Independent Police Complaints Commission
Printable version

Letter from Dame Anne Owers to the Home Secretary responding to Dame Shelia Drew Smith's review

The following letter was sent by IPCC Chair Dame Anne Owers on 19 January 2016 to the Home Secretary regarding the consultation and the review of our own proposals by conducted by Dame Shelia Drew Smith.

Dear Home Secretary,

I said that I would write to you once Commission had been able to discuss the Drew Smith review. Clearly, you will also wish to take account of the views expressed during the public consultation.

Broadly, Commission very much welcomes the report, which we see as a thoughtful and helpful development of the proposals that we put before you last autumn, in order to provide an effective governance structure for a much larger organisation, while ensuring and enhancing public confidence in its approach and operations. Key to both of these aims is a single line of accountability and decision-making, culminating in a Crown appointee.

The report proposes that this person should not be a corporation sole, as we had originally suggested, but should chair a unitary board, with a majority of non- executive members. We agree that this proposal provides a more resilient and supportive governance structure, while avoiding replicating the current dual accountability structure, which would be the case if there were two separate public appointees as chair and organisational head.

The report is, however, silent as to how the non-executives are to be appointed and selected. Our current board, as you are aware, is a diverse body, consisting of independent public appointees from a wide range of background and experience. Commission is strongly of the view that the new board should also be appointed through an open and transparent procedure, with selection criteria that ensure diversity and a breadth of experience and that command public confidence. We believe that, following the consultation process, there should be further discussion of whether and if so how this should be specified in legislation or regulations.

Commission supports the report’s proposal that there should be two deputies, reporting to the head of the organisation, though we believe more work needs to be done on the division of responsibilities between those two roles, to ensure that there is operational consistency in line with the target operating model now being developed, and also that the operational, policy and communications streams work closely together. This, of course, need not be specified in legislation.

Commission also strongly agrees with the Drew Smith report's view that it should be mandatory for the new organisation to have a regional structure. We do not believe that the legislation should be prescriptive as to how many, or which, regions though it may wish to prescribe that there should be an office in Wales. We believe that a regional footprint, which requires good relationships with forces, PCCs, community stakeholders and, in the case of Wales, national bodies, is essential for the new organisation, as it has been for the IPCC. We also support the proposal that there should be regional stakeholder advisory boards.

Because of the importance of the regional structure, the role of the regional heads is crucial. The Drew Smith report says (para. 5.7) that they would ‘occupy a vital and significant role as the main visible point of contact in that area for the community and families, individual police forces, PCCs, the local and other statutory authorities, as well as being public facing and dealing with the media. They must have strong personal credibility.... [and] need to have sufficient seniority and experience as well as being independent’. Commission strongly agrees with this, and we believe that this has consequences for the role and those who occupy it.

For those reasons, Commission does not support either the proposed title for the regional heads (’Directors’) or the proposal that only the Crown appointee heading the whole organisation should be subject to a statutory requirement never to have worked under the direction and control of a chief constable. These are essentially leadership and decision-making roles, and in such a large organisation will be both the visible face and the key decision-maker in the region or nation.

It remains the unanimous view of Commission that it is integral to public confidence that these individuals, as well as the proposed operational deputies, should, like current Commissioners, not have a police background. This is not because we do not value the skills and expertise of the ex-police staff who work for us and will continue to be crucial in the new organisation. Far from it - it is because their work, and the public’s perception of it, is greatly strengthened by the 'top cover’ provided by senior public-facing decision-makers who have never worked for the police. Time and again, this has proved invaluable in securing the confidence and constructive engagement of communities and bereaved families in our investigations. It is frequently the first question that is asked, and investigators who have worked for the police often volunteer the information that their investigations are overseen by someone who has not, as a way of gaining trust and confidence.

As you will be aware, the role and number of ex-police staff has always been a matter of public and parliamentary concern and comment, particularly among those communities with least confidence in the police. Even in the IPCC’s predecessor body, the members and decision-makers in the Police Complaints Authority were barred from having worked for the police, and the need to both retain and strengthen this in the commissioner role was a key recommendation of the Macpherson report that led to the setting up of the IPCC. To make such a radical change, confining the restriction to a single person alone, at a time when the organisation is tasked with taking on all serious and sensitive cases, would in our view risk undermining the public confidence that is crucial to the success of the new organisation.

Having said that, Commission does not believe that there should be such a bar in relation to other senior managerial roles in the new organisation, such as the proposed director of major investigations. Indeed, precisely because we need and value the skills that ex-police bring, we consider that this role in particular could benefit from senior recent police operational experience, so as to provide professional support for staff carrying out those aspects of the work that require policing skills, best practice and knowledge.

Finally, Commission has considered the proposal for the name of the new organisation, as well as of its most senior personnel. We do not believe that 'Conduct Authority' is a suitable title, both because it focuses only on conduct, rather than the whole range of the organisation’s remit over the public complaints system, and also because it is reminiscent of the title of the IPCC’s predecessor body, which did not command sufficient public confidence. We are aware that, in spite of considerable effort and thought, it has proved very difficult to find a new title that better expresses the role and remit of the organisation. There is also a balance to be struck between continuity and change. While this will be a newly structured organisation, it will be one with essentially the same role and powers as the existing organisation, as well as retaining the great majority of its staff. Given this, and the fact that the proposal is now for a board structure rather than a corporation sole, we suggest that it could be preferable for the organisation to retain its current name, consisting of a Commission (the unitary board) and Commissioners (the head, deputies and regional heads), as this would carry both considerable weight and public recognition.

Yours sincerely

Dame Anne Owers
Chair
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

 

Channel website: https://policeconduct.gov.uk/

Share this article

Latest News from
Independent Police Complaints Commission

Free, Secure, Compliant UK Public Sector IT Recycling Service