, that would be greatly appreciated.

Of the 41 PCCs, 33 attended their last Panel meeting. Two PCCs (Bedfordshire and Derbyshire) appeared not to attend their last Panel meeting. There is currently insufficient information to tell whether the remaining six PCCs attended their last Panel meeting.

FORCE, DATE OF LAST PANEL MEETING (that has minutes available online), PCC PRESENT OR NOT

Avon & Somerset: 15 March, PCC present
Bedfordshire: 30 April, PCC apparently absent (represented by Deputy Chief Executive, OPCC)
Cambridgeshire: 7 February, PCC present
Cheshire: have not yet found Panel minutes online
Cleveland: 5 February, PCC present
Cumbria: 22 January, PCC present
Derbyshire: 19 February, PCC apparently absent (no notes on whether represented at the meeting)
Devon & Cornwall: 9 April, PCC present
Dorset: 7 February, PCC present
Durham: 11 February, PCC present
Dyfed-Powys: 25 January, PCC present
Essex: 21 February, PCC present
Gloucestershire: 6 February, PCC present
Greater Manchester: have not yet found Panel minutes online
Gwent: 11 January, PCC present
Hampshire: 1 March, PCC present
Hertfordshire: 14 March, PCC present
Lincolnshire: 7 February, PCC present
Kent: 5 February, PCC present
Lancashire: 12 February, PCC present
Leicestershire: 25 March, PCC present
Lincolnshire: 7 February, PCC present
Merseyside: have not yet found Panel minutes online
Norfolk: skeletal Panel records available online, does not yet include minutes or attendance
Northamptonshire: 5 February, PCC present
Northumbria: 6 February, PCC present
North Wales: 7 March, PCC present
North Yorkshire: 21 March, PCC present
Nottinghamshire: 6 February, PCC present
South Wales: 9 April, PCC present
South Yorkshire: 13 March, PCC present
Staffordshire: 4 February, PCC present
Suffolk: 8 February, PCC present
Surrey: 12 March, PCC present
Sussex: 4 April, PCC present
Thames Valley: 22 March, unable to check PCC attendance as links to Panel’s online papers persistently not working at time of my research
Warwickshire: 12 March, PCC present
West Mercia: have not yet found Panel minutes online
West Midlands: 6 February, PCC present
West Yorkshire: 26 April, PCC present
Wiltshire: 26 March, PCC present

For several years, police forces in England and Wales have been grouped into “Most Similar Forces”. These groupings are often used in comparing forces, for example on crime rate, detections, spending and funding.

Here’s the “MSFs” for each force, with forces colour-coded (Labour Conservative Independent) according to the declared politics of their Police and Crime Commissioner. I believe I’ve used the current MSFs – if you know differently, please let me know. I’ve distinguished here between forces whose MSFs have PCCs of the same political hue…

Forces with no more than one MSF with a PCC from a different (or no) party

Cleveland - Northumbria Mersey SYP SWP WMP Gwent
South Wales - SYP Notts Northumbria Cleveland Durham Lancs Northants
South Yorkshire - SWP Northumbria Notts Cleveland Durham Humber Lancs
West Yorkshire - GMP Lancs WMP Northumbria Leics SWP SYP 

Forces with all MSFs from a different (or no) party

Bedfordshire - Herts Sussex Hants Essex TVP Kent ASC
Dyfed-Powys - Lincs Norfolk NWP
Gwent - Humber Durham SYP SWP Cleveland
Humberside - Durham Gwent Derbys SYP SWP Notts

Why are the above forces (and their MSFs) potentially of interest?

It’s likely that HMIC will continue to use these groupings to compare force performance (see HMIC’s “Crime and Policing Comparator”). And, were “political philosophy” to have a particularly marked impact, it’s in comparisons of the above forces that we’d probably see this the most. One force (and their PCC) in some way measured against other forces with PCCs of a different political philosophy. Most of the above forces have Labour PCCs – suggesting that this comparison might be most likely to identify Labour PCC strengths (or weaknesses).

Forces whose MSFs all have PCCs in the same party

Greater Manchester - WYP WMP Northumbria Mersey SYP
Merseyside - WMP Cleveland Northumbria GMP
West Midlands - GMP Mersey WYP Northumbria Cleveland
Northumbria - SYP SWP Cleveland Notts Mersey GMP WMP

Why are these four forces (and their MSFs) potentially of interest?

Given that these are all red, it leads me to wonder whether the Labour grouping of PCCs has more to gain by acting as a block in responding to the promised review of the Police Funding Formula (also see here and here) than do either Conservative or Independent PCCs. On this view, the Labour grouping of forces appears to have more potentially in common with each other than do those Conservative (or independent) groupings. It would need a much more rigorous analysis, though, to say this with any confidence – perhaps an exercise for some time over the coming weeks.

For completeness, I’ve listed all other forces and their MSFs below…

All other forces

Avon & Somerset – Essex Herts Kent Hants Cambs DCP TVP
Cambridgeshire – DCP Gloucs WiltsASC Warwicks Essex Kent
Cheshire – Staffs Northants Warwicks Suffolk Wilts Gloucs DCP
Cumbria – NWP Derbys Norfolk SuffolkStaffs CheshireDurham
Derbyshire – Cumbria NWP Durham Norfolk Staffs Humber Suffolk
Devon & Cornwall – Cambs Gloucs Warwicks Wilts ASC Essex Kent
Dorset – Surrey TVP Hants Sussex
Durham – Humber Gwent Derbys SWP SYP Notts Cumbria
Essex – ASC Kent Herts Hants LeicsDCP Cambs
Gloucs – Wilts Warwicks DCP Cambs WMercia NYP Cheshire
Hampshire – Sussex HertsTVPBedsEssex ASC Kent
Hertfordshire – Hants Sussex Beds Essex ASC TVP Kent
Kent – Leics EssexLancs ASC HertsDCPBeds
Lancashire – Leics Kent Notts WYP Essex Northants Herts
Leicestershire – Kent Lancs Essex Northants Notts ASC DCP
Lincolnshire – Dyfed-Powys Norfolk NWP Suffolk
Norfolk – NWP Cumbria Lincs Dyfed-PowysSuffolkDerbysNYP
North Wales – Cumbria Norfolk Derbys Suffolk Lincs Dyfed-Powys
North Yorkshire – WMercia Suffolk Wilts Warwicks Gloucs Cheshire DCP
Northamptonshire – Staffs Cheshire Notts Leics Warwicks DCP Kent
Nottinghamshire – SWP SYP Northants Leics Lancs Staffs Northumbria
Staffordshire – CheshireNorthants Warwicks NottsSuffolkWilts Gloucs
Suffolk – NYP WMercia Warwicks Cheshire Norfolk Wilts Cumbria
Surrey – Dorset TVP Sussex
Sussex – Hants Herts TVP Beds Essex ASC Kent
Thames Valley – Hants Sussex Herts ASC Essex Beds Dorset
Warwickshire – Wilts Gloucs DCP Cheshire NYP WMercia
West Mercia – NYP Wilts Suffolk Warwicks Gloucs Cambs DCP
Wiltshire – Gloucs Warwicks WMercia NYP DCP Cambs Cheshire

I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve seen a blank (or near-blank) diary on PCCs’ websites. Here’s a random example – no public meetings for the next two weeks for this PCC. Note that I looked at the same PCC’s website at the start of the month – it still had no public meetings showing for May (so the first two weeks were also empty).

For any visitor to the PCC’s website, this does not leave a good impression.

Now, contrast this with the summary below of what the same PCC was up to during one week in February. It’s an extract from the summary they provided to their Police and Crime Panel, and which they also blog.  I’ve little doubt that the “public events” page for that week was as thin as the two weeks shown above – but it’s clear that the PCC was “doing something” every day of the week. Yes, the PCC was genuinely *busy* (and maybe even productive). And looking to provide that information in an engaging manner!

So, what’s my point? Simply that I suspect that most PCCs really are busy (and possibly productive). But it’s not the impression that most visitors will get when they look at their online diaries or events lists.

Come on, PCCs, do make an effort to provide more information on your website about what you’re up to. You’ll be doing yourselves a favour. And maybe, just maybe, your electorate will have a better understanding of the enormous task you’re tackling on their behalf.

Whilst preparing this month’s CoPaCC Report, I came across this web page. Note that I visited it on the morning of Friday 17th May, 2013…

The problem? They say they’ll display the agenda in the week before the meeting – but it’s now Friday on the week before the meeting, and it’s not yet been published here!

It’s arguably a small oversight – but it’s something I see very regularly, both on Panel and on PCC websites. I’ve disguised which Panel it is, as I’m simply using it as an example of the many instances I see.

An illustration that Panel/PCC transparency and support for public engagement is not (yet) what it should be.