Fifteenth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life Tone from the top Leadership, ethics and accountability in policing Presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty June 2015 Cm 9057 This information is also available on the Committee on Standards in Public Life website: https://www.gov.uk/government/ organisations/the-committee-on-standards-in-public-life © Crown copyright 2015 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] Print ISBN 9781474119818 Web ISBN 9781474119825 ID SGD008388 07/15 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Contents Foreword 5 Executive summary 7 Chapter 1 Context 17 Chapter 2 Leadership 31 Chapter 3 Accountability 47 Chapter 4 Integrity 69 Chapter 5 Openness 83 Glossary 105 Appendixes Appendix A: Policing accountability in London 109 Appendix B: Accountability 111 Appendix C: The College of Policing’s Code of Ethics 115 Appendix D: APCC Ethical Good Practice Framework 117 Appendix E: Ethics Committees 120 Appendix F: Police and Crime Panels 124 Appendix G: Police and Crime Panel best practice 128 Appendix H: Transparency desk research 2014 130 Appendix I: Methodology 134 3 LEADERSHIP, ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN POLICING List of figures Chapter 1: Context 1 Newspaper headlines of policing scandals 18 2 Level of public trust in the police 21 3 The model of local policing accountability 22 4 Public awareness of PCCs 24 5 Public awareness of Police and Crime Panels 25 6 Public awareness of policing accountability arrangements in London 25 Chapter 2: Leadership 7 Police force leadership structure 33 8 Office of the PCC leadership structure 34 9 The balance of power in the model of local policing accountability 37 Chapter 3: Accountability 10 ACPO representation of local policing accountability 48 11 Public awareness of how PCCs are chosen 50 12 The PCCs’ declaration of acceptance of office 52 13 An Ethical Checklist for PCCs 54 14 The Police Act 1996, Schedule 4 – Form of declaration 55 Chapter 5: Openness 15 Specified Information Order 2011 83 16 Respondee perceptions of level of transparency in PCCs’ decision-making 85 17 Respondee perceptions of level of transparency in PCCs’ decision-making, by stakeholder group 85 18 Mechanisms used by PCCs to ensure transparent decision-making 86 19 Number of PCCs complying with transparency requirements 87 20 Number of PCCs publishing performance data 89 21 Percentage of the public that have had contact with their PCC 91 22 Methods used by the public to find out about policing issues in their local area 91 23 Level of public interest in finding out about policing issues in their local area 92 24 Level of PCC compliance with complaints and conduct information requirement 98 4 FOREWORD FROM THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE Foreword from the Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life June 2015 Dear Prime Minister, I am pleased to present the Committee’s 15th report. It is the first report in the Committee’s history that has looked specifically at policing. The police do a difficult and important job on behalf of the public. Despite some recent significant standards failures, they remain among the most trusted public office holders. In the context of reduced expenditure there is unprecedented focus on the leadership, ethics and accountability of individuals delivering services to the public. This places even greater emphasis on all public office holders – both elected and appointed - to be accountable and demonstrate their commitment to high ethical standards. Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) were established to inject greater dynamism and visibility into local policing and offer a new, more direct form of ‘democratic accountability’. In particular, they were intended to create greater responsiveness to local conditions and problems. Our eight month study of leadership and accountability of local policing provides evidence of this new impetus in many areas – greater innovation, increased visibility and a greater focus on community engagement and victim support. There is also widespread recognition of the importance of the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, the core policing values and the need for all the new mechanisms to support high standards of behaviour and propriety. However there is also clear evidence of significant standards risks, including continuing confusion over roles and responsibilities, insufficient challenge and scrutiny of PCCs’ decisions and insufficient redress where a PCC falls below the standards of behaviour that the public expects of a holder of public office. Under current arrangements the accountability of PCCs rests almost entirely upon democratic processes. It is for voters to assess their standards, but only at four-year intervals. In between elections more effective day to-day scrutiny and transparency of PCCs’ decision making is needed, including through the operation of Police and Crime Panels, and stronger safeguards are needed in the appointments of Chief Constables and the roles of statutory officers. The Home Secretary has already made clear that as the police accept a transfer of power from Whitehall to communities, with the introduction of democratic, local accountability, they must accept much more transparency and scrutiny. Our call is for greater energy and consistency to be applied to promoting high ethical standards and for a more robust set of checks and balances in the accountability structures of local policing to enable the public to make a fair and balanced assessment of their PCC. Our recommendations are intended to support both current and future arrangements. With the introduction of elected metro mayors taking on the powers of the PCC and increasingly devolved powers and budgets, this is an apposite moment to make our recommendations. Lord Paul Bew Chair, Committee on Standards in Public Life Executive summary 5 Executive summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive summary 1. The public expects high ethical standards from the police that serve them. Trust in the police is vital – from Executive the Chief Constable to the most junior police officer. Police ethics – their honesty, their integrity, their impartiality, their openness – should be beyond reproach. Above all, this requires effective accountability summary and leadership to create a culture where high standards of behaviour are the norm. High standards – of both conduct and accountability – also need to be demonstrated by those charged with holding the police to account. 2. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (the Act) created elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to “ensure the police respond to local priorities and are directly accountable to the public.”1 PCCs set the strategic direction and aims of the police force and have responsibility for delivering community safety and reducing crime and delivering value for money. PCCs control over £12bn of police force funding.2 They have the statutory responsibility to appoint a Chief Constable as well as for their removal. In addition to the PCCs’ local role, they have a regional and national role to ensure cross border resilience and capability and to meet national threats such as terrorism or organised crime. PCCs can and have entered into collaboration agreements with other PCCs and organisations to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of policing, for example by sharing back office functions. The Act also provided for the establishment of local Police and Crime Panels who have a dual scrutiny and support role in respect of the PCC and have some powers of veto on budgets and on the appointment of a Chief Constable. 3. PCCs represent a deliberate and substantial strengthening of the locally elected element of the tripartite arrangements for policing accountability. The model is one of democratic accountability “replacing bureaucratic accountability with democratic accountability” where “the public will have elected Police and Crime Commissioners and will be holding them to account for how policing is delivered through their force.”3 The model is primarily reliant on the cycle of elections as the main means of holding PCCs to account. The average turnout for the PCC election in 2012 was 15.1%. The Committee’s public research has found that knowledge of the policing accountability arrangements is not very high4 and there is a very low level of public interest in policing – 60% of respondents said they were not interested in finding out about policing issues in their local area5. Rather, for the public, the key accountability mechanism is the ability to question or challenge “their” local beat team or commander on specific areas of concern. 4. The statutory Policing Protocol,6 which sets out to all PCCs, Chief Constables and Police and Crime Panels how their functions will be exercised in relation to each other,