This week I carried out a consultation for my Monday politics piece: I tweeted that I intended to write about why a non-police officer candidate for the role of Chief Inspector of Constabulary could be a good thing and asked for comments. I was pretty impressed with the willingness of people to enter into the debate in an open-minded way and the process changed my original position. I had been minded to defend the appointment of ‘outsider’ and reviewer of police pay and conditions Tom Winsor to the role. My conclusion now is that this is a bad decision made for tactical political reasons which damages the good strategic case for bringing external scrutiny into policing.
As one response put it, ‘the issue of outsider or not is NOT the same issue as Winsor or not’. This is right, so let’s divide them. The weakest comments, in my view, were those that tried to argue that only someone with experience as a police officer could inspect the police. However, HMIC itself describes its role thus: ‘we ask the questions which citizens would ask, and publish the answers in accessible form, using our expertise to interpret the evidence’. This job is about accountability and inspection – it doesn’t need the chief inspector to have operational experience of policing. In this, it differs from the role of chief officer which I believe should be carried out by someone who knows what it’s like, as one comment put it, ‘to arrest a violent person or deliver a death message’. This is why I resisted direct entry to higher ranks while I was home secretary – one of the reforms proposed by Winsor incidentally. Furthermore, despite tradition, the job of chief inspector does not need to be offering expert advice to the Home Office. I never found there to be a shortage of senior police officers willing to offer their views and advice!
While there will be some additional direct accountability from elected police and crime commissioners my criticism of this policy has always been that electing one person is too little direct accountability, not too much. So there are strong arguments for bringing in ‘fresh eyes’ and an alternative perspective from a non-police officer chief inspector. It’s why I considered it as home secretary – perhaps I was wrong to park the idea.
External chief inspectors have been the norm in other areas. One well-informed tweeter pointed out that ‘Ramsbotham, Owers and Hardwick were never prison officers, but all scrupulous, fair and independent.’ But it is in this description that we find the problem with the appointment of Winsor. I don’t doubt his personal integrity or skills, but his experience of policing comes from carrying out what many see as a political job for the home secretary and this government: cutting pay and conditions for police officers. In the eyes of too many, this will hardly put him in the ‘scrupulous, fair and independent’ category outlined above, not least as negotiations about the implementation of his proposals are still ongoing.
The ‘independent’ tag is further tested by the point made by Bridget Phillipson MP who said ‘the question I have is whether others in non-police senior roles or with relevant experience were also invited to apply’. Nick Hardwick’s experience at the IPCC or Louise Casey’s on ASB and as victims’ commissioner would have made them ideal candidates. Were they asked?
The home affairs select committee is due to carry out a confirmation hearing for this role in the near future. I suspect it’ll be pretty lively. It may also raise the issue of the extent to which the home secretary feels bound to listen to parliament. But that’s a topic for another day. Who knows, perhaps I’ll ask for views on that too!
—————————————————————————————
Jacqui Smith is former home secretary, writes the Monday Politics column for Progress, and tweets @smithjj62
—————————————————————————————
Some very good points Jacqui – I think there are many questions to ask:
Mr #Winsor…
• you are a well-qualified commercial lawyer. What other qualifications do you hold?
• as a lawyer, what is your view on the IPR of ideas created by private orgns under contract to gov agency. Who owns the property?
• do you think FoI should be applicable to all bodies that spend public money?
• please can you tell us what you know about implementing improvement in large public organisations.
• HMIC is an independt body. Can u give us an eg of where in your recent reports you deviated from Gov’s stated preferred line?
• before u were commissioned to write the reprts on police pay, how & where & how often had you met Home Sec & Policing Minister?
• have you ever met a Director of News International? If yes, under what circumstances, how often & what did u discuss?
• have you ever met a Director of G4S? If yes, under what circumstances, how often & what did u discuss?
• I assume you read Sir Dennis O’Connor’s reprt into police force size & overall effectiveness. How would you critique that reprt?
• traditionally HMCIC acts as the Home Secs most senior police adviser (eg appointing Met Commissioner). How do u foresee ur role?
• HMIC is an independent body. Can u give us an example of where in your recent reports you deviated from Gov’s stated preferred line?
• how should the forward plan for the HMIC be set? How will u determine which thematics to pursue?
• u appear to like v long reprts (may be linked to your practice as a 6minute unit chargeable lawyer). Are HMIC reports too short?
• had you been in charge of HMIC last August, what your response have been to the riots?
• u pride urself on thoro analysis. Please can u point to the evidence based research which proves t whole value of privatisation
Nick Hardwick is not the greatest example bearing in mind the IPCC’s poor reputation for independence.
This government wrongly believe the police are too powerful as they ARE independent. The HS is determined to undermine that status and has committed offences of political interference. Indeed she is now making veiled threats to the judiciary. HMIC does not have any real power, it can audit and give guidance, individual forces do not have to comply, there are no sanctions, SMT’s are not held to account there are no accreditations or BSi or international standards to achieve. The only Accreditations are such aa IIP and various society certificates like Stonewall.
Therefore much of the compliance with findings is acted upon due to the high regard Chief Officers hold to the person in office and the comparisons to other forces – a kind of pride, like school league tables. Mr Winsor will not hhold that respect
As he neither has the policing experience or the respect of the organisation, apart from officers losing pay etc in his review, the tone of the report is politically motivated, approves discrimination, negatively generalises and demeans devalues and demoralises officers. Nick Herbert stated in a television interview that Mr Winsor was the right person for the job as he had written a thousand page report on policing. No he didn’t, one could not cover ‘policing’ in such a short report. Who else was on the interview panel to ensure fairness, independence and free from political bias and prejudice. In any case Mr Winsor as a director and partner of a law firm who have a retainer with G4s have breached the Solicitors Code of Conduct Rule 3 Conflict of Interests and perhaps confidentiality & disclosure. Therefore is he a fit and proper person for such a role.
There is of course one other issue here. IF Mr Winsor, or some other non police experienced candidate makes a success of the post, it could open the doors to direct entry and to the first non police driven chief constable for many years( the early CC’s were ex military as they had the experience needed to set up the mechanics of the system). BUT if he fails, then it could equally close the door on that line of reform for a long while. They have let him rewrite the police service pay and conditions with little policing experience, and I personally think whats been done has put the system further down the road to ruin than it already was. Will this be another step downwards or will some common sense prevail. We shall see.
Winsor, independent? He may be independent of the police but he won’t be independent of the Government. His reports on terms and conditions mirror almost exactly David Cameron’s policing speech in 2006.
Winsor is a senior partner for the law firm which advises G4S on policing contracts.
Police Minister Nick Herbert was a key player in a number of think tanks (Reform and Policy Exchange) who aim to get private business doing public service functions. Who donates to these think tanks? yes G4S.
Winsor will set the inspection criteria for Forces and probably the PCCs as well. His inspection criteria could well include how much has been privatised.
Its has the appearance of being corrupt to the core.
One od the defences of May was that of the panel of five Inspectors of Constabulary, two are already non-police, Windsor making the third (majority). Setting aside Windsor, it does seem that the experience police officers are now in a minority.
A dditionally of concern is that they have geographical responsibilities, so only London and the north of England are overseen (Inspected) by someone with relevant experience.
I haven’t worked out who started this trend (was it you Jacqui?) but it does look as though in a year or two there won’t be any with experience of service in the police.
Another Solicitor in the wrong job is Michael Gove clone – Glenys Stacey of Ofqual. An overtly right wing Quango head.