On 23 February 2023, the House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following question for short debate:

Lord Bach (Labour) to ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change the (1) structure, (2) purpose, and (3) powers, of police and crime panels.

1. Police and crime panels

1.1 What are police and crime panels?

Police and crime panels are the bodies that scrutinise police and crime commissioners (PCCs). PCCs are directly elected politicians who are responsible for securing an “efficient and effective police force for their area”. Both PCCs and police and crime panels were established by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, with the first PCC elections taking place in 2012.

There are 41 police and crime panels across England and Wales. The majority of these scrutinise the work of the directly elected PCC. However, in Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, where there are directly elected combined authority mayors who exercise PCC functions, the panels scrutinise the mayors and their deputy mayors for policing and crime.

Four of the panels have an extended remit that covers fire and rescue as well as policing and crime. The Policing and Crime Act 2017 introduced opportunities for PCCs to take on responsibility for fire and rescue governance in their area and thereby become a police, fire and crime commissioner (PFCC). There are currently PFCCs in Essex, Northamptonshire, North Yorkshire and Staffordshire. Where a PCC becomes a PFCC, the police and crime panel becomes a police, fire and crime panel. Its role is to provide equivalent scrutiny of both the PCC’s police and crime and fire and rescue functions.

There are different arrangements in London. The mayor of London holds the equivalent of PCC functions for the Metropolitan Police area, and the Police and Crime Committee of the London Assembly scrutinises the work of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. The Police and Crime Committee has similar functions to police and crime panels in the rest of England and Wales, with some exceptions. For instance, there is no confirmation hearing for the Metropolitan Police commissioner (unlike for chief constables of other police forces) as the position is by royal appointment. In the City of London, the Court of Common Council is the police authority that oversees the City of London Police. The Common Council has delegated its police authority functions to the City of London Policy Authority Board, with the exception of appointing the police commissioner.

1.2 What are their purpose and powers?

The government has described the purpose of police and crime panels as “to scrutinise the actions and decisions of their PCC, providing both support and challenge, acting as a critical friend”.

The provisions of the 2011 act give police and crime panels the authority to:

  • Scrutinise all decisions or actions in connection with the discharge of the PCC’s functions.
  • Veto chief constable appointments (with a two-thirds majority).
  • Veto the proposed precept, with a two-thirds majority. PCCs set a local police precept each year, which local taxpayers pay as part of their council tax. This accounts for around a third of the funding PCCs receive for the force budget; they also receive funding from central government. The panel only has a veto over the first proposed precept each year. If a panel reports that is has vetoed the proposed precept amount because it believes it is too high, the revised precept must be lower than the original proposal. If the panel vetoes the proposal for being too low, the revised precept must be higher.
  • Require the PCC to provide information and answer questions (at reasonable notice).
  • Make reports and recommendations on the police and crime plan and annual report, which the PCC must take account of and respond to.
  • Hold public meetings to discuss the annual report and to question the PCC on its contents.
  • Carry out confirmation hearings when a PCC proposes to appoint a chief constable (and chief fire officer, where applicable), a deputy PCC, a chief executive or a chief finance officer.
  • Work to resolve non-criminal complaints about the PCC.
  • Publish all reports and recommendations that it makes.
  • Suspend the relevant PCC if they are charged with an imprisonable offence which carries a maximum term of two years or more.
  • Appoint an acting PCC if the elected one cannot carry out their role due to incapacitation, suspension, resignation or disqualification
  • Play a role in any call made by a PCC for a chief constable to resign or retire under section 38 of the 2011 act.

Panels have a statutory obligation to hold four public meetings a year. The government has said that on average, they meet between four and six times a year, although some may meet more often depending on their work programmes.

1.3 Who sits on police and crime panels?

Each panel is made up of:

  • at least two co-opted independent members
  • at least 10 elected representatives (councillors or elected mayors) from the local authorities within the area covered by the police force

Where the police force area covers 10 or more local authorities, each local authority has one representative on the panel. If the police force area covers fewer than 10 local authorities, there will be one representative from each local authority, and the remaining seats are distributed between the authorities by negotiation. Panels may co-opt additional members as long as the total number of panel members does not exceed 20 and the home secretary approves the co-options.

In England, it is the local authorities that nominate and appoint elected councillors to the panel, although the home secretary can do so if the appointed number of panel members is less than required, or if a local authority has failed to appoint its member(s). In Wales, local authorities propose nominations for agreement by the home secretary.

The 2011 act places a duty on local authorities, the home secretary and on panels themselves when nominating, appointing or co-opting members to produce a balanced panel, so far as reasonably practicable. This means having councillor members to represent all parts of the police force area and the political make-up of the local authorities and having councillors and co-opted members with the skills, knowledge and experience necessary for the panel to discharge its functions effectively.

1.4 How are police and crime panels funded?

Current government guidance explains that an annual total of £53,300 is provided for support and running costs per panel, with Welsh panels being given an additional £5,715 for translation costs. On top of this, £920 per panel member per year is added to each panel’s total grant. The total funding available therefore depends on the size and location of the panel. The grant is typically used to cover:

  • costs of employing a supporting officer
  • training and development for members
  • expenses
  • procurement of relevant services such as website support or online broadcasting of public panel meetings

The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee questioned in 2014 whether panels were adequately funded. It noted that the Home Office provided funding of £53,000 to each panel in 2013/14, on the assumption that panels would require a single full-time scrutiny officer and would meet four times a year. The committee argued that this funding did “not reflect the workload of panels”, and that if panels were to play a stronger role in proactively scrutinising commissioners, they needed to be “resourced accordingly”. In response, the government argued that police and crime panels received funding “commensurate with the non-executive scrutiny role required of them by legislation”.

The Local Government Association (LGA) reported in 2020 that many councils were subsidising the work of their local panel. The LGA called for more funding for panels claiming the full amount of their grant to ensure there was enough money to run the panel and support and train its members without using funding from other parts of the local authorities’ budgets.

2. How effective are police and crime panels?

Some concerns have been raised about whether police and crime panels have the right resources, training or powers to carry out effective scrutiny.

A report by the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life on leadership, ethics and accountability in policing, published in 2015, identified issues relating to police and crime panels as “significant standards risks”. It said there were barriers to the effective operation of police and crime panels as scrutinisers including support, resources and the consistency and credibility of representative membership. It also found panels’ ability to scrutinise and support PCCs was affected by a lack of timely and accessible information being provided by PCCs.

Barry Loveday, an academic from the University of Portsmouth, suggested in evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life that there were “structural weaknesses” in the accountability model of police and crime panels. For instance, he argued panels had to rely on “powers of persuasion” since PCCs are bound only to “have regard to” panel reports. He identified an “inherent role conflict” because the 2011 act requires panels to be “supportive” of their PCCs in the effective exercise of their functions.

The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee carried out an enquiry into PCCs in 2016. It concluded that the new system of police and crime panels seemed “to have taken some time to bed down”. The committee emphasised it was “essential” that the checks and balances on commissioners that police and crime panels are intended to provide operate effectively. However, the committee was not convinced that panel members were receiving the right training, resources and support in all police force areas. It also expressed concerns that panels were not meeting their commissioners frequently enough in all cases. The committee recommended the Home Office, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) and the College of Policing should work together to see what additional support police and crime panels needed to operate more effectively, and to spread good practice amongst panels.

In response, the government said it was confident that panels could carry out robust scrutiny of PCCs. It also said it would engage with the Home Office, the APCC and the LGA over any work being undertaken to assess what additional support police and crime panels needed to operate effectively. It said it would see where the Home Office, alongside other organisations, could support the sharing of best practice.

The LGA found in 2020 that many panels were “concerned that they do not have the tools to effectively hold their PCC to account”. For instance, it said a consistent concern from panels was that they do not have “the tools to adequately manage complaints made against the PCC”, with many panels arguing the power to investigate complaints would enable them to undertake their complaints function more effectively. Panels must refer allegations that the PCC has committed a criminal offence to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. For other complaints, the panel must arrange for them to be subjected to informal resolution, but this must not include investigation of the complaint.

The LGA also highlighted that panels have limited powers to require PCCs to respond to their concerns. It said “the panel’s power of veto is a clear illustration of this, with panels able to veto the PCC’s first proposed precept, or proposed appointment of a chief constable, but then powerless to require changes beyond this, even, if in the case of the precept, the PCC makes only minor changes”.

The LGA also identified the requirement for political balance on panels as leading to regular churn in panel membership. It said this could potentially affect the development of experience, skills and competence among panel members. It called on the Home Office to consider how to address this, including through developing training content or allowing increased flexibility in co-opting extra members to respond to skills gaps without needing approval from the home secretary.

The effectiveness of arrangements for holding PCCs to account, including the role of police and crime panels, has been raised in the House of Lords by Lord Bach (who has tabled this question for short debate), Lord Lexden (Conservative) and others in a recent oral question and question for short debate.

3. Government review

The government has reviewed police and crime panels as part of a wider review of PCCs. The Conservative Party’s 2019 manifesto made a commitment to “strengthen the accountability of elected police and crime commissioners and expand their role”. In July 2020, the government announced details of a two-part internal review into the role of PCCs. Kit Malthouse, the then minister of state for crime, policing and the fire service, explained that the first part of the review would focus on changes to strengthen the PCC model which, where possible, could be delivered ahead of the PCC elections taking place in 2021. It would also help the government map out its longer-term ambitions for expanding the PCC role. The second part of the review would focus on longer-term reforms with a view to implementation ahead of the 2024 PCC elections.

3.1 Part one

The terms of reference for part one of the review included a commitment to look at how to improve the current scrutiny model for PCCs, including the provision of common quality standards and the role of panel chairs.

Priti Patel, the then home secretary, set out the findings of part one of the review in a statement to the House of Commons in March 2021. She said the Home Office would bring forward a range of measures to strengthen PCC accountability. Two of these measures mentioned police and crime panels specifically:

  • The Home Office would consult on potential changes to the Policing Protocol Order 2011 to provide a “brighter line” on the boundaries of operational independence and reflect changes in the relationship between the parties to the protocol that had taken place over time. The protocol sets out how policing governance relationships should work, including the roles and responsibilities of the home secretary, PCCs, chief constables and police and crime panels.
  • To improve scrutiny, the Home Office would work with the LGA to develop a good governance training package for police and crime panels.

3.2 Part two

Part two of the review took place between July 2021 and March 2022. The terms of reference for part two of the review specified that, among other things, it would look at the police and crime panel model, specifically:

  • the benefits of independent members
  • identifying and securing the right skill sets
  • options to strengthen panel support

Priti Patel set out the findings of part two of the review in March 2022. She said it had found independent members on panels were “important, bringing relevant skills, expertise and greater diversity”. A more detailed document setting out the full recommendations from part two of the review pledged the Home Office would:

  • work with the LGA and Welsh LGA to improve the process for recruiting and retaining independent members, to build upon the knowledge and expertise that independent members bring to panels, help boost interest in the role and enhance the calibre and diversity of those individuals
  • work with the LGA and Welsh LGA to develop and assess options for how a regional panel support secretariat could work within the existing grant funding envelope to improve professionalism, quality and consistency of support and research for panels by support officers

Following up one of the recommendations from part one of the review, Ms Patel also announced she was launching a “targeted stakeholder consultation to seek views from our policing partners” on how to refresh the Policing Protocol Order 2011 to ensure that “all those involved in policing understand their respective roles”. The consultation on the 2011 order ran from 7 March 2022 to 2 May 2022. In relation to panels, it sought views on whether the protocol should be amended to:

  • specifically clarify that the remit of police and crime panels to scrutinise mayors with PCC functions extends only to their PCC functions and not their wider mayoral functions
  • further clarify the panel’s role and remit in respect of operational policing matters (in other words, that it would be only in exceptional circumstances that a chief constable would appear before a panel)

The consultation document said the second point was in response to policing partners raising concerns that panels “sometimes overstepped their remit by routinely asking detailed operational questions […] when their role is to hold a PCC to account for their delivery of the strategic objectives within their police and crime plan”.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom, parliamentary under secretary of state at the Home Office, said in October 2022 that the government was considering responses to the consultation and would “update in due course”.

3.3 Publication of guidance for panels

Following on from the review, the government published updated guidance for police and crime panels. In the foreword to the guidance, Kit Malthouse said that through the review, the Home Office had determined that “panels have the right and proper powers at their disposal to scrutinise PCCs effectively and ‘shine a light’ on the PCC’s progress against their police and crime plan, providing transparency to the public and enabling them to hold their PCC to account at the ballot box”.

However, Mr Malthouse said he also recognised that policing stakeholders had regularly highlighted the need for better guidance and training for panels. He said the updated guidance, produced by the Home Office and Dods Group, was intended to provide practical information for panel chairs, members and supporting officers about their statutory roles and responsibilities, and effective scrutiny. Other documents on good practice and member recruitment and bitesize videos on key scrutiny areas were also published alongside the guidance.

4. Read more

Cover image by Andrew Martin from Pixabay.