TopOfTheCops.com

Some of you may remember the summertime saga of how the country’s Senior Presiding Judge, Lord Justice Goldring, attempted to ban magistrates from standing as Police and Crime Commissioners or doing anything that might be dodgy for being excessively political, you know, like delivering leaflets, before TopOfTheCops exposed them, wound up some PCC candidates, and within a week or so normality had resumed.

Well, this week we have been working with the Observer to reveal that when, on New Year’s Day Lord Justice Goldring moved on from that role, it was not before having left a little present behind, in an attempt to control magistrates interactions with the new PCCs.

The guidance issued in November is JO Circular AC(13) of 2012 and it leaves magistrates with few illusions as to who is boss, and few options as to what to do with PCCs. The guidance labours the point that individual magistrates are not in the public bodies listed as needing to cooperate with the PCC, and that the higher-ups in the Court Service can do that themselves, without magistrates help, thanks-very-much. No need for you mere JPs to bother your pretty little heads about it.

The emphasis of the document is very much that those Magistrates who have to work with PCCs should keep them at arms length, and though the impact of the August-U-turn may be felt in its more measured tones, the proposed restrictions are no less alarming.

There is practically a ban on magistrates being involved in public meetings with PCCs, as each instance would require the individual permission of the senior judiciary. Now, traditionally, plenty of magistrates have had their own separate involvement in politics. They may sit as Councillors. They may be MPs. They may want to keep their options open as to those roles. It doesn’t ring true with me that they would have felt the need to go cap in hand to a senior judge in order to participate in a public meeting with a PCC.

Some magistrates have reported receiving the guidance with a note requiring them to inform or involve senior court staff even if they have private meetings with PCCs, and this has not gone down well. Some magistrates feel that they know well enough what proper boundaries are, without an official being required to act as bodyguard/spy, and many will wonder what has changed since the days of magistrates being entitled to spaces on Police Authorities. Apparently it was fine then for magistrates not only to meet with the people who governed the police, but actually to be those very people.

The document betrays a concern about anticipated criticism of judicial decisions by PCCs – “In the event of a PCC commenting in public about judicial performance, whether about a particular case or individual judicial office-holder, or the sentencing patterns of a court or individual, in the first instance please contact the Chief Magistrate of Office of the Senior Presiding Judge for advice”.

This appears to show senior judges are uncomfortable with the new commissioners and aware of the potential for popular opinion to inform policing decisions and their sentencing decisions to be criticised.

I’m tempted to think that this latest guidance is evidence of a judicial land-grab as part of their strategy of dealing with elections within the criminal justice system. We are accustomed to judges defending judicial independence, but it seems they are greatly expanding the scope of what that independence might require, slowly squeezing out anyone with an involvement in politics or an independent thought in their head, in some effort to increase the distance between themselves and the new PCCs.

The problem for senior judges is that Magistrates may not wish to be treated like pawns in this game. They may have other commitments they don’t wish to give up. They may have a wider conception of the role of magistrate that goes beyond tick-boxing the existing guidance and that accepts a broader community responsibility for preserving law and order.

Take Julie Iles – formerly Conservative PCC candidate in Surrey, and long-serving magistrate – until someone complained about her mentioning being a magistrate in her campaigning. Dragged before a Judiciary Advisory Committee Panel, she felt that “It seems that if I wanted to express an opinion I might be picked up on it.” and added “I think it’s asking too much to give all outside interests up for what is a voluntary service.” She has decided to give up being a magistrate.

Can the courts really afford to lose people like Julie Iles? Can they afford to make the price of being a magistrate so high? Can senior judges’ conception of  judicial independence be so strong that normal judges, like magistrates, can have no actual independence from those senior judges themselves? Perhaps the senior judiciary are the real threat to judicial independence?

I want to wish the best of luck to those magistrates who find the strength to hang on and who see the possibilities presented for working together with PCCs on a local basis to tackle the crime problems in their local communities. I hope that the Senior Judiciary do not make it impossible for that to happen, and I commend the public service of those magistrates who  have tried to make it work, but no longer feel they can.

Oh dear, did I blow the whistle on local politicians' expenses? I'm ever so sorry. To be fair, I kind of knew that saying “Hang on, I think you should have a look at this” was the equivalent of painting a bright red target on my back, but then I also felt that the good people out there would see the backlash for what it was.

And so it begins…

Today, as is the practice at Lancashire County Council, I was informed that a Freedom of Information request has come in about me. Here it is –

I wish to make a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act concerning Councillor Sam Chapman. I would prefer to receive this information by email but if that is not possible then by post is acceptable too.

1. Please send me all the details you hold of all expenses claims made by Cllr Chapman (whether paid or not) since his election. I am particularly interested to know the date, amount and reason of each claim and whether it was paid and when by the Council. Please include a copy of all receipt and invoices for all claims.

2. Please send me all details you hold of all other payments made to Cllr Chapman since his election. I expect this will include, but will not be limited to, his allowances as a councillor and committee chairman.

3. Please send me all the details you hold of any complaints made against Cllr Chapman both since his election or pertaining to his election campaign and received by any officer or member of the Council, or anyone else if the information is held by the Council.

The info doesn't say who it's from, but I have offered to trade copies of all my receipts if they will tell me who I should send them to.

Now, I know from bitter experience just how frustrating it is to have to wait for the answer to such a request, and as the deadline for this one is 18 January, and as I suspect the officers might then just direct the person asking to the website where they publish most of this stuff anyway, and so don't have to tell anyone separately, I thought I would do what I could to save them the agony of waiting and stop it from spoiling their Christmas.

So here's what I can tell you in terms of answers since I was first elected in 2009:-

1. Expenses claims.

2009-10 None

2010-11 None

2011-12 None

2012-13 None so far.

That's a total of nothing, by the way, or 'nowt', seeing as it's Lancashire.

Sorry, that's a bit dull isn't it? Clearly I have spent money on my Council-related travel, mainly on mileage to County Hall and back again, and also on food when I was there, and the rules do allow Councillors a privilege not extended to members of staff, whereby travel to 'work' and some grub to make the trip worthwhile can be charged to the taxpayer, but I didn't take advantage of that one.

Now, that's kind of meaningless with nothing to compare it to, but County Councillors all do different jobs, so it's kind of difficult to get a fair comparison. Hmmm. I've decided that as I chair Lancashire County Council's Audit and Governance committee that maybe I should just see how my predecessor on what was the Audit Committee has done over the same period.

That person was on the Wyre Borough Council and Lancashire Police Authority as well, so please bear with me with the maths. The Police Authority's website isn't reliably accessible since the Authority was abolished, but you can find the expenses here so I hope I've added this right – In the last three years his “expenses” (food, mileage, travel, parking, etc) were:-

2009-10 LCC £1,336.60 + Wyre £190.23 + LPA £2,489.04 = Total of £4,015.87

2010-11 LCC £2,824.79 + Wyre £220 + LPA £1,135.29 = Total of £4,180.08

2011-12 LCC £1,778.20 + Wyre £65.10 + LPA £2,192.10 = Total of £4,035.40

2012-13 – Don't know yet, and may never know the Lancashire Police Authority figures.

That's a total of £12,231.35 in expenses in 3 years, which is, er, £12,231.35 more than me.

Wow! Looks like somebody has a season ticket on the gravy train!

Who is this mystery councillor?

2. All other payments, including allowances as a councillor and committee chairman.

For being a County Councillor and Chair of the Audit Committee I have received the grand total of

2009-10 £10,254.61 (a part-year amount as I was elected in June)

2010-11 £13,034.04

2011-12 £13,034

2012-13 Haven't done the sums

So for three years that is a grand total of £36,322.65

Though I should take your guidance here. When I was elected I took a reduction in hours from my employer to allow me to do my duties as a Councillor. Now, the unions had negotiated a discretion for the Director to still pay me my full salary while on my duties as a Councillor, but I wrote to him and asked him just to deduct it from my pay, seeing as I thought it was wrong for the taxpayer to pay me for the same time twice. Should I deduct that from these allowances – it was a hefty sum, though I never worked out how much?

What about our mystery Councillor – how did he do?

2009-10 LCC £13,500.34 + Wyre £10,464.62 + LPA £14,721 = Total of £38,685.96

2010-11 LCC £16,851.17 + Wyre £10,570.29 + LPA £15,103.92 = Total of £42,525.48

2011-12 LCC £12,357.11 + Wyre £5,872 + LPA £15,103.92 = Total of £33,333.03

2012-13 Info not available

So our mystery councillor pulled in £114,544.47 in allowances in 3 years, which is very impressive, as his party aren't even in power. Now that's a professional politician!

All told, on my sums, with expenses, he grossed over £126,000 in income over a 3 year period by virtue of getting elected a couple of times in Fleetwood.

Yes, our mystery councillor is none other than Clive Grunshaw, Lancashire's new £85,000 per year Police and Crime Commissioner, who incidentally hasn't given up his Wyre Borough Council or Lancashire County Council jobs or allowances just yet. Well, he has to make ends meet.

3. Complaints.

Oh, there's an idea – I hadn't thought of asking about complaints. I'll have to remember that one.

For me, none I know of, but there may be some no-one has told me about and, now that I'm a target, I guess I can expect that to change.

For Clive Grunshaw – I hope to have told you about the main ones, but who knows?

Anyway, I hope all that has taken a weight off the mind of the enquirer. Perhaps, if they like the suspense, they should ask about what percentage of the council meetings I'm expected at that I actually turn up to. I can't wait to do that comparison.

P.S.

Don't rush to thank me for my relatively parsimonious approach – instead, thank this guy. He is Malcolm Pritchard, an Independent County Councillor from Hyndburn who doesn't just not claim expenses, but doesn't even claim the basic allowance for doing the job. So over 3 years he has cost nothing at all. I can't afford to do that, but I salute Malcolm's sense of public service.

Last week's joint effort on Deputy PCC appointments between TopOfTheCops and the Mail on Sunday seems to have struck a chord, being followed by a number of articles such as those in the Guardian and the Times and an item on yesterday's Today programme on BBC Radio 4 (1 hour and 10 minutes in), where Northamptonshire Commissioner Adam Simmonds (who isn't appointing a Deputy but has 4 interim Assistants) and the Police Foundation's Jon Collins both acquitted themselves very well.

Both accepted the need for transparency in appointments including such wild innovations as the use of advertisements, and Adam Simmonds joined a list so far populated only by Dorset Commissioner Martyn Underhill and Leicestershire Commissioner Sir Clive Loader in indicating that he didn't anticipate needing to recruit a Deputy. Many Commissioners have yet to come to a firm conclusion (23 have not proposed a Deputy) and a couple are recruiting a Deputy using open recruitment processes.

So this week TopOfTheCops has been working once again with the Mail on Sunday to explore a related issue – that of Commissioners who have enough time for another paid role, but not enough time to do without a Deputy.

Possibly the most egregious example is that of TopOfTheCops regular and Lancashire Commissioner Clive “what has he done this time” Grunshaw.

Back in May I heard a rumour that mere County Councillor Grunshaw (as he then was) had told one of Labour's internal selection hustings meetings that he intended, if elected PCC, to drop his role as Wyre Labour group leader, but to retain his roles on the County and Borough Councils and to seek re-election for them as they came due. So I asked him to confirm whether this was his intention and to elaborate on how he hoped to find time to do all the various roles he would hold.

Here is his reply:-

Hi Sam

I'm happy to confirm that the views that have been attributed to me are misleading, mischievous and inaccurate. This has not been raised with me during hustings and if it had been I would have indicated that I see the role of Police & Crime Commissioner for Lancashire as a full-time position (how could it be otherwise?).

Hope this helps?

Kind regards

Clive

The emphasis is mine but the words are his and clear enough, one might think. So how odd that, straight after the election, we see this story in the Lancashire Evening Post, “Police Chief set to stay with council” and confirmation that he has resigned his position as Wyre Labour Group leader, but will be retaining his paid roles at Lancashire County Council and Wyre Borough Council for the short term at least.

Hang on – isn't that pretty much what he denied in May? And what happened to Commissioner being a full time position and “how could it be otherwise”. There's some stuff about avoiding a by-election, except that I have separately been advised that they are not held within 6 months of an actual election, which is the case with the Commissioner's County Council seat.

Perhaps he's already feeling the pressure though, as he has decided to go with a Deputy in the form of fellow Labour activist and former Police Authority colleague Ibrahim Master, who you may remember Grunshaw was disciplined for mistreating during the Labour selection campaign.

This post was advertised in…. oh wait, no it wasn't! Grunshaw didn't have to spend a moment thinking about it as Commissioner, because he announced his choice months before he was even elected. I've worked with Ibby in the past, and suspect the Commissioner will have a higher batting average with him than without him, but Clive has clearly missed the opportunity to attract other Lancashire talent on a competitive and non-partisan basis.

I don't mind if a Commissioner thinks he needs a Deputy. It is a big job and one person is unlikely to have all the skills and time to do it effectively on their own when just one bit of the job was taken forward by 17 different people in the past. In fact, the approach that Adam Simmonds has adopted, appreciating how much is new work, and building a team up from what is demanded, seems eminently sensible (and well worth a read).

Also I understand that if someone has 6 months to go as a Councillor, it probably makes more sense to honour the commitment made when elected to that post, rather than leave those constituents unrepresented.

But I do mind if people run so many jobs together that they cannot do them effectively, or if they go back on their word by keeping roles they had promised to drop, because that diminishes both them and the many offices they hold.

Commissioners may need extra staff to do a bigger job, but who will believe this if they keep other jobs themselves? Taxpayers will be suspicious that, having paid for the Commissioner, they are having to pay again for a Deputy to cover their absence.

The PCC election was a massive missed opportunity for the Labour party, but it was also so much more.

To appreciate that, have a look at Wales. North Wales and Gwent have gone to Independents. Dyfed-Powys has gone to the Tories. South Wales nearly went Independent, with Alun Michael seeing Mike Baker coming within 12,000 votes of him in the second round. Labour, having spent the election cursing the rules on previous convictions must privately be glad of their existence, as Simon Weston surely could have closed that gap and left Welsh policing free of Labour entirely.

Mid-terms are supposed to bring the blues but not these blues. How did the Conservatives on a bad day still end up with more PCCs than Labour?

One way was for Labour to mis-play their winning card. The Labour party had the most open final selection procedure with a postal ballot for every member. Because they were doing elections for the NEC at the same time, it didn’t even cost them a meaningful extra sum. They arranged some hustings, shortlisted some candidates, and potentially involved all their members in a way no other party did, leaving them in a great position to ask those members to return to the doorstep in autumn.

Except they didn’t do that. In 12 of the 41 areas there was no such election. To be fair, a reasonable number of these would probably have been written off as “no hopers”. Labour winning in Surrey or Wiltshire or several other areas was going to be difficult, and in some places they only had one candidate offering to take a bullet for the party.

But that wasn’t always the case. In 2 areas, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, the Labour candidate was expected to win, yet by the time the shortlist was finalised, there was only one name on it. It’s easy to say that heavyweights may have scared off other candidates but, in other areas that were contested, the heavyweights had a real fight on their hands. A number of Labour people have complained of a culture of fixing selections, and this was reported in the local press in places like Leicestershire. Sarah Russell should have won there, but her opponent had recently run the RAF, there was an Independent possibly damaging her vote, and a number of members of the local party felt her selection was fixed and they had no say.

The feeling of elections being fixed spread into other areas that were contested. In Merseyside, John Ashton decided not to enter the contest, seeing it as set up for ex-Ministers. In Lancashire a prominent candidate was added to the interview list, but ‘missed off’ the invites, others reported the selection was fixed and one went public. The winning candidate got 5 grand from a union to help his selection chances, and broke the law, failing to declare the donations till after the selection was complete. He was not disciplined by Labour for this, but was disciplined for negative campaigning against his Labour rivals, but in a slap-on-the-wrist way that still allowed him to be selected. One Labour figure told me “there’s no point complaining about Clive in the Labour party. He’s got the backing of Unite and they won’t let anything happen to him.”

It is not for no reason that the most popular post on this site consistently for the past 6 months has been the one that pointed up difficulties with Labour’s selection procedure. By missing full selection processes in 12 areas and allowing a feeling of fixing to spread Labour lost a clear advantage.

Labour also made the mistake of all political parties in choosing politicians as candidates, who the electorate did not want, and turning down candidates with police experience, who the electorate preferred. These preferences were clear in multiple pieces of research, and at the election itself. The difference with Labour is that choosing experienced police candidates would have sat better with their “don’t politicise policing’ ethic than their eventual choice of candidates heavily populated by ex-MPs and ex-Ministers.

The worst indulgence was John Prescott, whose early interviews betrayed no appreciation of the need to not interfere with police operations, and who, despite receiving more free publicity from the media than any other candidate, gave effect to his Marmite tendency, as those who don’t like him used their Supplementary Vote in Humberside to propel Conservative Matthew Grove to victory. Easy to forget that the local party had the choice of a retired Chief Superintendent, and very nearly took it. Another retired Chief Super very nearly stole second place, and the election, on his own, without party backing. In choosing Prescott, Labour showed itself to be out-of-touch with local electors.

But they were also out of touch with the law. Time and again Labour candidates were removed because of some breach of the law that would disqualify them from office. Yes, Theresa May didn’t appreciate this either, but anyone with a basic familiarity with the law could have told them that it applied to teenage convictions, and that aspect of the law had been supported by their parliamentary team. One would have expected Labour’s lawyers to spot that Alan Charles was not in fact disqualified, but he had to stand down and be reinstated, then forced to explain about his teenage purse theft that would otherwise have remained unknown. And frankly the late attempted withdrawal of Lee Barron in Northamptonshire, leaving local voters with no Labour option that could win, but with him confusingly still on the ballot paper, surely demands a proper investigation. It cannot be good that Labour selections often gave the impression of preferring convicts to coppers.

Finally, Labour suffered from a confused approach to these elections. The line taken was “these posts are dangerous and will politicise policing, but you’ve done it now and so we are taking part”. There was no recognition of recent Labour policy positions that were more favourably disposed to a role for the electorate in policing. There was little in the way of spelling out what was different about having a Labour PCC. Few candidates who might win would actually do more than make noises about police numbers. There were no guarantees.

The danger for Labour is that this confused approach continues into office. A number of PCCs seem to be at some point on the road to Damascus, with people like Vera Baird taking to explaining why the role won’t be overly political after all. There seems to be a desire to stand up for police numbers, but not in a way that provides money for them by raising Council Tax enough to cause a local referendum. No. The government will be asked for money it doesn’t have, and Labour will look they they have not learned the lessons of “spend, spend, spend”.

As PCCs take up their positions today Peter Walker says the key question is “What happens next?”

When senior officers in the Japanese Navy were planning the attack on Pearl harbour, one of them told a briefing “This will give us naval supremacy in the western Pacific for 18 months.” Admiral Yamamoto is said to have responded “What happens next?”

As history shows, what did happen was that the United States waged total warfare with all the rage and might the most developed economy in the world could muster and the Japanese nation lay devastated five years later.

It is for this reason I have been discussing “What happens next” with many people over the past few months and a few days ago an analysis of the impact at Home Office level has been published on Conservative Home. However, I had also said to Sam a more localised version might help individual PCC's – if they have time to read his Blog anymore!

One of the greatest frustrations for police officers and I suspect Commissioners will initially share this) is the complete lack of understanding the vast majority of the public have of the complexities of their job. In my short and unspectacular political career (I unsuccessfully applied to be the Conservative candidate in North Yorkshire) I regularly asked people how many police officers they thought were on duty in their area at night. That I never received a correct answer was unsurprising, but communities thinking that more police are on duty by a factor of at least ten – which was their consistent response – is a misapprehension that creates a matrix of ill-informed judgements about what level of service can be provided.

One could give dozens of similar examples, including the time consumed in dealing with people who are mentally ill, the anti social behaviour caused by Labour extending drinking hours across the country without a thought as to the impact this would have on emergency services, the challenges of meeting national obligations to provide assistance in times of crisis, or working across force boundaries to disrupt and deter Organised Crime. Delivering criminal justice is a complex enterprise and to be blunt, many people just don't know that.

This is why locally elected Commissioners are so important. As you get to grips with these complexities, you will be able to really assist your communities and the standing of your Commission within them.

Rather than seventeen people who never really engaged with the public, cost a fortune and most importantly, levied taxes without having to subject them to a test at the ballot box, one person has the responsibility for determining priorities on behalf of their community, arranging for the money to be in place to deliver them and who, in a few months, will have to justify to that community what the Council Tax precept will be. It is they who will be able to explain to communities what the demands on the force are, how they are dealing with them and what help they need from the public and other agencies to do so.

Here's a prediction. The normal distribution curve will apply to the success of individual Commissioners, regardless of their political party.

Some will simply not be up to the job – they will have been fortunate to be selected in politically “safe” areas, not had their policies tested in the campaign (which has nothing to do with their campaigning ability but will provide for an interesting first meeting with the Chief Constable), they may lack the strategic skills for the post or not have the personal resilience required for the constant criticism they may well face. They will answer this by trying to blame the Government for lack of money.

The second group will “get by”, but make no real difference. The same old processes, with their accompanying bureaucracy will continue. Crime may continue to fall, but in spite of, rather than because, the Commissioner holds office. Few changes will take place in the staff inherited from the Police Authority. Partnership working will provide employment for people who go to meetings for a living. Expect heat, but not light, from these areas, accompanied by bleating about resources.

In the third group of force areas, we will see changes to working practices, some curtailment of the massive cost of sickness, greater visibility of patrolling officers, coherent approaches to victims. We will read about success in the newspapers, not just the recycling of the same old “initiatives”. Partnerships will be developing. Crime will be falling, public satisfaction genuinely rising, victims coming forward because they have confidence in the system. Expect to see other forces copying what is being done.

The top performing Commissioners will be achieving performance, yet keeping Council Tax low. A high calibre Chief Constable will be working seamlessly with the Commissioner, officers and staff will have morale as high as the public's satisfaction with the service. Crime will be down and victim care will be second to none. Highly developed partnerships will be creating savings not only for the police, but across the criminal justice sector and local government. A well-worn path to the Commissioner's door will evidence other people coming to see how they are operating a Public Sector enterprise with a Private Sector culture and Police Service values.

As the euphoria of electoral success wears off over the next few days and your mind starts to grip the enormity of the task you have taken on, I suspect the words of Admiral Yamamoto may be of help – not as a reason to reach for the Valium, but to use as a simple test of the decisions about the budget or the Policing Plan you are about to make.

“What happens next?” is a question that you will find enormously useful as your Chief Executive or Chief Constable briefs you about what is happening and what their existing plans are. As they tell you the sky will fall in unless a particular project continues, or Department retains the staff it presently has, you can form your own judgement.

You now own the risks associated with your force (as Ron Hogg in Durham has already found out, because they have recently received criticism at an inquest about a prisoner who tragically died in custody). Yet you cannot afford to be risk averse – your decisions about priorities must be couched in your careful assessment of force effectiveness, efficiency and value for money, with the aim of reducing crime and making communities feel safe.

The world (or your bit of it) will beat a path to your door over the next few weeks. Sam has covered the need for someone to talk to. I agree, but in a slightly different manner. It is true to say that MP's work in a collegiate atmosphere. After a hard day's work, they can get together with colleagues. So can Councillors. Council Leaders and Ministers may be in positions where their personal decisions are more exposed, but they have all either been Councillors or MP's and have seen how the decision making processes work.

Commissioners are a new breed of politician, doing a singular job. With the exception of very few, they have not been exposed to the strategic decision making involved in Criminal Justice. They will take tough decisions about people's jobs, force facilities, services provided. No matter how grand the office they have inherited from the Police Authority may be, it isn't the Palace of Westminster. The military concept of the “loneliness of leadership” is true. You will need someone to help you with this.

Some might think that this article is heading towards a sales pitch. Actually, I truly believe that to engage consultancy support to do the job for which you have been elected would be the daftest thing you could do in a presentational sense. It may be that you want to make headlines in your first few weeks. Please rest assured that paying for somebody else to tell you how to be a Commissioner – especially someone who is already on a Police Pension – will get you on the front page. However, you may not want to read the story!

So what to do? Look inside your personal network. Every political party contains people with a bank of skills. Independent candidates were not successful because the fairies delivered leaflets in the night. Your friends, your family, people that you come across as you embed yourselves into your new role. Learn who to trust and who to avoid – and be ruthless in that judgement with few second chances. Get one with political nous. One who watches your back, who will say “No” to you.

Most importantly – please remember at all times that any right minded person does not want to see you fail. Policing is too important for that.