Given that Tough Tory, Chris Grayling has recently sounded off about the dissolution of the existing tripartite structure (ACPO, APA and Home Office) it was interesting to note the direction of question and response at the latest sitting of the Public Bill Committee of the House of Commons, looking at the Policing and Crime Bill.

Previously called Standing Committees, Public Bill Committees study proposed legislation (Bills) in detail, debating each clause and reporting any amendments to the Commons for further debate. (There are at least 16 MPs on a Committee, and the proportion of parties reflects the House of Commons, so the government always has a majority). The Chair of this particular ensemble is Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative). In this particular instance he and David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative) were quizzing Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, the National Council for Civil Liberties last Thursday.

Sir Nick asked:

‘Why are you so critical of the provisions giving the Association of Chief Police Officers a right to nominate to the senior appointments panel and of the power of ACPO when it comes to sitting at the national table in the tripartite structure? In fact, you want a deletion of its role. Could you explain your concerns’.

Shami clearly has a perspective on the role and function of ACPO. She responded ‘This is not in any sense a concern about having senior police officers involved in this kind of process. It is a concern about the nature of the creature called ACPO. There is no clear purpose for ACPO. It is not a creature of statute. It is a private company. It is exempt from freedom of information legislation. It has no clear defined role in our constitution. In practice, it seems to have developed over the years to be a range of different animals. Sometimes it appears to be a campaigning pressure group in very sensitive, sometimes party political, debates about new police powers. Sometimes it seems to be something akin to a public body that issues guidance—for example, on very sensitive police power matters. Sometimes it seems more  like a staff association for chief police officers, who obviously need to communicate with each other and share expertise and experience.

There is a need for all those functions, but we think there is a real concern about ACPO being all those things. In particular, it has become one of the most powerful policing organisations in the land and it is not a creature of statute. Parliament has never taken the opportunity properly to define its role. It is possible that its roles cannot all live in one body and it is time to grip the issue and decide that it perhaps is a number of different bodies—some that are properly regulated by statute and others that are a matter for the police themselves to organise as a staff association or pressure group. It is dangerous, therefore, to give it further power without taking the opportunity to define what it is and what its role should be in modern policing.

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative) helpfully piled in to ask: ‘Liberty’s observations, which I think are noteworthy, go to the heart of the tripartite structure, but I notice, Ms Chakrabarti, that you have not taken the opportunity to lay down any amendments. Is that because you do not want to start unpicking the tripartite structure as such? You are saying that there are certain functions that you do not think ACPO, as currently constituted, should be involved in, such as senior appointments. Would that be a fair summation?

Ms Chakrabarti ‘Absolutely right, sir. We do not take principled objection to the tripartite structure, but we do have concerns about the role of a modern police force in a modern democracy. We see it as a vital agency that serves the rule of law, rather than serving the Executive at local or central level. Ultimately, the police are servants, in a way, of the statute book. Through the statute book, you and your colleagues here communicate directly with each police constable doing their job in the land, and through the statute book you also, hopefully, communicate clearly with people who are helped and, sometimes, rightly hindered by the police. That is in the best traditions of policing in this country. ACPO may well have a role, but its current role has just developed without the proper intervention of Parliament. It is a creature that has grown up organically. It is a company that largely regulates itself, but at the same time is given more and more statutory power'.

This is an interesting debate, set as it is, in the wider context of key service delivery at the local level through BCU’s and local authorities. ACPO clearly have a role in pan BCU issues and services (protective services for example) but some recent high profile issues have weakened their position and it seems as though they are not currently in a position of strength.

Given the current political situation and forthcoming elections, it’s going to be an interesting time for ACPO. Be interesting to know what their key opinion former and marketing and communication strategy is !

Related posts:

1. 12 ways to improve policing – the LGA view
2. The purpose of inspection is…
3. Top Tory Talks Tough
4. The purpose of inspection. Four key points
5. The future of policing: Staking a claim