The secret diary of a Police & Crime Commissioner (aged 64½)

Day one (22 November 2012)

What a week! So many supporters to thank for their hard work, tramping the streets delivering leaflets on wet November evenings & weekends! I said to my agent I would damned (and probably excommunicated) if we didn’t shift the container full of pallets of glossy paper despatched to me by HQ. All credit to party’s campaign director for persuading G2FO to sponsor the print run, must have cost a small fortune. Still they had a lot of guilt to assuage and good books to get back into after their disastrous handling of the World Championship Regatta. Of course only a few people know of the deal, their FD will hide the expense in the marketing budget. Thank heavens (and my bank balance) for clever accountants everywhere, that’s what I say!

We delivered 490,000 leaflets and 118,126 voted – that is a remarkable success. I regard the election turnout of 15.1%, a whole 5.2% more than one prediction, as a clear vote of confidence in the post of Police & Crime Commissioner. And my 25,256 first preference votes coupled with the resounding approval of the 35,544 second preference votes have given me a clear mandate to implement my manifesto. I am so happy for the people of Northfordwestshire. They have elected, frankly, a superb first PCC. I will be the voice of the people, all of the people. At least I will certainly say that when I come to swear my oath.

I am already instructed my PA to start inviting the great and the good of Nfw’shire to a canapés and champagne reception to observe and honour me taking the oath. But I still can’t quite decide whether to ask the Lord Lieutenant, the Bishop or the lead singer from the local boy band to swear me in. I’ll drop the Home Office a line to see who they had in mind. Must get the press along as well, though not little wotsit from the Maxwellian Telegraph who kept banging on about my investments in the Cayman Islands and some mines in West Africa. I told him it was none of his damn business and the diamonds round my wife’s neck were bought in Shatner’s some years ago.

The Chief Constable seems to be rather up himself. I detected the whisker of a raised eyebrow at the count when the final turnout was announced. Nobody ever voted for him of course. And from what I hear on the grapevine he has one or two skeletons (or should I say naked bodies) in his cupboard. Still, he has told me he is shooting off to warmer climes. Which means I get to select one of us to replace him. Must put the word out to party HQ to find me someone with the …er, shall we say ‘right’ track record…

Of course I will give the new chap or chapess a 2¾ year contract to keep them on their toes. Then I will have the option, depending on how the land lies for next election, to keep or dump the person or inflict a legacy appointment on my successor if it looks likely to be an opposition win.

It is straight forward really. These are rules of PCC club:

1. No one talks about PCC club
2. Compliance is more important than performance
3. Help party successor but not so much that they outshine me
4. Do everything to screw up the opposition
5. While noting impact on crime and safety, still do everything to screw up the opposition

I am rather pleased with the following decision matrix I have constructed as to what to do when the new Chief’s contract comes up for renewal around February 2016:

Anyway, I now need to start my key and number one strategy to tackle crime: sell off all the remaining police houses and as many of the buildings and pieces of land we own. This ‘family copper’ (as it were) will help me fulfil my promise to reduce the council tax precept whilst at the same time (magically) maintaining frontline numbers – well at least giving the impression of maintaining frontline numbers. I will get the whiz financial person in my office to start doing the numbers.

And of course my second priority is to organise my Chain of Office. I am honestly surprised the Home Office did not legislate for that. If the Chief Officers are going to ponce around with all their braid on their collars, I am going to have a big fat chain with a crest on it. Just so that they know, I am the elected boss around here!

I suppose I need to have a look through the draft policing plan, if only to know how much of it I will want to scrap. But more about that soon, dear diary.

Day one

Day two

Day three

Day four

Day five

Day six

Welcome memo from Chief

Thames Valley Register of Members' Interests?

As regular readers know, for some time, I have been trying to track down just what business interests Cllr Anthony Stansfeld actually has and whether he has been totally open and transparent about all these. My post below  is about as far as I have got. All I can find out so far is that there is a company called Fidas AG based in Switzerland although its recorded purpose (on the Swiss equivalent of Companies House) does not seem even close to it being a "small company that has interests in water systems for agriculture and energy recovery systems for industry".

But as part of my investigations I wrote to the Thames Valley Police Authority asking them for a copy of the Register of Members' interests. Before I report their response, have a look at this:

• Hampshire Police Authority Register of Members' Interests
• Surrey Police Authority Register of Members' Interests
• Sussex Police Authority Register of Members' Interests (Example for one PA member)
• Kent Police Authority Register of Members' Interests (Example for one PA member)
• Thames Valley Police Authority Register of Members' Interests

Can you spot the difference? 

Perhaps this is why when I wrote to the Police Authority on the 28 August asking "do you keep a register of interests of the members of the PA? If so, please could I have a copy for the year ending March 2012", their reply was "your FOI request will be dealt with within the time period for FOI’s".

My question is, unlike all the other Police Authorities in the South East, why does TVPA not publish the interests of its members online? Furthermore (and I hope the answer to this is 'yes') does such a document even exist?

Political gimmickry by Surrey Police Authority

This morning several people are commenting upon the news story that Surrey Police Authority have decided to" scrap plans for partial privatisation" (BBC headline with full story here). I have seen several people say that they are glad that Surrey PA have seen sense and taken this decision.

Unsurprisingly, I am more cynical.

The list of the members of the PA shows that 6 of the 9 councillor members are conservatives (or should that now be 'Conserve-a-Tories' following the government's bold plan to kickstart the economy by allowing people to build slightly larger home extensions without needing planning permission). The other three are two LibDems and a 'Residents' Association' councillor. I know very little about the 8 independent members since their website gives no bios. The published "Members’ Register of Interests June 2012"* does not say much except I am left with the impression that the independent members are not exactly a collection of opposition party supporters.

Where am I going with this?

I would contend that this decision is all part of an attempt by the Conservative parties of Surrey and probably the Liberal Democrats too, to remove the toxicity of outsourcing from the PCC campaign.

They know that even traditional Tory voters recoil from the idea of having even part of the police service being run by G4S, especially after the London 2012 fiasco. And so the PA have decided to pull "out of plans to privatise parts of their services" according to the BBC. Later the article says (presumably drawing on the PA's press release) that the PA have done this because the "security firm failed to provide the agreed number of staff at the Olympics" and "a key factor was also a lack of support from candidates seeking election to run the force as police commissioner later this year".

This is arch politics.

First, the PA have not actually made the final decision as this will come later in September. Secondly, as far as I can see, they have decided not to spend any more money on the arrangements they were putting in place with West Midlands Police but not to give up privatisation / outsourcing altogether. Thirdly, why were they doing this anyway if it matters to them what the PCC 'candidates' are saying (parenthesis due to not one of them yet being officially declared). Surely the job of all PAs at the moment is to steer their ships into a safe and non strategic harbour to smooth the arrival of the new PCCs. It is not their job to take long term decisions at the moment and seek to bind the hands of the incoming PCC, in my opinion.

And fourthly is the statement "lack of support from candidates seeking election" actually true? I have browsed the website of Julie Iles' and she says nothing about G4S or privatisation that I can see. (Happy to be told otherwise of course.) I went onto the Policy Exchange website (who conveniently ask no particular questions about outsourcing) to see what I could find there. I pulled up this comparison between Julie Iles and the Labour candidate Robert Evans. Only Robert mentions G4S.

Her blog has one posting on it. Yep, you have guessed it, nothing about privatisation or G4S. Her bio says "Julie also has a successful track record in business and experience from a career outside of politics. She has the skills to ensure delivery of an efficient, effective police force making best use of our resources and funding". Again this says nothing. I mean who isn't for making best use of resources and funding?

And so to repeat: this decision my Surrey PA is nothing short of pure politics designed to pave the way for a Conservative victory in the PCC elections. This decision seeks give the impression that a) all the candidates are against privatisation and b) it won't matter anyway because everything has been shelved.

I am sure that Robert Evans and his team have already seen through what the PA are seeking to do and will be pressing Julie Iles for rock solid commitments not to continue with G4S or indeed any other massively risky privatisation experiment on the people of Surrey.

*NB Surrey publish their register of interests, whereas as Thames Valley are treating my request for a list of members' interests as a Freedom of Information inquiry since it does not appear on their website... Hmm. See new blog post above.

UPDATE: Thanks to Stuart Lister for pointing this out: here is a copy of the report from the PA Chief Executive to the Authority. Note that it says "Surrey will remain a ‘potential beneficiary’ to any contact agreed by West Midlands in future, together with the other 41 police authorities (in future, Police & Crime Commissioners) named on the original OJEU notice".

They are not really hedging their bets are they...

Professor John Howson: a magistrate and...?

In the last couple of days, the Liberal Democrats of Thames Valley have announced that Professor John Howson is to be their candidate in the forthcoming election of the Police & Crime Commissioner. As the news reports say, Professor Howson is "a magistrate who was knifed by a pupil in his days as a teacher". Interestingly on the same page of the Reading Chronicle a reader (a Lib Dem?) has posted this: "At last a candidate with real life experience of crime. I thought this was going to be a foregone conclusion with the tory candidate winning but it looks like the Tories are up against a real challenger now. Good luck John!"

I have never met Professor Howson but he clearly knows his stuff - education stuff. He is a recognised "authority on the labour market for teachers". His University of Oxford profile goes on to say that he a "former deputy head of education at Brookes University and government adviser on teacher supply matters, John taught in a Tottenham secondary school for seven years and worked in teacher training and development in Worcester and Durham as well as Oxford". It is impressive stuff. If you Google his name you will find a myriad of references to his work in the field of... education.

He has also been a magistrate for many years and (it would appear from my brief research) to have been closely involved in the Magistrates Association for quite a while. He is currently one of their Vice Presidents. Although appreciation of his contribution is not universal.

I know this may seem that I beginning to support him (as, after all, he and the Labour Candidate Tim Starkey do know each other reasonably well - see here and here). But I am not. Professor Howson has remained a supporter of a Government that is slowly and painfully turning the clock on our public services (including his and our beloved educational system) back to the middle ages. Whereas my colleague Tim has followed through on his ideas and principles (ones that Professor Howson once shared?) and recognised the only place for him to be is in the Labour Party.

But it is not just that.

I am unclear how being a magistrate gives a person any special qualification to become a police and crime commissioner. Professor Howson will have an understanding of the courts system but his exposure to governance and strategic leadership of policing is, shall we say, limited. True he was a victim of a very nasty crime some years ago but again I would contend this does not give him any particular knowledge of how to hire or fire a chief constable, write policing plans and set council tax precepts (etc.) I appreciate his experience will probably have given him insight and a passion for supporting victims of crime, but many others have that.

It would seem to me from browsing through his mentions on the net that his real passion is education, not policing.

And finally, what of the selection process?

The Labour Party have been entirely open about how our candidates have been selected, we even published the numbers of votes as counted by an independent organisation (The Electoral Reform Society). Contrast this with the growing omnishambles in the Tory Party where there are (as reported by Sam Chapman, a Conservative Councillor himself) a growing number of internal reviews and re-selection processes (see here, and here and here for example). Selection process that can yield such headlines as this "Tory Party announces that Tory hopeful who beat two Tories but who is not a Tory and refuses to become a Tory quits as Tory candidate for police commissioner." are as much a gift to satire as Clint Eastwood currently is.

But at least with the Conservative Party, some of the stories are emerging. How was Professor John Howson selected? Were there other candidates? Was he chosen by a small committee or by a postal vote of party members? For a party that is supposedly committed to transparency and democracy, the Liberal Democrats are not saying much.

Unless you know something different....?

UPDATE: I have just spotted this website which helpfully gives contact details for Professor Howson, so I have written to him asking about the selection process. I will report back.

UPDATE 2: Well. This is getting curiouser and curiouser. I have just received this reply back from Professor Howson (or someone operating his email address): Thank you for your query. If you can supply me with your Liberal Democrat party Membership number I will pass your query on to the appropriate person. I replied: I am now even more curious – why do you say I have to supply you with a Liberal Democrat Party membership number to have my questions answered? Is information about the method that was used to select you only to be known by party members? Please explain further. Thank you. (2106|5/9/12)

UPDATE 3: Professor Howson has written back to me saying: Selection is a matter for the Party and not the candidate, so I have passed your request on to them. That seems fair enough, his party probably has rules about who can and cannot talk about process. We do in the Labour Party too. However, he still surprised about my inquiry. I responded by saying: given the initial policy of your party not to put up candidates at all, the continuing controversies over Conservative selection processes in several counties and the fact that a number of candidates have had to withdraw due to past crimes, I am sure you can understand my interest in respect of this particular election. (7/9/12)

Aside from his work in education, has Professor Howson been following the news about the PCC elections? 
Watch this space for developments...

The appearance of support...

A while ago (as mentioned below) I noted that Cllr Anthony Stansfeld has yet to resign from the Police Authority. Now I understand that he is not required to by law but for me it would be a fair and indeed courteous thing to do - to create a level playing field between him and other (non PA member) candidates.

And so I asked the police authority (after they had confirmed he had not resigned from the body) a series of follow up questions:

In the six weeks or so since Cllr Stansfeld was publicly declared as the Conservative Party candidate for the Police and Crime Commissioner (Reading Chronicle 15 July) for example) has he
a) Received an allowance for that period?
b) Claimed any expenses during this period?
c) Had access to information that would not be available to an ordinary member of the public? 
d) Had access to police officers and staff (especially Chief and senior officers) that would not be available to an ordinary member of the public? 
e) Had any meetings where the Chief Constable was present (excluding full Police Authority meetings)?

And furthermore, are there any national (APA / Home Office??) guidelines on whether police authority members, once declared as candidates, should resign from the that Police Authority?

I received this reply this morning:

Whilst Mr Stansfeld is a member of the Police Authority, and for the purposes of fulfilling the role and responsibilities of a member, he is entitled to be treated in the same way as any other Police Authority member in relation to allowances, expenses, receipt of papers for meetings and access to police officers and staff including the Chief Constable and other senior officers. This may involve the provision of information which is not publicly available.

The Home Office has confirmed that nominations for candidates to stand for election will open on 8 October 2012 and close on 19 October 2012.  Resignation as a member of a Police Authority is necessary before signing the official declaration of candidacy form;  there is no requirement to resign before then.

And it would appear that even though Cllr Stansfeld has been declared as the Tory PCC candidate and has begun his campaigning, he remains in a position of having privileged access to people and papers that other declared candidates do not. These are facts.

Contrast this to the response I received from the Police Authority on 27 June when I suggested that they might like to organise some 'shell' hustings to support the democratic process and the transition from them to the new governance structure. I was careful in saying that these hustings should invite all candidates and therefore be entirely neutral. Their reply included (and I quote):

"However, there has also been clear guidance from the Home Office that authorities should ensure that they remain neutral in the elections process and don't inadvertently appear to give support to individual candidates or parties"

Let me repeat part of this in big bold letters:

"and don't inadvertently appear to give support to individual candidates"

It seems to me that having a situation where a declared candidate remains a member of the authority does appear to give support to an individual candidate. Or am I being picky here? But (as others have pointed out in response to an earlier version of this post) the PA has no real power to remove him... unless the guidance on being neutral cited by them gives them that power?

And so my question to the TVPA is how do you square deciding against setting up all candidate hustings because it might be seen to be favouring a candidate while noting that there is nothing that be done before the legal deadline bit kicks in - or is there?

And my question for Cllr Anthony Stansfeld (one day he may answer my questions...) is do you not think it is about time you focused all your energies upon campaigning and less upon having privileged access to police business by dint of your membership of the PA?

Welcome to your new job...

Memo 22 November 2012

From Chief Constable

To Police and Crime Commissioner

Welcome to your new job. (Thank heavens for second preference votes, eh!) Still, you now know you have the communities of [insert police area name here] all ‘fired up’ about their new elected police leader. I have asked my PA to drop by with the sack of letters from members of the public I have kept for you, pending your arrival.

Naturally I have not looked at them but one or two did happen across my desk before being carefully placed in the sack. My cursory analysis is that you will need to refine your policies on parking, “the hooligans who have noisy barbecues next door” and “we need more bobbies on the beat” fairly quickly. Your manifesto will help a great deal, I am sure.

I think the Police Authority Chief Executive has another couple of sacks too.

Meanwhile, I have been having regular meetings with the Chief Executive and the old PA team in the run up to your election. You will be glad to know that together we have sorted out a comprehensive and busy set of introductory / networking meetings for you. Given the demands of the new role and your understanding of it, this schedule should be complete around about May 2014.

Of course, you know that it is now your responsibility to agree the overall budget and council precept within the next few weeks (if not days actually). This should be pretty straightforward: as per usual, my colleagues and I have done all the maths and thinking for you (as we used for the police authority). We have tweaked it a little bit to allow for the more ‘radical’ parts of your manifesto but you will understand that with many contractual, facilities and staff commitments, the wiggle room amounts to about 0.06% of the budget. You will be glad to know that we did manage to find a few hundred quid for your ‘Victims’ Tsar’ that went down so well with the voters.

We did of course take on board your ‘iron commitment’ to reduce the council tax precept by 5% and so you will find that we and our clever accountants have managed to spread out the cuts to police officers and staff over a notional ten year period. The public will hardly notice, really. We came up what we think was a very clever wheeze to put all the community punishment offenders in tabards that almost look like police uniforms. Our market research indicates that if people see lots of fluorescent green with words like ‘Polite service’ in bold letters on them, nearly half of the samples we tested think they are actually police. The Chief Inspector who came up with this idea received a personal commendation from me. Moreover, as a result of the budgetary cuts, we estimate there will be many more offenders ‘patrolling’ the streets as they help people cross the road and clean off graffiti as part of their community punishment orders.

We did consider getting rid of that ‘back office’ cost of Information Technology altogether until it was pointed out (by the same Chief Inspector as it happens) that we had signed a twenty year contract with Micrapple that contained some very expensive exit clauses that we hadn’t noticed on page 1572. Oops.

Anyway, the spread sheet is attached. Your initials in the highlighted boxes on pages 1, 3, 14 and 623 would be peachy. Thank you.

The other ‘big’ job for you, of course, is for us to ‘agree’ the Policing Plan for the forthcoming year. You will be glad to know that I have drafted said document and it, too, is attached. It contains all of your manifesto commitments (and a few extra that I thought you might like) written in such a way that no one will be able to hold you to any of its (ultimately vague) objectives. The draft is peppered with phrases like ‘top priority’, ‘rigorous performance management’, ‘aiming high’ and, of course, ‘making our communities safer’. It has all the testosterone of a NASA business plan from the early 1960’s, even if I say so myself! Please give it a once over and we can ‘talk’ soon about how to ‘improve’ it.

We will need to talk about the ‘Strategic Policing Requirement’ at some point. It’s a bit of technical, professional thing that does not hugely concern you but there one or two resource implications of which you need to be aware. Not only will we be the only force with Police Horses from next year but we will need to create a ‘Police Investigation Rescue And Tactically Equipped’ seagoing unit (aka Ship) as well. The fact that we don’t have a coast seems to have escaped the policy chap at the National Crime Agency and as he said to me on the phone only yesterday “the SPR is the SPR – tough”. I don’t imagine this is going to cost more than about £10m to set up. We have not budgeted for it yet as we fully expect the Home Office to come up with all the jelly beans required. I think I was promised that over coffee at a conference the other day.

Anyway, that is about it for now. I look forward to having one of my last meetings with you in the next couple of days. As I think you know, I have worked for six months more than my 30 years and the warm breezes of Magaluf are calling me. Attached is my resignation letter as well. I believe the Chief Exec has already been in touch with HMCIC to seek his help in organising my replacement. There are some rather amazing Deputies and ACCs around who will relish the chance of working with you. At least that is what I have been told.

Good luck in your new role. May 2016 will come around before you know it!

Sincerely yours

Wasting Police Time

One of the challenges facing many of the new Police & Crime Commissioners will to be try and understand the culture of the police service.

(Before you jump up and down and say what about their other "and crime" responsibilities - yes I know - it will be important to understand the diversity of cultures within the entirety of the local communities, other parts of the criminal justice system and other agencies... but hang in here.)

There is one book (of many) I would recommend all aspiring PCCs to read. It doesn't make for comfortable reading and many people will be shocked at some of the views expressed. But it does capture a slice of police culture that I think is worth knowing about.

The book is called "Wasting More Police Time" and it has been edited by PC David Copperfield (and Dan Collins). You can obtain a copy here. There is also the first book in the series here as well (but I have not read this).

And if anyone knows of any more books that would enlighten PCCs about the other dimensions of their work - we can start a reading list here!

Please post below...

Cllr Stansfeld has yet to resign from the Police Authority

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

As regular readers of this blog know, the TaxPayers' Alliance are not my favourite bunch of bunnies as I think they think far too much concerned about cost and not enough about value. They have also yet to support my campaign to have the Freedom of Information Act extended to all organisations spending our money - be they public services or businesses on contract etc.

However, in my inbox this morning arrives an email from them saying "Councillors' allowances are often reasonable compensation for people making a valuable contribution to their local community. But it is hard to justify why some authorities are paying much more than others, and big increases at a time when taxpayers are under so much pressure. And with other perks too, there is a real danger councillors start to see their job as representing the council to the people, not the people to the council".

The big increases bit stood out for me. I can sign up to that. If any council remuneration committee has increased expenses by more than inflation, let alone by more than the increase in the national average wage, that is pretty shabby in my opinion. It smacks of councillors looking after themselves rather than the communities they represent. And I say this without knowing the political colour of the councils involved.

But what of PCC candidates and in particular those who currently sit on Police Authorities? It seems reasonable to me that, given the law (you cannot sit on a police authority and be a PCC etc), that if you have started campaigning to become a PCC you should resign from being a member of your police authority. To do continue being a member and continue claiming an allowance... just does not seem right to me. Indeed, it seems pretty inappropriate.

Again I am saying this without the knowledge of what is happening around the country so I may have upset some Labour PCC candidates. Nevertheless, I stand by what I say.

But I also know, because I had it confirmed to me this morning, that Cllr Anthony Stansfeld, the anointed Conservative PCC candidate for Thames Valley has NOT resigned from Thames Valley Police Authority. He has had plenty of time to resign since he was selected (back in the middle of July).

Is Cllr Stansfeld still claiming an allowance from the PA which is (indirectly) helping him fund his campaign?

Is Cllr Stansfeld still getting privileged access to information about policing in Thames Valley by dint of his membership of the PA?

Is Cllr Stansfeld still getting privelged access to police staff and officers by dint of his membership of the PA?

Why hasn't Cllr Stansfeld resigned yet?

Perhaps the Police Authority or Cllr Stansfeld might like to answer these questions. (Although I am not holding my breath regarding Cllr Stansfeld who has yet to answer my questions about the location of his business interests... see here, here and more below)

Untruths, twisted truths and Tory PCC campaign videos

We were treated yesterday to the "Conservatives' video to explain the Police and Crime Commissioner elections" although why it spools onto their campaign videos for last May's elections I am not sure. Why would they want to remind people of their disastrous results back then? Here is a pic to prove my point before they spot this and remove this error!

But back to video itself: you can see it here on youtube. It runs a bit like a Mitt Romney convention - full of emollient but vague crowd pleasers but full of untruths, twists & diversions. Here is my analysis (numbers are minutes & seconds):

00:07 Here it begins. The Home Secretary explains that PCCs will be "responsible for policing in their local areas". Now that is not exactly true since a) there is no mention of operational independence of the Chief Constable and b) here and elsewhere there is no mention of the 'and crime' role in relation to Victim Support for example. This video is all about policing and nothing else.

00:11 She goes onto say that the PCCs are part of other reforms "aimed at improving our ability to fight crime". Again, here we have the exclusive focus on crime.

00:18 "The PCC will be your local voice in local policing". Thames Valley has 2.2m people living in it. Yep. Really very local. 

00:23 "They will set police priorities and budgets". This may come as a shock to Chief Constables who still, I think, believe they are the ones setting budgets...

00:28 "And crucially they will focus on clearly cutting crime". Aside from the breaking news that I suspect Police Authorities & Constabularies have always had a similar focus! - we have again this myopic & exclusive focus on "cutting crime", ignoring all the other things that the police do to keep the Queen's peace and help make communities safe. It also ignores all of the other 'and crime' responsibilities of the PCCs. (And given that squatting has been made a crime today, this government is not beyond increasing crime when it serves their narrow interests.)

00:45 We then switch to Katy Bourne, Tory PCC candidate for Sussex. "Having a PCC will really fire up local communities". Excuse me while I fall off my chair. 

00:48 "At the moment [local communities] have no voice". Well, I suspect their are quite a few Police Authority members who would take exception to this statement. The Independent Police Complaints Commission might also have a view. This statement is clearly and simply not true.

00:50 "The PCC will be their representative who speaks to the police on their behalf". So much for community policing then! Next time you want to say something direct to a police officer, you will have to go through the PCC... 

00:56 "Instead of a body of people who are all unelected". Again, another untruth. Over half of all police authorities consist of elected councillors. We all know this. I agree, they have not been directly elected to serve on the PA, but the councillors have been elected. 

01:33 And Ms Bourne goes onto say that council tax precept is decided by PA who are "unelected" and so she keeps repeating this half truth. No mention that the decision on council tax precept always has to carry the majority vote of the elected members of the PA. No. That would be an inconvenient fact to talk about.

01:38 "That old saying no taxation without representation is very true". Side point really, but please tell that to all the 16 & 17 year old people who pay national insurance and VAT.

02:14 And now we are onto Jasbir Singh Parmar, the Bedfordshire Tory PCC candidate. I wonder if they needed to get the permission of the Post Office to film behind the counter in a Post Office? Are there any security implications?

02:41 Mr Parmar talks carefully about listening to the public and his background as a police officer. However, I must say that this audience don't look too receptive to his message!

03:05 There is much talk from members of public (we are being led to believe) about how people will be able to get their issues to the individual and hold them to account. Let's do the maths. Even if only 1% of the people resident in the Thames Valley Police Area write to their PCC once every year, that equates to over 400 letters and emails every week which will require investigation and a response. Who will do this? Will the PCC read all of them?

03.13 And now we switch to Richard Rhodes, the Tory PCC candidate for Cumbria, checked tweed jacket, shirt and all. 

03:28 "The big issue in Cartmel is the issue of parking" says a shop owner / worker. Do we hear Mr Rhodes saying that is not an issue that a PCC or even the police have responsibility for, you should really contact your local Liberal County Councillor Rod Wilson? Um... no. 

04:05 Then we hear another resident complaining about how long it took for the burglars who raided his house to get to court (two and half years). Do we hear Mr Rhodes saying that as PCC he could not do anything about that as court administration comes under the Ministry of Justice? Um... no. (He just says that if he gets elected, the person will be able to contact him...) Again, the video leaves the viewer with an erroneous impression of the role and powers of the new PCCs. 

And then the video finishes off with an appeal from the Home Secretary to vote on November 15. Conveniently, like a B movie trailer, the youtube video spools onto the local election campaign videos too...

This video twists the truth and gives an impression of what the role of PCCs that is a long way away from the legislation. I look forward to the first Labour campaign video.

Independent PCC manifestos: good, bland or radical?

I have been watching the PCC candidates emerge over the last few months and there is now an increasing number of independents throwing their hats into the ring. Unsurprisingly many, though not all, of these independent candidates have a police officer background. I would imagine that they expect to scoop up the votes from the public who have said they would prefer someone who has such a pedigree rather than some hackneyed political hack. (After all politicians rank somewhere below estate agents and above parking attendants in the popularity stakes at the moment.)

Sadly most of these independent candidates are mostly as pale, male and stale as the majority of main party candidates, if not more so (as Jon Collins has outlined here). I was worried that many of these independents were going to be Tory wolves in bland sheeps’ clothing. I am not so worried now.

But what of these independents?

Will they bring a fresh & vibrant perspective to the PCC elections or will they offer populist policies drawn from the comments pages of the Daily Mail website? How will they encourage their supporters to use their second preference vote? Will they, like Green Jenny Jones (OK she was not an independent….) openly declare that she wanted her supporters to vote for Ken second or will they be like Siobhan Benita not say?

Will they be throwing their deposits to the wind or will one or two of them win…?

However for me the real question is: will their websites and campaign literature be the political equivalent of vanity publishing or will they really seek to change the overall debate and affect what PCCs do in the future?

I hope for the latter. Here is why.

I predict now that no independent is going to win. Very few independents ever do (beyond local politics where many independents are party animals in costume). Where they have it has usually been in extraordinary circumstances such as in Tatton or with single issue and highly emotive campaigns such as in Wyre Forest. These PCC elections, while novel, are not extraordinary.

And so, for me, the choice for independent candidates is to be blandly authoritative, offer up anodyne, broad & vaguely populist policies and expect to lose their deposits… or take a bold stance and zero in on one or more radical policies and drive these like a wedge into the campaigning of the bigger parties. Deposits might even be saved. And the pot of ideas around policing and crime could be much fuller as a consequence.

Independents of the country unite, you have nothing to lose but the shackles of conformity. Mimicking mainstream party manifestos while ladling in your experience and background is doomed to failure, in my opinion.

It is not for me to suggest what these policies might be, naturally. But be bold!

For the cynics, this appeal is not some less than subtle attempt to persuade independents to marginalise themselves so that the main parties (especially Labour of course) can have a free run. Genuinely, I don’t just value diversity: I delight in it, love it, want it. And we need new and diverse ideas in policing and crime prevention / reduction – just like we need such ideas in every other dimension of human endeavour. I can’t remember all of what Professor Hawking, Miranda and Sir Ian Mckellen said last night at the Paralympic Opening Ceremony, but I think they would agree.

What do you think?

All to play for...

Labour List has just published my latest blog:

As the summer haze begins to disappear, children return to school and swimming costumes are put away for another year, the Westminster village (like Brigadoon) will yawn and wake up. Politics will once again come to dominate the pages of newspapers as sporting achievements begin, like a moon, to wane (notwithstanding the 10 days of Paralympic power and grace that will shake up attitudes to disability and discrimination – I hope).

Whilst we have the shuffle board game on the decks of a large ice bound ship to look forward to, and then the party conferences, we have only a few weeks to go until November 15th when a whole cohort of quasi presidential politicians will be elected to run our local policing and crime services. With the Electoral Reform Society predicting turnouts of less than 20%, there is all to play for....

I won't reprint it all here - you can read the full text here. In sum, the article lays out some of the elements of PCC campaigns that I hope we will see Labour candidates using in the few weeks left before the November elections.

And as I say, there is all to play for especially as I read a follow up blog from the Electoral Reform Society (after I wrote the piece): for some people low turnout is an opportunity... They go on to quote Tom Waterhouse from his Rhombus Communications blog:

For any candidate hoping to become a Police Crime Commissioner, the prospect of an 18.5% turnout should grab your attention like a blue-flashing light in your rear view mirror. Elections on that kind of turnout means your “short campaign” activities and polling day operations will be absolutely vital, because the lower the turnout, the lower margin of victory for the winning candidate.

How many Labour Activists have spotted the blue flashing lights? 

Crime prevention: the PCC role

Prompted by Ros Baston’s tweet Am officially bored of fashion for bashing PCC cands simply because they've been politically active. Get back to the issues, guys (referenced by Jon Collins, Deputy Director of the Police Foundation in his article this morning) and another ongoing debate on twitter about the important role of PCCs in crime prevention (not just reduction) – I thought I would dig out the impressive work of Professor Paul Ekblom.

Professor Ekblom can be found residing here: http://www.designagainstcrime.com/ where he promotes his work to reduce and prevent crime. I first came across his work when he was at the Home Office and I remain hugely impressed by his “Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity” model which I think provokes much good thought leading towards actions to be taken to prevent and reduce crime.

Using his model as a prompt, there is much that the best PCCs will be able to do to reduce and prevent crime through the powers that they will have and the leadership influence they will bring:

• Given that the potential offenders must first have a predisposition for crime (criminality), the PCC will be able to engage with a range of public agencies to coordinate and focus early intervention and progressive actions with communities (and perhaps even individual families) where criminality is at its highest. 
• Offenders usually lack resources to avoid crime (such as ability to restrain impulses, exercise social skills and gain a legitimate living). The PCC has a role here to support programmes which assist known offenders get out of the cycle of criminal behaviour through skills training, supporting apprenticeships as part of Police procurement and so forth. 
• People who commit crimes are by definition ready to offend (e.g. motivated by boredom, shortage of money or need for drugs, being in a conflicting relationship, being in a particular emotional state). Disrupting these motivations is therefore critical. While many of these motivations are very personal and ephemeral, a PCC can support drugs rehab programmes and even Relate in its efforts to help people maintain stable relationships. (I have often joked that the National Offender Management System should run a free online dating agency since one of the most effective factors in reducing crime is being in a fun, loving and stable relationship where you have much to lose.. or am I joking?) 
• And then there are the resources for crime (the skills, inside knowledge, criminal contacts, tools, weapons etc). All the evidence points towards those who get mixed up in the criminal justice systems stay mixed up in it – for a whole array of reasons. One of these reasons is that people get more resources to commit crime in the future. This has got to change. Whilst I am not advocating the solitary confinement of Victorian gaols where it was believed that criminals could ‘catch’ criminality from breathing others’ air (see pic below of the old Lincoln Prison chapel), I am saying let’s keep people out of gaol as much as possible. New PCCs will have much to learn from (say) the experience of transformation of New York City where a recent article reviewing a new book stated: Much greater use was made of alternatives to incarceration, such as community sentences and residential drug treatment, as well as “drug courts” and other non-traditional ways of hearing cases. 
• In one of my previous occupations, I was a health education officer. At the Oxfordshire Health Unit where I worked, we used the Health Belief Model as a source of inspiration for much of our activity. In a similar vein, the Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity model uses the idea that offenders calculate whether the risk & effort is outweighed by the scale & likelihood of reward. PCCs can act to boost the perceptions that risk and effort are high and rewards low by (for example) entering into a dialogue with local media to increase the perception that offenders will get caught and their rewards will be confiscated. 
• I am not sure what a PCC can do about offenders needing to be present in the situation whereby an offender can commit a crime, other than ensuring that all efforts are taken to keep known past offenders busy with other stuff. Idle hands an all that. The provision of good youth services (being myopically and cynically cut by many local Tory authorities when they calculate that many young people can’t or won’t vote) is a must naturally, as are projects mentioned above. 
• But there is much that PCCs can do to ensure that crime preventers (as Ekblom calls then) are present, capable and credible by adequately funding the police service in terms of numbers and skills development. Moreover, these preventers can be anyone with a formal crime prevention responsibility (police, community safety staff, concierges) or an informal one (residents, parents, teachers or employees in general). This means that PCCs should be supporting other projects designed to support this second category by acting to criticise politically short sighted cuts in (say) caretakers for sheltered housing places. These criminal event preventers can reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed by shaping the situation (e.g. by locking doors) or influencing the offender (e.g. by applying social pressure not to steal). They can intervene during the event (defending themselves or their property, or that of others) or react after it. The preventers’ potential to intervene and react can influence the current crime event through the offender’s anticipation (‘Will the victim or passers-by overpower me? Will I be identified to the police?’). It can also influence the next event by the action taken (e.g. victims securing their house against repeat burglary, or reporting to the police to initiate detection, criminal proceedings and punishment). (Italics are mostly Ekblom quotes above, by the way) 
• Just as there are crime preventers, there are also crime promoters who by contrast increase the likelihood of a criminal event by careless or provocative behaviour or more practical contributions such as supplying weapons or buying stolen goods. The PCC support for effective police action to disrupt such networks is obvious. 
• Targets of crime may be human, physical property, data, environmental or service-related. Targets must be attractive and vulnerable. PCCs can use their leadership to help people understand what action they can take (as individuals, as partner agencies, as businesses etc.) to reduce vulnerability and attractiveness. Locking bikes and keeping expensive mobile phones out of sight come to mind. PCCs can sponsor gating projects to make access to homes less easy. Thicker walls between flats can reduce noise disruption and violence which can follow. Again PCCs have a role here in influencing planning authorities and housing developers. 

This is just a sample of what Ekblom’s model can do to inform and support what PCCs can and must do to prevent and reduce crime. The trick will be prioritising the range of possibilities so that each PCC uses their time and resources to maximum effect.

What would be your priorities?

(If you visit Lincoln, the old prison is well worth exploring for its fascinating focus on air conditionning and keeping prisoners apart from each other - the prison is more or less preserved in aspic..)

The PCC Oath: more than a tad worrying

In the middle of August, the Home Office released this text as the Oath that incoming PCCs will have to swear:

[Full Name] of [Place] do solemnly and sincerely promise that I will serve all the people of [Police Force Area] in the office of Police and Crime Commissioner without fear or favour.
I will act with integrity and diligence in my role and, to the best of my ability, will execute the duties of my office to ensure that the police are able to cut crime and protect the public.
I will give a voice to the public, especially victims of crime and work with other services to ensure the safety of the community and effective criminal justice.
I will take all steps within my power to ensure transparency of my decisions, so that I may be properly held to account by the public.
I will not seek to influence or prevent any lawful and reasonable investigation or arrest, nor encourage any police action save that which is lawful and justified within the bounds of this office.

I am not wild, indeed I am very concerned, about this wording for a number of reasons:

"all the people of" - does this include people visiting, working or studying in the area? Or just those who live (and vote) there? Who is the PCC there to serve? This wording is vague.

"without fear or favour" - why not just say "fairly"

"I will act with integrity and diligence in my role and, to the best of my ability" - why add the last bit? This just feels like padding.

"will execute the duties of my office to ensure that the police are able to cut crime and protect the public" - wow! This is where I really begin to worry since this defines the job as being only about policing and the 'and crime' wider bit of the CJS seems to have been missed off although it gets a small mention later on. By accident or by design I wonder? Also I suspect that most people involved with policing & wider efforts to create a peaceful, safe and stable society will say that the job of the police is not limited to cutting crime and protecting the public. And protecting the public from what? Apart from roaming lions (yes I am writing this after the Essex Lion incident) - how can the police protect the public from other parts of the public...?! Um. I am confused. And it is not good to have an oath be confusing or vague.

"I will give a voice to the public" - just the one then. Also this seems like an odd thing to say. I would have preferred something more along the lines of listening to and representing all the communities etc.

"especially victims of crime" - what happened to 'without fear or favour'...?! Whilst I have campaigned for greater victims rights for many years - in a justice system - they cannot be a 'special' group with extra rights. I would argue this is inconsistent with the main thrust of the oath and indeed with the Human Rights Act.

"work with other services to ensure the safety of the community and effective criminal justice" - effective criminal justice... what does that mean exactly?

"transparency of my decisions" - so only of decisions... what about everything leading up to the decisions, what about all words and actions by the PCC (since not all actions are decisions?)

"lawful and reasonable investigation or arrest" - and? Why the and? Why not 'or'. Who determines what is reasonable? If the PCC judges an investigation to be lawful but not reasonable, will the PCC be then able to intervene? Was a lawyer involved in the drafting of this wording?

"lawful and justified" - now we have justified... what happened to reasonable? Note the 'and' again. So if a PCC decides a police investigation is unjustified, can they discourage it? Unjustified on what grounds - expense? I mean all this investigating into News International is a tad expensive is it not...? Could that be unjustified?

I know I am being picky but this is meant to be a solemn Oath.... but it seems to (non legally trained) me as a set of words that a lawyer might drive a coach and horses through. It is worryingly vague in parts and worrying precise in others...? I have huge respect for Ros Baston. I wonder what she thinks?

The Home Office website is confusing. It appears the words are now set but it also invites Candidates (only?) to contact them with their comments on the wording... Huh?

Altogether very, very confusing. Who drafted these words? Was this knocked up in a hurry during the silly season?

The PCC team?

I had a very interesting conversation with an academic* from Oxford University yesterday who is researching the introduction of PCCs. One strand of his work at the moment is to interview candidates and those could have been candidates - exploring their views, concerns, hopes etc. He had some thumping good questions and my mouth was parched by the end of 80 minutes or so that we had together.

One of the questions he posed was who would I have selected to work with me had I become PCC in Thames Valley. This was not a new question to me as it had come up in the hustings earlier in the year. I answered that I would have wanted:

• A cracking good media person - a sort of my own personal Alistair Campbell - to liaise with the local news people. 
• A highly skilled community engagement practitioner who would lead on building links with the diverse communities of Thames Valley
• A 'Director of Research' to promote and coordinate efforts to institute more evidence based practice in policing
• A visionary & big picture accountant who could read spreadsheets like Neo ended up reading the Matrix
• A superlative commissioner / procurer / contract negotiator with a PhD in 'Take no prisoners Nous' so that any contracts signed by me as PCC would be watertight and not end up in huge costs to the future public purse when the 'small print' kicks in
• A wizened & wise ex senior cop to advise me on the games that people might play and keep me grounded
• A seconded head of crime prevention and empowered citizenship to extend the work of the Office for Policing and Crime into focused community development 

So if you were to become a PCC - who would you want on your team?

UPDATE: responding to various tweeting debates

Several people have been responding to this blog post on twitter and many of them seem, not unreasonably, concerned with how much this would all cost. Well (perhaps fortunately), I don't have to cost these posts as I won't be in a position to fund them but... I would say:

• Some of these posts could easily be part time and contracted in on an as and when basis
• Some of these posts already exist (e.g. the financial & crime prevention ones)
• Some of these posts would pay back their cost ten or more times over (commissioner one for starters - and the research one - wouldn't it be better to fund more policing that works?)
• Some of these posts are just simply essential of a PCC is to have a glimmer of a hope to stay connected to the people they are meant to be representing & leading (media, engagement & ex-copper ones)
• All of these posts are about value - not just cost (a thing which the so called 'Tax Payers' Alliance seem to consistently overlook)
• Finally - as I say above - this is about provoking a debate on what teams the PCC will need to recruit in order even to attempt to make the job worthwhile...

And as for the debate about 'how senior ex cop' - naturally a PCC will want to stay in touch with all levels of all the organisations that they will be influencing and leading. But by senior I mean someone with enough past experience, clout and insight to really add value to the task facing the PCC. In this instance - seniority is not about rank.

Please respond below with any further comments. Thanks


*The academic in question is Matthew Davies and he is happy to be contacted about his research.

Making safety part of the fabric of communities

There are many factors which contribute towards the community safety of a place which include social mix, house and neighbourhood design, local leadership and the provision of open spaces for sport and recreation. Housing developers and the planning authorities that approve the overall designs bear a particular responsibility for creating safer communities right from the start.

As many will know, I am a Town Councillor in Buckingham, and along with my fellow councillors (and with the support of some very skilled officers) we have done all that we can to influence the design of a new housing estate (with 700 dwellings) that is being built on the edge of our town. The housing developers and local planning authority (Aylesbury Vale District Council) have listened to us... a bit, (although certainly less than we would have liked).

One of our our concerns has been to do everything possible to ensure a community connectivity between the new place and the established town, especially as there is a busy bypass acting as a barrier in between. Our desires for a footbridge and adequate bus service have so far fallen on deaf ears (although we remain hopeful).

One matter that has exercised us has been the naming of the streets and the overall estate. We think the names really matter and I was concerned that we did not end up with a mix of Acacia Avenues or a George Osborne Close (no through road)! And so I proposed that the street names should be linked to the industrial history of Buckingham and be based upon lace-making terms. My fellow councillors agreed and we obtained the support from the developers and the district council. The Royal Mail gave their consent (they will be the ones delivering post) and now soon there will be Needlepin Way and Cotton End etc.

But, where we did not get our way (initially) was in naming the estate as a whole. My proposal which was agreed by the planning committee was to call it 'Lace Hill'. However the developers chose 'Windsor Park' without consulting us and with the support of the County Council had signs erected to indicate this:

I was not happy. The Town Council was not happy! Prompted by a remark from the last year's Mayor (Cllr Mike Smith) and with the support of Cllr Robin Stuchbury (Town and District Councillor), I did a bit of research and found out that the name 'Windsor' is strictly controlled by the Cabinet Office and can be only used with their permission... And so I wrote to the Cabinet Office a few weeks ago.

The Cabinet Office wrote back yesterday to let me and Cllr Stuchbury know that the name would have to change: This department would only allow the use of the restricted word “Windsor” if the development is based in the Royal Borough of Windsor. You should approach your developer, ask whether they sought authorisation prior to the use of the name in their development/park and seek written evidence of this.

I have now written to the various organisations involved and I know that Cllr Stuchbury has been contacting others as well. We await developments... (as will Mix96, who just phoned me for an interview as I was writing this blog).

Calling PCC candidates: are you for transparency & accountability or not?

Let me begin with this quote from the 'About us' page of the TPA website:

The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) was launched by Matthew Elliott and Andrew Allum in early 2004 to speak for ordinary taxpayers fed up with government waste, increasing taxation, and a lack of transparency in all levels of government. [with my added emphasis].

Increasingly more and more public money is being spent under contract by commercial organisations. And so you would think that the TPA would back calls for all organisations who spend the 'Queen's Shilling' to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? Perhaps that you would not be surprised to learn that (to my knowledge) they have conspicuously avoided any such support. I have emailed / messaged / tweeted them many times - with nil response.

Funny that... I would love to see the logic whereby they can maintain this position. (Please comment below if you wish, TPA...)

But what worries me far more is how our public services appear to be blocking the transparency & scrutiny that should come with the FOIA by citing 'commercial confidentiality' as the reason, more and more. Whether this is just laziness, a desire not to upset their commercial partners, a misunderstanding of the law, protecting their own lack of commercial 'nous' in agreeing good value contracts or indeed a legitimate application of the Act is often not clear (because it is being blocked..)

This morning on BBC Radio 4 toady programme (listen again here - 1 hr 23 minutes in) Tom Greatorex MP talked about the controversial contract the Department for Work and Pensions has with ATOS. He explained that he had to resort to the National Audit Office to gain an answer to his investigations as to whether this contract was value for money or not (aside from the devastating impact it is having on many individuals subjected to ATOS benefits assessment process - see here for a small insight). He queried whether the number of successful appeals (and the cost to establish these results) was outweighing any savings the commercial contract was meant to achieve. He asked DWP for an answer initially but was blocked by the 'commercial in confidence' argument.

I have experienced this as you know from my search for the risk register that Lincolnshire Police has about their work with G4S. (See below here.) I have now been effectively blocked by Thames Valley Police on similar grounds.

Back in the middle of June I asked what I thought was a simple and historical question:

Please could you let me know how much Thames Valley Police spent on contractors who performed policing or policing allied roles (ie not ancillary roles such as cleaning or engineering functions) in the year ending March 2012. 

They replied:

Thames Valley Police is currently undergoing a competitive tender process with relation to this information and therefore engages Section 43(2): Commercial Interests to this part of your application. We consider that disclosure may prejudice or undermine the procedure of engaging a supplier at this time as the competing suppliers are submitting their tenders for this area of business. Although Thames Valley Police acknowledges that disclosure would increase transparency, it considers that disclosure of information which could undermine an ongoing process and adversely affect our ability to attract competitive suppliers in the future would overall not be in the public interest. We therefore have engaged this exemption at this time. [my added emphases]

I then asked, by when would they be able to release the information. They replied:

Thames Valley Police expects the tender process for this contract to be concluded in January 2013. 

And so the upshot of this is that all the way through the campaign to elect the new PCC for Thames Valley a crucial piece of information will not be available for public debate. Frankly I fail to see how the overall spend in one past year with all suppliers could be damaging to a current tender process with (I assume) only one part of this spend. (Unless TVP are outsourcing all of their current spend to just one supplier... which I hope not as this would be bad business and highly risky in my opinion.)

I am considering whether to appeal this decision or not. (What do you think?)

But, one thing is clear to me: if we are to have robust scrutiny of public spending then the 'commercial in confidence' argument must not be used so liberally in the future. This might require a change in the law or it might not.

As the new role of the police and crime commissioners is all about public accountability and transparency, I assume that all PCC candidates will back my small campaign to have the FOIA applied to all organisations that spend public money including those under contract (perhaps with a de minimus level to allow micro organisations to be exceptions).

PCC candidates can register their support below... thanks.

Anthony Stansfeld mystery - solved? (part six)

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

Could the mystery be solved? After doing some more research, I have now managed to locate a company called Fidas AG. Details can be found here

Why do I think this could be ‘the’ FIDAS mentioned by Cllr Stansfeld:

- The name is the same

- It is in a German speaking part of Switzerland – and press releases about Cllr Stansfeld’s bid to be PCC have mentioned a ‘German based company’ (see here) 

- It shares the same address as Prescience AG (as mentioned on their website: Rathausstrasse 7, CH-6340 Baar Switzerland), a company we know that Cllr Stansfeld has had connections with

- Bruno Bosshard is the ‘supervisory board member’ and according to Linked-In, people who view Bruno's page, also view Cllr Anthony Stansfeld’s page (a tenuous link, I know)

So is this the company, Cllr Stansfeld? Or are these details coincidental?

The tricky bit, however, is that there is no mention it being a “green technology research and development company”. Instead the company’s listed purpose is “Erwerb, Halten und Verwalten sowie Veräusserung von Beteiligungen” which means (care of Google Translate) “Acquisition, holding and management and sale of investments”.

So perhaps the mystery has not yet been solved?

Over to you Cllr Stansfeld for clarification…

Stansfeld mystery (part five)

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

As per my last blog post about the mystery that is Cllr Anthony Stansfeld (the Conservative PCC candidate for Thames Valley), I decided to write to him directly, asking him to shed some light on the two firms with which he appears to have / have had connections: the elusive ‘FIDAS’ (as mentioned by him on the West Berkshire Council register of interests) and ‘Prescience AG’ (as mentioned on his Linked-In account).

His replies were (shall I say) robust and not especially illuminating. I hesitate to bore you with all the details but here are some things that he wrote to me. In reply to my first email he opened with:

“Dear Mr Harvey, I have complied with all requirements of disclosure. My business interests, which have absolutely  nothing to do with either policing or military, which you suggest in your press releases, or also nothing to do with you. You appear to be purely on a political exercise trying to damage my reputation.”

And later in the same email:

“I no longer have anything to do with Prescience, a company that never traded, so was disposed of”

So I wrote back:

“It was when I went looking for more information about FIDAS that I drew a blank. While I am no internet geek, I can usually find what I am looking for on the net. And so I have raised questions in various quarters but I believe I have made no unsubstantiated accusations.  You can clear that matter up now, if you wish. But I note, so far, that you have chosen not to do this. Please allow me to repeat my question: what is the address of FIDAS?”

I have yet to receive a reply to this last question – including in a second email he sent to me. All that the voters of Thames Valley currently know is that FIDAS could be

a) fictional
b) a spelling error
c) another company that also never traded
d) just what Cllr Stansfeld says it is: “a small company that has interests in water systems for agriculture and energy recovery systems for industry” or
e) something else entirely.

Amongst the seven Nolan principles of public life is the idea of “Accountability - holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office” [with my added italics]. I note his phrase “nothing to do with you.” Hmm.

I maintain that to merely give a name of a company with no address is not being transparent, it is precisely the opposite.

Cllr Stansfeld may believe that I am the only one asking these questions, but I suspect as we get closer to November 15th, more people will be asking these and other questions too. If you would like to write to Cllr Stansfeld yourself – his various addresses are available from the West Berkshire Council site

Meanwhile I am off to do some more research to see what I more I can find out. Wish me well.

Cllr Stansfeld may be happy to remain a mystery to the voters of Thames Valley. I suspect that many more people will want to know a good deal extra about the person who wishes to become the Police & Crime Commissioner once they fully understand just how much ‘quasi presidential’ power the PCC will wield.

It's the budget, stupid!

I know I may have paraphrased Bill Clinton a little here but it is my long held view that the place where there is most likely to be conflict between the new PCCs and their Chief Constables will be over the budget.

No one will challenge the right of the PCC to set the overall council tax precept and hence total budget. Where it will get interesting will be in how this budget is then divided up to match the policing plan owned by the PCC but prepared in partnership with the Chief Officer team.

The (and I mean THE) critical ingredient will be the Resource Allocation Formula. All forces have such a thing, although they may call it something different. It is the way that they decide whether one part (usually geographical) of the force gets more resources than another / last year etc.

Using the Freedom of Information Act (which I am now beginning to understand more and more - indeed I think all PCC candidates should have a FoI strategy in place now to extract useful information from the police before election purdah descends...), I have been inquiring into how Thames Valley Police (TVP) divvies out its resources.
I began thinking about this for a few months now - see Q4 here and more recently here. So I wrote to TVP in the middle of June asking them this question: What is the method by which different local policing areas are allocated resources to carry out their frontline duties? (Perhaps you call this the ‘Resource allocation formula”?)

The response I got was unexpected: Thames Valley Police allocates resources in consideration of the population of the area, recorded crimes and incidents over the last three years in each area. We are unable to provide more specific data as to do so may undermine law enforcement or assist criminals in assessing likely resources in any area at a specific time thereby engaging Section 31: Law Enforcement.

(Gosh: the police seem to use s31 a lot...! I now have an image of some hardened criminals studying the budget allocations of TVP to decide whether to target Bracknell or Newbury with their evil plans...)

So I replied: Under the terms of the FOIA, I challenge your decision as I fail to see how a generic formula, which calculates the allocation of resources to geographical areas, might undermine Law Enforcement at ground level. You say “we are unable to provide more specific data”. I have not asked for specific data about how much resource has been allocated but how the decision is reached. I look forward to a more detailed explanation as to how clarity over how resources are allocated might benefit the commissioning of crime. Furthermore, you say that you allocate “resources in consideration of the population of the area, recorded crimes and incidents over the last three years in each area”. May I conclude therefore that you do not take into account the British Crime Survey statistics and/or the relative harm generated by different kinds of crime?

So this week, I got some some further information:

The Resource Allocation Formula was introduced into Thames Valley for the allocation of resources across the Local Police Areas for the restructure in April 2011. A number of variables were considered. The decision was made to keep the process simple, with the result that only three variables are included in the model. A proportion of available resources are to be allocated to each of these variables. These are:

Population 30%
Recorded Crime 35%
Incidents (excluding Crime and Admin) 35%

The level of each variable is calculated by using three years worth of data, weighted such that the most recent year has the greatest impact and the most historic year has the least impact. The weightings used are Year 1 20%, Year 2 30%, Year 3 50%.

Hmm. Can you spot the big problem with this? And have you noticed they did not answer my latter couple of questions above? No reference to BCS, nor any specific reference to risk of harm / actual harm. There is no real measure of actual crime here.

And the problem? 

If 70% of your allocation is down to measures which closely relate to the number of officers on the ground, guess what will happen? The resources become a self fulfilling formula that will mostly reinforce/reflect existing resource allocation. And pure population does not take account of deprivation and other well known risk factors! Under this part of the formula the affluent parts of Thames Valley will get the same number of police officers as the more deprived parts if the population is similar... 

Is this correct? Is this a matter for a PCC? Does Labour have a different perspective on this to the Tories? The answers are yes, yes and you betcha! 

We stand for the policing for the many not just the few. Labour stands for the deployment of scarce resources proportionate to harm and risk of harm.

In my view, Thames Valley Police (with collusion of the Tory candidate for the PCC position - one Cllr Anthony Stansfeld, who is a leading member of the existing police authority) have over simplified the allocation of resources and created a formula that could well mean people living in parts of Thames Valley getting less support than they need while other areas get a bigger (but unfair) slice of the cake.

What is happening in your police area?

Quelle surprise

I finally received a reply from Lincolnshire Police FOI officer asserting that their original decision was the correct one. You could have knocked me over with a feather. They are not (as yet) agreeable to sending me a copy of the Risk Register for the programme of work they have under way with G4S. (See my earlier post about this here.)

The upshot is that I have now referred the matter to the Information Commissioner and I await their adjudication on whether an FOIA exemption should be used to protect the commercial reputation of G4S (whatever reputation they have left..)

Or whether the FOIA should be deployed to protect the public from knowing the risks that Lincolnshire Police are running by partnering with G4S. Lincs police fear that if their publics should know the full story, they will lose confidence in their local police service and crime will go up as consequence. I think the opposite is true.

I hope that the Information Commissioner believes, as I do, that the people of Lincolnshire are made of sterner and wiser stuff. Indeed the patrician attitude that the use of this other exemption betrays is perhaps the most worrying.

What do you think?

So I urge you to watch this space...