Official notice of the election (fyi)

8 October 2012 
For immediate release 
_______________________

Official countdown to Police and Crime Commissioner Elections begins 

The official notice has been published today (8 October) which confirms that on 15 November residents across Thames Valley will have the opportunity to vote for their first ever local Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC).

Each of the 41 police force areas in England and Wales, outside of London, will directly-elect a Commissioner.The Commissioners will be accountable for how crime is tackled in their police force area. PCCs will aim to ensure that the police deliver an effective and efficient service.

Nominations for the Thames Valley PCC election are now open and completed nomination forms must be submitted to the Police Area Returning Officer (PARO) no later than noon on Friday 19 October. Anyone interested in standing must be aged 18 or over, be registered to vote, have 100 signatures backing their candidacy from people also registered to vote and pay a deposit of £5,000. The deposit will be returned to those candidates who get more than five per cent of the votes cast.

There are some people who cannot stand, such as those who work for the police or one of the local councils, or have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence, but otherwise the opportunity is there for anyone who would like to take on this important role. The full list of candidates for the election will be published on 23 October, although candidates have until noon on 24 October to withdraw if they wish.

The deadline for people to ensure they are registered to vote at these elections is 31 October. Poll cards will be issued on 22 October to tell electors the date of the election, the hours of poll and where to find their polling stations.

Registered voters who find it difficult to get to a polling station on election day, who are away on holiday on 15 November, or those who simply wish to vote in the comfort of their own home need to get their completed postal vote application form in by 5pm on 31 October.

The Commissioner will be elected using the supplementary voting system. This is the system used in mayoral elections. 

A booklet explaining about the PCC elections and the supplementary vote system will be delivered by the Electoral Commission to every household from 22 October. Other formats including an easy read version will also be available.

Polling stations across Thames Valley will be open from 7am to 10pm on 15 November so that people will be able to express their preferences on the candidates on offer. The count of the votes for each candidate will take place on 16 November.

The Police Area Returning Officer (PARO) is Andrew Grant, Chief Executive of Aylesbury Vale District Council. Mr Grant, who is responsible for the conduct of the election, said: “The election of a PCC on 15 November will be the biggest change in how the police service is structured for many years. To be part of the process to elect a PCC you have to be eligible to vote and the electoral registration office based at your local council must have up-to-date records for you. If you have changed address recently it may be worthwhile checking that your correct address is held so that you can influence the future of policing in Thames Valley. Everyone who is registered to vote will have the opportunity to exercise their vote and have their say.” 

Anyone wishing to stand should contact the PARO Electoral Registration Office on 01296 585807.

There are a number of national websites where more information can be found out about PCC’s, voting arrangement and candidates:

• For general information about PCC’s and their role: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police 
• For voting information: aboutmyvote.co.uk
• For information about candidates and to sign up to email alerts: choosemypcc.org.uk (due to be launched w/c 8 October)

Queries about the arrangements for voting in a particular area of Thames Valley, including how to submit an application for a postal or proxy vote, will be dealt with by the electoral registration office of the relevant local council. These are listed on the Notice of Election.
_____________

Ends

For interviews, please contact: Andrew Grant, Police Area Returning Officer, 01296 585002

Notes to editors:
There are 16 local returning officers who are responsible for the conduct of the poll in each of the local authority areas across the Thames Valley force area including the counts on 16 November. The outcomes from each of the local counts will be sent to the Police Area Returning Officer, who will deal with the overall calculation and then declare the result of the election. The results will be announced at the Gateway Conference Centre, Gatehouse Road, Aylesbury, at around 4.30pm on 16 November and will also be published on the website of each local authority in Thames Valley. An invitation to the count and declaration at the Gateway Conference Centre will be sent to the media in due course. 

Very unattractive? (part ten)

See all collected posts about this matter in one place by clicking this link

During the hustings last night, I asked a question of the panel:

Most of you have written and all of you have talked this evening about your leadership experience at running a business, as being part of your bid to be recognised at the best PCC candidate. Please will you give specific names and details of all the businesses you have led in recent years, together with details of where the voting public can find out more about the actual financial performance of these businesses so that we can assess your leadership credentials.

The answers were illuminating. Rather than try to record what people said in note or verbatim form, I have uploaded a file to two places so that you can hear the response from the panel:

• Audioboo (first three minutes only)
• My Google drive (full .wma file with responses from all - but note it is about 15Mb)

It would appear that my research into the commercial interests of Cllr Stansfeld has upset him somewhat. You may have some sympathies with him and think that his business is none of my business (etc.) Please allow me to state again why I have been doing this:

• It all started by accident. I was curious to find out more about the man so I went to looking and found his register of interests on the West Berkshire Council site. He listed and still lists a company called Fidas. His register (now) says this company is based abroad. I could find no record which got me wondering...
• I did some more digging and found out several facts which don't appear easily to stack up with each other. (See my earlier posts for all the information - here and later here) There is significant inconsistency between several public records. 
• The position of PCC is one that has considerable power, almost presidential power. I think the voting public have a right to know about the background of a person who is bidding to become the first PCC. As Tim said last night, it is about accountability and transparency.
• Do note that Cllr Stansfeld's current bid to become PCC is partly built upon his statement that he is (not was) "currently Chairman of a small company that has interests in water systems for agriculture and energy recovery systems for industry" (from his short CV on the West Berkshire Conservative Association website which I assume Cllr Stansfeld either wrote or approved) Other websites repeat this information such as 'Your next PCC'

Cllr Stansfeld can clear all this confusion up very easily. I would be happy to print whatever statement he wishes to make. All he has to do to state clearly the name and address of the company he currently chairs and which is referred to in his CV. (He may then have to adjust various registers of interest as well, I don't know...) Indeed, he may be chairman of more than one since his TVPA record currently refers to ELS and the WBC one refers to Fidas. An explanation of why these two records differ would be helpful too.

I am not interested in going back many years. I am interested in recent times. I am not greatly interested in Cllr Stansfeld's exploits in Borneo (worthy though I am sure they were) or his leadership of Pilatus Britten Norman which, according to his LinkedIn profile, he left 16 years ago. Those two roles (among others in his earlier years) were very different to the PCC role, I would contend. (The PCC is role is much more about influence and leadership than it is about management and command.)

It seems to me that Cllr Stansfeld thinks it is only me that is curious about his credentials and interests. I can assure him that is not the case if the people who have contacted me and others about these matters is any indication.

And personally, I really want to get onto policy and just what Cllr Stansfeld is promising the public of Thames Valley if he becomes PCC. His website is still pretty well void of all policy. I will be more than happy to move on from my "very unattractive" digging into his commercial interests when all is clear.

Over to you Cllr Stansfeld....

PCCs and police service morale

I took part in a Guardian online debate last Friday. You can read all the posted discussions here and the summary of the event here. Both are well worth a read, if this subject interests you. Lots of very informative links too - posted by both panellists and contributors.

My summary (which I have posted on the Guardian website) is that PCCs will have a significant role in morale. Not only will they have the potential to make things very much worse..(!) there are also things they can be doing to improve matters as well:

• Pay & conditions - PCCs will have influence here through national negotiating committees
• Home office recording standards - a chance to shake a few trees perhaps - locally and nationally
• Senior management - I think a really excellent PCC will be able to make a Chief Officer team wriggle but squirm with feedback from junior officers
• Cuts - I think the bold PCCs will challenge and test this Government to the max on this matter and if needs be - use local precepting powers to make up for grant reductions from central government. It is a fine line to tread though
• Debate - I think PCCs will be able to work with the Chief Constable on the boundary between what constitutes communication that breaks standards of impartiality (essential that impartiality is maintained) and that which seeks to improve policing for all (also essential)
• Relationship with the CPS & Courts - though both are well outside the PCC's power (which is good and should remain so) - the PCC may well be able to play a role in highlighting gaps in the partnerships leading to slow justice, lack of victim centric practice and inefficiency within the police

Thames Valley: First public hustings

Well. Last night's hustings was a most interesting affair. I could write about it at length - but here is my 'match summary':

Six candidates are listed on the BBC website at present: Patience Tayo Awe (Independent), John Howson (Liberal Democrat), Khan Juna (Independent), Anthony Stansfeld (Conservative), Tim Starkey (Labour) and Martin Young (Independent). All but Mr Young were present. The UKIP declared candidate, Barry Cooper was also not present. 38 members of the public and press listened to what they had to say.

The five candidates on the stage displayed varying levels of understanding of and passion for the PCC role. Unsurprisingly, Khan Juna and Anthony Stansfeld displayed inside knowledge of the current police authority role (of which, at the time of writing I believe, they are still both members) although they appeared to differ on the degree of influence over police performance that Anthony Stansfeld had had in recent months. (I suspect this issue will run a while yet with further information being sought to bottom out just what aspects of police performance have improved, what aspects haven't and who can really claim the credit... my money is on hard working police officers and staff)

John Howson said it was a 'really big job'. Khan Juna talked about his ability to work with chief police officers. Anthony Stansfeld said he was not a career politician. Tim Starkey highlighted his experience at working closely with the police and victims of crime. Patience Tayo Awe outlined her role as a trustee of Reading Voluntary Action. I could go on, except I do not see it as my job to describe their credentials. But here is a handy table: which is completely unscientific, impressionistic only and probably biased... please don't sue me!

	Knowledge of strategic police governance	Empathy with & experience of policing and crime at sharp end	Passion for the job	Willingness to listen & be informed by debate	Ability to make audience laugh
Howson	+	+++	++	+++	+
Juna	+++	+++	+++	+++	++
Stansfeld	+++	+	++	+	+
Starkey	++	+++	+++	+++	+++
Tayo Awe	+	+++	+++	+	+++

I am in the process of editing my recording of the meeting - not least the reaction of Anthony Stansfeld to my question...

Secret diary of a PCC (day two)

My new car and driver arrived today. I know some people told me I should not have done this, austerity and all that. But pish-posh, austerity is for the plebs not for me! And anyhow, I ordered it some while ago before the election, there was no going back. Je ne regrette rien an all that. This PCC’s not for turning (except in a rather nifty Mercedes), hah! And if the Chief Constable has some huge limo, you won’t see me riding around in a Vauxhall Corsa. No chance.

Of course, I will need to brief the driver to ensure he is has the utmost discretion. By this I mean making sure I have something on him so that he won’t dare go to the press about anything he might hear… I will get my people onto his case.

Meanwhile I need to start assembling my crack team for the Office of PCC. I will be glad to see the back of the old police authority chief executive. She has been paid off well with a button-up tight clause written in. She won’t be telling any stories about what happened before I became PCC. I have seen to that! This is now year zero and everything will be better from now onwards. I will make sure the data shows this.

Of course I do have a couple of tricky problems to sort out. It seems as if I promised too many people they could be my deputy. I did this in good faith of course, I knew then I would able to pick only one of them, but I needed their support. If they chose not to realise that, well, tough. But now I have to think about who do I need to annoy the least.

There is Cllr Pamela Stone, tough cookie, knows rather too much about policing strategy & crime prevention for my own comfort, she could show me up a bit. On the other hand, do I really want her being a thorn on the Police & Crime Panel? The old Q – is it best doing the proverbial of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer…? Not sure. But there again there is my old pal and political mate Winger Harrison, the sort of man you need next to you in a sandstorm when you've just lost your last scarf. He did fine job as Agent but he knows didley squat about the police. There again, that could be an advantage. And then there is Gloria Macbeth, the indefatigable Gloria, who puts a bounce in my step. Tough one because she knows too darn much about policing, and too damn much about me. But I am really not sure of her loyalty. Plus she has a criminal record, although as a Deputy the ‘imprisonable offence’ thing doesn't count*.

It’s tricky… Ah heck, I will plump for Winger. I know he will be loyal to the end. I will just get him to mug up on policing stuff, send him out on a few raids, read a couple of books. He will soon be up to speed, he’s not called Winger for nothing! As for the other two, I will offer them some consultancy… should keep them happy.

So let me see, what next? Car, tick, chain of office, tick, deputy, tick. I guess I ought to start sorting out the next most critical thing… my office and the size my desk. Must remember to make sure the visitor’s chair is about three inches below mine. Learnt that trick from a Personnel manager years back: make people look up to you when they come for a meeting. Works every time.

And I will get Winger to start having a bash at the policing plan.
__________

Day one diary here
Memo from the Chief Constable welcoming new PCC

 

* I have been advised by Sam Chapman that in fact Deputies do have to pass the same tests as the PCC. Well spotted Sam! I will keep this in an part poetic licence and part to act as a warning that all PCC candidates need to read the Act - in detail! 
(All characters are totally fictional by the way, similarities to people living or nearly dead are entirely coincidental)

Vote for your local police and crime commissioner

So, the much awaited national media campaign to raise public awareness about the PCC elections in November has begun. You can see it here and below.

What do you think? Will this this bring more people out in a wet & dark November evening?

I think it is a shockingly poor advert which will achieve little and may even reduce turnout.

• It will distract people: people will wonder where these places and who the people are
• It will raise anxiety and possibly even the fear of crime
• It gives the impression that the PCCs will focus only on the crimes featured
• It fails to explain why the policy is coming in, in the first place
• It refers people to a website that is not yet fully operational
• It contradicts itself in that it says the PCCs will not change operational policing yet features pictures of the stuff of operational policing

Need I go on?

And has anyone told the Government about hard drive TV recorders. Who watches TV adverts any more?

But tell me what you think...

New idea: let's NOT commodify everything!

The public services have always purchased supplies from commercial providers. The police or NHS could not be in the business of manufacturing vehicles, paper or cleaning materials for example. When the NHS was established, GPs were brought on board as self employed contractors. The Police bring in outside specialist trainers rather than seek to employ them.

All this makes sense to me. How could it not be wise to source some materials and services from external providers. Since I have been one of those sourced for many years, how could I not believe in this!

But what began as common sense has now become a rampant ideology with the fundamental belief that all public services should be outsourced (or privatised) in order to achieve 'value for money' for  the taxpayer. All that the state has to do is set the contracts (or 'commission') and magically we will see the privatised public services delivering more for less etc.

I am not going to go over all the arguments about why such an ideology is completely daft, divisive and dangerous. Except: I just want to highlight the idea of commodification. For this is the process whereby everything that anyone does is given a financial value, human lives are objectified as having cash equivalents and so forth. This is a necessary ingredient in the ideology of privatisation: everything has to have a price.

Well, I say everything, except many acts of public good are not factored in. The proponents of this ideology would not dare do that. Why not? Because they are quite happy for the havelittles to continue helping communities for free because then the havelots can make even bigger profits and accumulate even more wealth. There is even a phrase for this: the Big Society.

So when we give blood (see below) as an act of human generosity and desire to help people, this is then exploited by money making businesses. If police services are privatised to the degrees being planned, ordinary people will probably carry on offering practical help, intelligence, sandwiches and cups of tea to hard working staff & officers (just as people have done in their hundreds in Wales this week) while the privatised company make even greater profits at their expense.

Our goodwill, our energy, even our blood is being exploited by money making businesses.

So since the privatisation ideologues want to atomise and price everything, then let's do it! The next time a G4S employed investigator comes knocking on my door for information about whether I have seen van or not, I am going to charge him a fee. The next time the local branch of Virgin Healthcare want my views on the services they provide, I will want a fee for my time.

Etc...

Of course, I won't be doing this. But I remain bloomin' angry that as we privatise, outsource, fragment and commodify every part of our precious public services, the very people who are paying for this are then having their goodwill exploited as well. Who is gaining from all this?

Blood money

Many people donate blood the National Blood Service. I have done so for many years because I want to help people get the health care they need. In a not dissimilar way, I am also happy to pay my taxes into our NHS as a whole. I want to live in a society where everyone get the healthcare they need, regardless of their ability to pay (which can be a factor in many other parts of the world).

I have found out through an Freedom of Information inquiry that the NBS charges all its 'customers' a cost per unit of blood. This then goes into offsetting the costs of all the staff, refrigeration, squash & crisps (etc.) they need to run the service.

That seems reasonable, does it not? Well.... I am not so sure.

The Government have instituted a commercialised NHS where 'any qualified provider' can bid to run public health care services. We also already have many private patients and private hospitals working alongside the NHS where those who can pay get speedier and more comfortable healthcare (private rooms, better food etc.) I would like to think those private patients get no better health care though...

So we have a parallel sector, set to grow, of organisations that are there to make a profit, paid for by people who want health care beyond that provided by the NHS.

All hospitals have to buy items to help them run. These items range from food, to crutches, to bandages etc. And all hospitals buy these items from companies who decide what a commercial rate is so that they make a profit and continue in business. Again, all seems fine. Of course companies should charge a market rate for their products and services...

But now it gets sticky (a bit like the blood). Thousands of people donate their blood for free into the NHS. But the NBS sells this blood onto private health care providers. They charge the same unit cost price to these private healthcare providers as they charge NHS hospitals. Putting to one side the fact that this blood has been given freely to support free health care, it does mean that the private healthcare providers are effectively getting a huge discount off the market rate.

Why?

Why do the private hospitals not either arrange their own blood supply service or pay the full market rate for the blood that they get? Effectively our free blood and taxes which support the NBS are helping these private health care providers make greater profits. Taxpayers are subsidising profit making businesses.

Is that right? 

Now I really (really) wish, health services didn't have to be increasingly commercialised but that seems to be the trend. So let's get fully blooming commercial about this and make sure the private hospitals and healthcare providers are paying the full commercial rate for their units of blood they use. If the NBS then turns in a surplus, that is good! That 'profit' can help them charge NHS hospitals even less for their units of blood and make public finances (our taxes) go even further.

(There is a link here to policing and privatisation, but I will leave that for another blog post: this one is long enough already.)

Movember

I have just posted my Movember space - I will be growing a moustache all through November to raise money for men's health charities. Here is the link - please feel free to donate! Thanks.

4 weeks from today... the shaving stops!

But what kind of moustache should I go for?

What would you advise?

Freedommmmmmmmmm! (and G4S saga)

Although I find it difficult not to hear Mel Gibson's evocation of William Wallace's final word when I use the word 'freedom', this blog post is about something more mundane but much more far reaching. Today at the Labour Party conference, Sadiq Khan announced that the future Labour government (that is the one that is going to happen in 2015 or sooner) will widen the Freedom of Information Act expressly to include private sector suppliers being commissioned to run parts of public services.

This made me very happy. I think this extension is long overdue. Indeed whilst I am not claiming any credit, this is a matter I have written to Sadiq about in the past.

Although there are already provisions in the existing law to allow this, the measures are rarely used and even when they are, I suspect they are often blocked.

The arguments for this change in the law are compelling:

• If the Queen's shilling is being spent, the money should be spent will the same level of scrutiny no matter who is running the service. This is a no-brainer as far as I am concerned. Although, as I have said before, I am still somewhat intrigued that the Taxpayers Alliance can't see this. (I might attend one of their meetings to ask them face to face.)
• If as seems likely, even under a Labour government, that private and public sector providers will continue to compete against each other for contracts then to have one and not the other subject to FoI is patently unfair. It is not a level playing field.
• Democracy and accountability cannot be outsourced. The idea that public bodies can fund private sector organisations and then the citizens be unable to interrogate that operational spending is clearly wrong. This law must be changed at the earliest opportunity.

Now I know that Tony Blair has gone on record to regret the passing of the FOIA saying that "you can't run government without being able to have confidential discussions with people on issues that are of profound importance". I think this matter is about a very different set of issues.

Meanwhile today, I spoke with the case officer from the Information Commissioner about my ongoing request for a copy of the risk register compiled by Lincolnshire Police about their work with G4S. I have blogged about this before, of course. Anyway, it turns out that Lincolnshire Police had not replied to her request for the information within the 20 working days they had to respond. (Although who knows why they needed more than a couple of days to assemble the information since how else would they have been able to refuse me so far...). So the case officer will get it by the end of the week, she has told me, now that she has chased them. She will then make her adjudication.

The case officer is aware, naturally, of the election timetable. However, she informed me today that even if she comes down on my side and explains to Lincolnshire Police that they should release the risk register to me, Lincs Police can still appeal that decision. If they do, who knows how long that will take...

You can imagine I am just a little bit frustrated. (I sincerely hope the risk register, once I get my hands on it, will have been worth all the hassle!)

So I am pondering what to do. I am currently contemplating starting a petition on the Government website. However, I think I will wait to see the decision from the case officer. And then react.

What do you think?

New Thames Valley candidate - UKIP

Just been followed (on Twitter obviously) by the UKIP candidate for Thames Valley: Mr Barry Cooper. He is evidently going for the (Treaty of) Roman vote... which is somewhat ironic really...

And who are 'Max Accounts'?

UPDATE: Ah well, looks like Mr Cooper has taken his unfinished site offline for the time being. I look forward to reading more of UKIP's policies for Police & Crime Commissiones. Are UKIP against the European Arrest Warrant that managed to put into custody the 30 year old teacher who was visiting France with his 15 year old pupil? (UPDATE 2: Mr Cooper is indeed not in favour of the EAW he has told me on Twitter.)

Thames Valley Police Authority: Time to refer to Home Office / Electoral Commission?

I received a reply to my earlier email from the Chief Executive of the Police Authority yesterday which I reprint in full below:

Dear Mr Harvey

I have previously set out at length the reasons for my interpretation and application of the Thames Valley Police Authority ‘Candidate Management Policy’.  You have previously notified me that you will be referring these matters to the Home Office and the Electoral Commission for their consideration and I have concurred that this would be an appropriate course of action for you to pursue.  I have nothing further to add to my previous responses and I note that neither Dr Starkey nor Mr Bains have challenged the policy and actions of the Authority in this matter.  

I therefore believe we are simply at the point where we must agree to disagree unless and until the aforementioned bodies (Home Office and Electoral Commission) determine that the policy, actions and conduct of this Authority in this matter are not acceptable.  

As to your new queries, may I respond briefly:

a) There is no verbatim record of all the contributions and questions that Mr Stansfeld (or any other member for that matter) has made in Police Authority meetings since it was announced that he was to be the nominated Conservative Party PCC candidate.  The minutes of all Authority meetings capture and report the salient points only of any debate that occurred during those meetings.

b) I am not aware of any private meetings between Mr Stansfeld and the Chief Constable since his candidature was announced (whether in his capacity as a PA member or as a PCC candidate).

c) I am aware of differing emerging practices between police authorities in respect of how they are promoting the forthcoming PCC elections.  All I can say is that the Thames Valley Police Authority policy and practice was adopted after seeking and acting on relevant advice, including that of the local Police Area Returning Officer as well as members of the Authority with regard to the local discretion that they are able to exercise.  Whether this apparent local discretion in the interpretation and application of the relevant legislation “...is another example of this rather poorly drafted legislation” I am not professionally competent to say, but I do acknowledge that there has been, and continues to be, limited central Government prescription in respect of many aspects of the national preparation for transition to PCCs.  However, as an officer of Thames Valley Police Authority, I am paid to apply the policy and wishes of this Authority, not those of South Yorkshire Police Authority.  

Regards,
Paul Hammond
Chief Executive & Treasurer
Thames Valley Police Authority

__________________

So I think the upshot of this email is that (almost on his advice...) I should now take this issue to the Electoral Commission and the Home Secretary. What do you think? Please be honest.... am I barking up the wrong tree here? (Comments below...)

Please read the letter above very carefully, There are many interesting embedded points and things not said... that I think speak volumes...

Zero Base Budgeting: A PCC campaign commitment too?

Ed Balls has just been on Radio 4 talking about a future Labour Government's plans to enter office with a commitment to Zero Base Budgeting (ZBB). The concept of ZBB is straightforward: instead of building budgets in an incremental way (this year's budget plus 5% say) or in a decremental way (aka cutting 5% say), the ZBB approach builds up budgets from first principles. In other words ZBB asked the question if we were starting again, with what would we need to start?

ZBB makes the argument that all existing budgets have embedded assumptions which often cost a  lot of money. The practice continues that by challenging these assumptions and asking a genuinely open question, what resources do we need to achieve the outcomes we desire, not only will new budgets be considerably less but also radically new (and more efficient) ways will be found to achieve outcomes.

It is good in theory and often in practice (though not always). It has been used widely over many years in many commercial and public organisations. Here is the Wikipedia entry and another article from the Canadian Government describing its pros and cons.

It is not a process for the faint hearted. It does require considerable resource and nerve to make it work as well and deeply as it needs to do in order to achieve its goals. It is arguable whether ZBB can be made to apply to public sector budgets given all the constraints not least a legion of legislative regulations and the fact that essential public services are just that.

However, the principle is a good one and does indicate some radical thinking in the Shadow Treasury Team.

Why am I blogging about this here?

Perhaps Labour PCCs should be considering adopting a similar campaign commitment?

(You may wish to contrast this with Cllr Anthony Stansfeld, Tory PCC candidate for Thames Valley who is on record on Conservative Home for saying "If elected, I don't think there are going to be any great changes in policing.")

Also I created these simple graphics the other day to highlight the problems with many existing approaches to decremental budgeting...

National Police Memorial Day

Today is the National Police Memorial Day when people are asked to remember police officers who have died in the line of duty. Information about the day can be found here.

This year's event will particularly poignant coming so soon after the ambush and murder of two young police officers and before their funerals have taken place. Their funerals are happening next week. At the time of writing, their book of condolences has had 47,604 messages submitted.

Let us all never forget how ordinary women and men in the police service put their lives and limbs at risk everyday in order that we might live in a peaceful and safe society.

A little like warm soup: the Liberal Democrat sets out his policies to be elected PCC

Whilst John Howson and his party colleagues seem reluctant to say much about how he was selected (which, frankly, is not of huge importance although when people refuse to answer direct questions, I always get a bit suspicious, don't you?) he has been (sort of) explaining his policies...

(This is great deal more than Conservative nominee Cllr Anthony Stansfeld who is showing his understanding of local accountability to the voters of Thames Valley by offering a wall of silence.)

And so, prompted by a brief discussion on Broadcasting House this morning between Ken Livingstone and Malcolm Bruce on the possibility of a LibLab coalition sometime in the future, I thought I would do a Labour analysis of Professor Howson's policies as currently published on the Policy Exchange website. Where can I agree with him... and where would I disagree:

What is your vision for policing in the Thames Valley?

Professor Howson goes on a bit here. In essence he talks about the importance of Policing by consent and that the police "essentially about preventing, detecting and solving crime and carrying out the many other functions society requires of them". No arguments on policing by consent, naturally. His focus on crime is a little narrow since I would say that the role of the police is fundamentally about assuring community safety and maintaining the Queen's peace. So much of what the police do is about that wider brief than a restricted focus on crime. Disorder features as well. (See this useful summary in the Economist of the HMIC's recent report into crime prevention which partly focused on what the police do with their time) Although their provenance is sometimes disputed, the principles laid down by Peel still stand the test of time for me and many involved with policing.

Why should people in the Thames Valley vote for you?

This section is mainly about him saying why he has the credentials to be the PCC for Thames Valley. I note that he interpreted this section about only that. Others might have used this section to explain what they would seek to achieve for the public of Thames Valley if they were to be elected... True he says he is "especially interested in policies that will reduce the number of young people entering into a life of crime" but does not say what he plans to do. He also says that he will work to "make the Thames Valley a safer place for all who live there, work there or just visit us" but not how or more precisely what he aims to make happen. A bit more on substantive policies would have been far more informative.

What inspired you to stand as a Police & Crime Commissioner?

Again this where Policy Exchange seems to be showing its bias and trying to make these elections all about people not about policies. Professor Howson responds by talking about how pivotal the role could be and how he wants to focus on creating a safer Thames Valley. Yawn...

Why are you qualified to be the Police & Crime Commissioner?

This is getting tedious now: why are Policy Exchange's questions all about the person? Professor Howson talks about himself (again). Now I know that is what the question asks but a policy driven politician would use the question to get across some inspiring ideas, not just more of his CV! But there is a statement here that is very VERY illuminating. (Can you spot it below?)

He says "I also have the time available to undertake the role." Hmm. Let's unpack that a little. Firstly why would he not have the time to do this as being a PCC is a full time job in my view. Unless he means to carry on his other work in Education and running his own company? That could explain the basis of this statement. Perhaps Professor Howson would like to say some more about what lies behind that statement?

What one thing would you like to change about local policing if you were elected?

Well. His opening statement is "Ensure work with young people wasn't cut." That is a bit rich coming from a Liberal Democrat whose coalition government has probably cut more services and opportunities for young people than any previous government. I agree with his sentiments naturally but how can state this policy with any integrity? Need I remind him that it was his party that reneged on their pledge not to raise tuition fees and will be inflicting a lifetime of huge debt onto thousands of young people? What action has he taken to back up his stated policy?

What would be your top three crime priorities if you are elected?

OK, finally this question points towards substantive policies. What does Professor Howson say? His three priorities are "Working with the Chief Constable and other agencies on how to prevent crime [1], increasing detection rates to the best possible levels across the force with the resources available [2], and ensuring everyone who is a victim of crime is dealt with to the same level by the police [3]. (My inserted square brackets.)

So that is crime prevention, a (heavily qualified) commitment to increasing detection rates and ensuring victims receive same (poor, excellent, variable??) level of care across Thames Valley. Seriously? What about violence against women and the raw fear that leaves people with? (See this story in the Reading Chronicle from yesterday for example). What about crimes against young people? What about human trafficking? I interpreted the question about priorities as being about certain kinds of crime, not some anodyne list of generic themes...

What is your most memorable personal experience of policing in the Thames Valley?

(First let me say again, the bias towards the person/personal in these questions from Policy Exchange is breathtaking. X Factor focuses more on performance than this!! And what does it say about Professor Howson that he has chosen this as (so far) his main vehicle to get his views across to the electorate of Thames Valley. I think this shows a lack of insight into the world of policing and crime. Did he not know Policy Exchange's track record?!)

Professor Howson says he has been burgled three times, once as recent as this year. He has received excellent help from local police officers. Three times. Could this be a reason why he is so keen on prevention!

How do you view your role in the criminal justice system beyond policing?

Professor Howson says "The Police & Crime Commissioner has a pivotal role to play not least in ensuring resources aren't wasted through duplication or a lack of coordination" Interesting, no mention of the fact that Thames Valley has an extensive collaboration with Hampshire Police. Does he even know that is happening?

"The Police & Crime Commissioner can play a strategic role bringing together other agencies but must essentially see the Police as their main focus unless the politicians at Westminster are going to further redefine the role beyond its present remit as has been suggested in the White Paper. I do not believe the Police & Crime Commissioner should be responsible for Victim Services or have anything to do with sentencing." I tend to agree, the policing side of the job will dominate. And certainly, PCCs should have nothing to do with sentencing. But hang on! This is interesting as he makes much of his experience as a magistrate. What is it that magistrates mainly do? They decide on guilt and they sentence. So the very experience he uses to support his bid to be PCC is, in his own words, nothing to do with the role of the PCC.... Other than that, what he says is all pretty vanilla. Could we have some crunchy policies please?

"The role is about working with agencies to reduce crime and to detect crime where it does take place." Again a missed opportunity here. He has written nothing about leadership. In my view this is a leadership role where by dint of the elected position, joined up action could be stimulated and led by the PCC....

Professional Background

Again, the focus of Policy Exchange on the person not the policies... No comments to make

___________

And so where does this leave me in my appraisal of Professor Howson's policies? His policies all seem a bit vague to me: a kind of warm soup that looks OKish on the surface but you are left wondering what might be lurking at the bottom - if anything. He specifically did not use the opportunity to talk about resources, budget policy, privatisation or the strategic policing requirement or indeed anything that could be controversial. I hope we see more in coming weeks...

Who has viewed your profile (LinkedIn)

Just fascinating...

I have been looking at yours too, Cllr Stansfeld....

The speech I wanted to give at Labour Conference 2011

One year ago, I was heading off to the Labour Party Conference. During those few days, I decided I  wanted to make a speech and despite having what I thought was a rather innovative method to attract attention, I did not manage to get picked and deliver it. As I think much of what I wanted to say is still relevant, here is the speech I wanted to give then...

Good morning conference. My name is Jon Harvey and I am a Town Councillor and Delegate from Buckingham.

For me, being Labour means being part of a movement of hope. I believe our job is to help build a society where everyone has the wherewithal to shape and achieve their dreams and ambitions

Being a victim of crime often means that people stop believing that it is possible for them to even have a dream or ambition, let alone achieve it. Being a victim of the fear of crime, as so many people are these days, can have similar consequences.

Therefore, in the Labour Party, we have a deep responsibility to do all we can do to ensure that policing and the wider justice system is effective, efficient and fair.

We cannot trust the Tories and the Lib Dems to do this. When the police services are suffering unprecedented cuts that will, undoubtedly, affect the frontline (despite what they say) – they have no right to claim to be a government of law and order.

And we saw what happens to the rule of law under a Tory led government in August this year.

Their response to the riots was first to stay on holiday and second to lurch into Victorian rhetoric. Contrast this with our leader, Ed Miliband, who called for a national conversation about what happened and investigate the real causes.

Not just tough on crime and its causes, but measured and engaging too.

And now we need to carry on being measured and engaging with elected Police Crime Commissioners. This was not our policy and we remain angry about the £100m cost – much of which is due to the November scheduling of the elections.

But these elections will now happen. These are political positions that we must be campaigning and standing for. We cannot leave it to ConDem politicians or worse, extremists, to set the agenda for local policing services. And we need to start campaigning now.

I am so very proud that ours is the only government ever to have left office with a lower crime rate than when we started. Not just a little lower – but a lot lower!

With neighbourhood policing and the community safety partnerships, we reformed the policing practice map. In government: we invested in policing – we worked in partnership with the police – we had a positive relationship. The same cannot be said of the current government.

Labour led police authorities up and down the country are carrying on with our distinct contribution to police governance.

And so now we must invest our values, our ideas and more. Victims of crime around the country will want and expect us to do so. We must make sure that we have Labour Police Crime Commissioners.

It will only be us who will use our leadership and influence to build police services that work for the many not just for the few.

Because it is in our bloodstream, it will only be Labour PCCs who will listen and engage with all our diverse communities – especially children and young people who make up the majority of the victims of crime.

It will be us who will ensure a real focus upon the prevention of crime and on policing practice that has been shown to work through research.

We will stand up for policing that will never, ever lose sight of how many women suffer crime and its consequences.

And of course, it will only be us who will offer a serious challenge to the Government over its financial settlements with local policing services.

And we will challenge this Government’s tired narrative about ‘feral youths’ and a ‘broken society’.

Unlike this Government, we are not divided on the Human Rights Act, and this will guide all of our work as PCCs in support of proportionate and fair local policing.

This then is our task. We must start organising and campaigning now for Labour Police Crime Commissioners. With a clear understanding of operational independence and accountability, our aim will be to work alongside the Police to help them deliver communities free from crime and free from the fear of crime. As Labour Police Crime Commissioners we can help create communities that are full of hope and ambition.

Thames Valley Police Authority: the debate on impartiality continues

On Thursday, I received a detailed reply from the Chief Executive to the points I raised with him a few days ago (see here for a copy of my email to him). I have thanked him for the due care he is giving to my concerns. At least he is willing to answer my questions in the way that the Conservative candidate is conspicuously not.

Below, I reprint his email together with my responses and questions I have embedded and sent back to him in highlight:
_________________________


Dear Mr Harvey

With reference to the content and claims made in the campaign website of Mr Stansfeld, regarding Mr Stansfeld’s influence as a Police Authority member on Thames Valley policing performance, my view is that these comments appear to be intended to present statements of fact (I do not agree they are ‘statements of fact’ as they include several adjectives and assertions which mean they are far more rhetorical. Do you maintain that they are purely factual? Your words could be read in different ways) designed to impress upon the electorate his suitability and credentials in support of his campaign to be their elected PCC.  However, may I reiterate that the comments referred to make no claim that either the Police Authority or any other individual member of the Authority are supportive of his candidature. (I agree but your policy as I understand it says that actions by members “must avoid any action which is or might reasonably be perceived as being supportive” – with my extra italics. In my view, citing his role and asserted achievements in his role could be very easily perceived as being supportive.) Furthermore, the website content claims no endorsement by the Police Authority, any individual members of the Authority, or any persons who work for or on behalf of the Authority, of the role, opinions or performance of Mr Stansfeld as presented on the website. As such his comments do not in themselves do anything which compromises, or is likely to compromise, the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, the Authority. (Naturally, reference my comment above, I disagree.)

(However you have not offered me a convincing reason yet, I believe, as to why you deemed it appropriate to contact Balvinder Bains about his name appearing on Tim Starkey’s blog. His picture merely appeared along with a factual description of his role as a member of the PA. Please explain to me how you are prepared to see words on Cllr Stansfeld’s campaign  website as “designed to impress upon the electorate his suitability and credentials” as being acceptable whilst Mr Bains mere description was sufficient to write refer him to the PA policy? You will recall from my first email to the PA, it is this distinction that prompted me to write and blog about all this. Had you not written to Mr Bains, then we would probably not be communicating. It is your differential action that I believe suggests a bias on behalf of PA, not the fact that you seem prepared to allow Cllr Stansfeld’s assertions to stand unchallenged. Please would you comment on this matter of differential particularly. Thank you.)

Accordingly, my understanding of normal electoral practice is that it is for other candidates and the electorate to challenge a candidate if they have concerns over the factual accuracy or appropriateness of the claims being made by that candidate. (I am sure Tim will be doing this in due course. You will note that I have not commented to date on the veracity of the claims made by Mr Stansfeld, merely that his words are not just factual, which is the point you raised before. Meanwhile as an ordinary voter and resident of Thames Valley, I believe I have the right and responsibility to highlight contradictions and unfairness in any election. Like you, I would imagine, I want these elections to be open and fair for all.)

Regarding any meetings that Mr Stansfeld has been involved in whilst acting in his role as a Police Authority member, provided that his involvement in such meetings, including any discussions, questions asked and answers given are relevant to his ability to effectively discharge his role and responsibilities as a member, then the fact that any meetings or questions asked may relate to policing post-November 2012 is irrelevant to me.  Such appropriate involvement is, and will continue to be, legitimate until such time as when Mr Stansfeld chooses to resign as a Police Authority member. (Is there a full verbatim record of all the contributions and questions that Cllr Stansfeld has made during the course of all such meetings in the period between now and when he was declared to be the candidate? Has he had any private meetings with the Chief Constable during this time?)

With regard to your question of 3rd September (“...can you (Mr Lawson) or Mr Hammond explain to me how it is tenable to allow a publicly declared candidate to remain a member of the Police Authority?”), it is tenable to allow a publicly declared candidate to remain a member of the Police Authority because there is nothing in the legislation that prevents it or requires a member to resign prior to submitting their candidature nomination papers to the Police Area Returning Officer and national guidance therefore allows it.  It is irrelevant whether you or I agree with this and it is not for me or Mr Lawson to explain or justify it; it is the way it is. (I understand this. Perhaps you would agree with me that this is another example of this rather poorly drafted legislation? However I do wonder whether a) a quiet word might have been had in the light of the PA’s role to be a neutral agency in the election. I also note, with reference to our communication some months ago about the PA hosting hustings etc – which you declined on grounds of perceived bias – that South Yorkshire Police Authority are indeed now organising a ‘Question Time’ style debate for all the candidates to attend: link here)

With reference to your query concerning the accuracy of Mr Stansfeld’s register of interests, the Code of Conduct requires members to declare personal interests where they fall within a certain categories specified within the Code where the business of the Authority may relate to or is likely to affect the interests of the member.  As Mr Lawson has previously stated in response to your query, it is for members to declare their interests and, once declared, they are then entered  in the register.  In other words, the responsibility for ensuring an accurate register in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Conduct lies with members themselves. Members may seek advice from officers of the Authority but the Police Authority itself has no routine role in investigating any possible anomalies in members’ registers of interests unless, of course, there is prima facie evidence that a member has been or is likely to be involved in any business of the Authority in which they have a personal interest that has not been declared. Otherwise, any apparent anomalies will be highlighted to the member concerned (which is the case in respect of the anomalies you have brought to officers’ attention in connection with Mr Stansfeld’s register of interests) for them to consider and act on as necessary but officers cannot amend or direct members to amend their entries. (I understand all this and that a member’s register is his/her affair. However, when it can be shown by dint of inconsistency – as I have indeed shown – is there not a matter of the public standards here? What do you think? If there were, would that be a matter for the TVPA standards committee? But I thank you for bringing it to Cllr Stansfeld’s attention)

Therefore, in summary, I do not see any evidence of a breach of either national or local guidance concerning the behaviour of police authority members who are standing as candidates.  Nor do I see any evidence of a breach of the Thames Valley Police Authority Code of Conduct.  Accordingly, I do not see any appropriate reason for my intervention in the matters you refer to and, for the avoidance of doubt, I will not be doing so. (Thank you for being clear. I am now going to consider what further action I now take. Jon Harvey)

Regards,

Paul Hammond
Chief Executive & Treasurer
Thames Valley Police Authority

Inspirational leadership & the new Police & Crime Commissioners

On Friday 5 October from 12pm to 2pm, the Guardian are hosting a live web discussion whether the elected PCCs can improve police morale at a time of privatisation, cuts and perceived political bias. (Do join in! I will be taking part.) (UPDATE: Please note that this has been shifted by the Guardian from the original date of Thursday as that date clashed with the funeral of PC Fiona Bone.)

This got me thinking about what attributes a PCC will need to have to inspire the police (and others within their influence) towards improved morale and even greater results. So, last night, on the train off to see the Beach Boys at the Royal Albert Hall, I mapped out this list:

First and foremost, the PCC will need to show total respect for the work that police officers and staff do and the people that they are. Any hint that the PCC regards him or herself as being above other people is to be avoided... (yes, you know what I am referencing).

In my experience as a leadership development adviser, lesson 101 for leaders is have a crystal clear vision. People may not always agree with that vision but they at least know what direction is being taken. Uncertainty about direction is big downer. (I have written before about what makes for a good vision.)

Given the political nature of the job, I think it will be vital for the elected PCCs to engage in 'worthy politics' which might be best defined as not petty, point-scoring party politics. Nobody (least of all people in the police service, I suspect) is inspired by politicians who only seem to want do down the opposition or leap in front of the press camera at any given moment.

If there is one thing that I know that really frustrates police officers and staff is not having the equipment to do their jobs effectively, efficiently and safely. PCCs will boost morale if they arrive with a clear commitment to ensure adequate kit. Any PCC who thinks they can save money by not doing so does not really understand policing.

People in all organisations like to see their leaders being held to account. Whatever the PCC can do make their challenges (and support) to their Chief Constable open, transparent and accessible will boost morale.

That said, an inspirational PCC will always challenge constructively and remember that giving feedback often says more about the person giving it than it does the person on the receiving end. Having the wit to ask good questions, especially ones that have come from either side of the front line (ie from victims too) will be essential.

A PCC will boost morale by just doing one simple thing: listening. Sadly, in my view, too many politicians (of all hues) spend too much of their time in broadcast mode and seem unable / unwilling to answer straight questions... or even just hear what people have got to say. Listening is good and will help. Being available and accessible is good and will help.

Police culture has a lot to do with ACTION! (Sometimes with not enough circumspection and reflection, I would add!) And so to boost morale, the PCC will need to be seen as a person of action. I am not advocating some sort of manic inititiativitis (the police service already has enough of that) but I am saying that if a PCC gets to be known for always being at HQ, this will not go down well. Remember, police officers notice where cars go and where they park...

An inspirational PCC will understand that it is their job to earn respect not demand it... and certainly not create symbols (such as chains of office) to impose respect upon people.

Be funny and occasionally self deprecating. A PCC who cannot make people laugh or who is so pompous as they are unable to laugh at themselves will not do wonders for staff morale. Humour slices through reserve and opposition in a way that often rational debate cannot.

I think we have seen great examples of emotionally intelligent leadership from CC Peter Fahy and ACC Garry Shewan (of Greater Manchester Police) in the last couple of weeks after the murder of two young police officers. They were both rock solid but able to show emotion and understand how much emotion there was around. A good PCC will be able to do the same and will understand that the work of the police service (and the wider justice agencies) is often filled with highly charged emotion. Unfeeling steel automatons need not apply: PCCs must not be 'robocops'.

And finally, in my view, PCCs will need to practice ethical and authentic leadership that is marbled with integrity and clear values. If a PCC is perceived as saying one thing but doing (or deciding) another, this will damage morale. If a PCC uses principles like a drunk uses a lamppost (for occasional support rather than illumination for the journey), this will not work. One of things that police officers and staff are very good at, is spotting charlatans.

But what do you think? You are welcome to comment below and/or join the Guardian debate next Thursday.

The truth is simple? (part nine)

See all collected posts about this matter in one place by clicking this link

I am now officially and totally confused about Cllr Stansfeld's commercial interests.

Thames Valley Police Authority have now kindly sent me a copy of his Register of Interests as at March 2012. First, here is a clip of the one 'updated' for August:

And now the one for March this year:

So here are a number of questions now outstanding:

• Why did Cllr Stansfeld remove reference to being Chairman of the Sefinor Group?
• Who is the Sefinor Group? (Again I can find no easy reference to this organisation anywhere though see below)
• Does the Sefinor Group exist?
• How come mention of the Sefinor Group appears to have been omitted from his record at West Berkshire Council - although perhaps it was there in a previous version?

Questions and more questions: and still no answers from Cllr Stansfeld....

And there I was thinking we were getting somewhere.... (see blog post below)

In my research around Sefinor, I did turn up this interesting page. (Remember we have established that Cllr Stansfeld was involved in a company called Prescience AG along with, among others, Frank Iding.) This page is interesting on two counts:

• "Mr Iding has been Managing Director of Prescience AG since 2007...  Mr Iding has wide international experience gained through his work for the two companies and in his previous role as Chief Executive Officer of the Sefinor Group – a group of companies based in the UK, Germany, Switzerland and elsewhere specialising in landmine and unexploded ordnance clearance and risk management" So, at least in 2009, the Sefinor Group of companies existed although who knows what has happened to it now (Cllr Stansfeld?)
• Now secondly and this is a crucial bit. Note the statement "Mr Iding has been Managing Director of Prescience AG since 2007" on a document dated 2009. That is two years and note the tense of the statement. In an email that Cllr Stansfeld sent to me back in August he said "I no longer have anything to do with Prescience, a company that never traded, so was disposed of" [my highlight] A company that never traded but existed for two years (at least) with a Managing Director... How are these two statements both true? I am intrigued to find out.

So is the truth simple here? It doesn't feel like that to me at the moment...