|
The CJS comprises of five major elements;
the Police, the Courts, the Probation Service, the Crown
Prosecution Service and the Prison Service. Responsibility
and accountability for all these services is retained
by Central Government and managed through Central Government
Departments and locally by a diverse mix of administration
and quasi-political groups, e.g. Police Authorities.
|
In April, 2003 the Government created National
Criminal Justice Board (NCJB) will commence activity.
It will set targets for and monitor the activity of the
42 Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJB). The LCJB will
comprise the
Chief Executives of the five constituent parts of the
CJS locally with one recent addition, the Chair of the
local Police Authority. |
| LCJB's are constructed around the geography
of police forces in England and Wales. There are 42 LCJB's
on which the local Chief Crown Prosecutor, Courts Chief
Executive, Chief Probation Officer, Chief Constable, Prison
Governor and the Chair of the Police Authority meet to
seek to improve the local CJS and to meet targets set
for it by Central Government. |
| Within Wales there are four police forces,
therefore four LCJB's. The Assembly has no formal role
in relation to the LCJB nor any formal role in relation
to the centrally controlled elements of it. Thus the Assembly
has no formal role in relation to Probation, CPS, Prisons
or Police; though it has police funds funnelled through
it. |
| The Home Office Regional Crime Reduction
Director is based at the Assembly and acts to pursue crime
reduction activity across Wales using Home Office funding.
The individual works closely with the Assembly, which
has a statutory role in community safety. Thus, through
its community safety role the Assembly is able to engage
in discussion and activity with the respective CJS organisations
in Wales. |
| The police forces, though apparently controlled
by a long standing tripartite arrangement giving "equal"
status to the Home Secretary, the Police Authority and
the Chief Constable are now more closely controlled by
the Home Office than has hitherto been the case. |
| The Police Reform Act 2002 provides significant
new powers to the Home Secretary via a stronger Inspectorate
of Constabulary and the new Police Standards Unit. |
The Home Secretary now draws up a National
Policing Plan and new Codes of Practice and may require
Police Authorities to draw up plans to meet the priorities
and targets set in his National Policing Plan. There are
four clear priority areas and, in total, 51 issues in
the National Policing Plan to which the local police forces
must respond. |
| The Welsh Assembly is not mentioned in
the Police Reform Act. |
| The intent of the Act is to enable Home
Office officials to monitor and possibly direct the activity
of Police Basic Command Units, by-passing Police Authorities. |
| The Act empowers the Home Secretary to
make national regulations laying down "specific procedures
or practices" whereby Chief Officers are "to
police the force area or in relation to the way they run
their force". This must be done in consultation with
the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO and HMIC.
Again, the Assembly has no role. |
|
The Home Office sets performance targets
for the police, the local policing plan must address
those targets. In 2003 what will in effect be league
tables of performance comparing BCU's (police divisions)
will appear.
|
| Community Safety, an Assembly issue which
has a wider meaning than crime and disorder, will feature
in the ten year community plans. Local Authorities in
Wales are required to produce and present these to the
Assembly thus enabling the Assembly to engage in debate
with the four Chief Constables in Wales and, as we shall
discuss later, work with them to meet public needs regarding
major issues such as Class A drugs. |
| In essence the constituent parts of the
CJS in Wales are non devolved areas being directed to
a small or large part by Central Government. |
| The Assembly may influence, with words
or funds. |
Funding
|
|
Funding for the Probation Service,
the Prisons, the Courts and the CPS is I believe provided
centrally.
|
| Funding for the police service is a mix
of central and local movies. There are three elements
to the annual police settlements; a Home Office grant,
a DTLR grant and Council Tax. |
|
Using formulae designed for the task,
though in the 2003/2004 settlement attempts have been
made to include elements of ministerial judgement to
allocate greater resources to the northern England conurbations,
funds are allocated by the Home Office to the forty-three
police forces. The DTLR does likewise but in Wales channels
the funds via the Assembly. The Assembly may choose
not to use all the funds "allocated" for policing
or police forces. Finally, Police Authorities may raise
council taxes via local precepts.
|
|
Currently, the Central Government departmental
grants comprise approximately 78% of individual Police
Authority funding and Council Tax 22%. These rates are
changing as Government encourages greater use of Council
Tax to raise revenue.
|
| For the four Welsh police forces this presents
a dilemma as the WAG retains the right to control or "cap"
Council Tax levels. |
| In 2001/2002 the Assembly threatened to
use its powers to control Council Tax rises by Police
Authorities. |
|
Pursuing its intent of greater central
management of policing the Home Office retained for
its own purposes 36% of the national increase in police
funding for 2003/2004. These funds were retained for
use by the Police Standards Unit to assist in funding
projects of which it approved and for the Home Office
to fund its own issues; the Safer Streets campaign is
a text book case of centralised control of police activity
via control of funding and pressure on
Chief Constables to allocate resources.
|
| Following an increase in street robberies
which the Prime Minister described as a "national
emergency", all forces were required to draw up street
robbery plans. For Dyfed-Powys this introduced complexity
due to a shortage of both streets and robberies. |
| Ten forces were directed to fortnightly
meetings in the Cabinet Office and £68 million used over
six months in these forces to "defeat street robbery".
A ministerial Street Crime Action Group chaired by the
Prime Minister personally managed this development. Similar
projects on Crack Cocaine and anti-social behaviour are
expected to follow. Home Office funds of £500k per year
have been allocated to the three Southern Wales forces
for a Class A drugs initiative. |
| The Welsh forces did not engage in the
Safer Streets initiative. |
| There are unproven arguments that Welsh
forces are less well resourced than English forces. The
2003/2004 settlement certainly appeared to discriminate
against all rural forces; being predominantly rural the
Welsh forces suffered, along with many English forces. |
|
The Home Office has used specific funds
to drive up police numbers and is now seeking to compel
forces to retain these numbers. Interestingly, the Home
Office has no statutory role in police numbers!
|
It is the case that Home Office control
of grants has been beneficial to many police forces. Prior
to their taking control via the 1994 Police and Magistrates
Courts Act, many forces had been systematically underfunded
by their
Police Authorities, the South Wales Police being one example. |
| Resource availability is then the outcome
of two central grants and the ability of the Chief Constable
via the annual budget to raise local revenues through
the Council Tax. In 2002/2003 the North Wales Chief Constable
raised extra council tax revenue to fund 32 extra Constables. |
| Other funding streams e.g. Home Office
projects, the Safer Communities fund, Premises Improvement
Grants are in truth marginal to the need for proper core
funding and inevitably short term and unavailable to the
more rural areas. The need to match fund also militates
against their pursuit. Without core funding the necessary
monies do not exist. |
Policy Making
|
CJS policy making, in its individual parts
and as a "corporate group" now appears to be
a mix of nationally driven policy creation to meet pressures
imposed on Central Government, e.g. legislative change
to react to "gun crime" or wealthy criminals
(Proceeds of Crime Act) and a desire for "uniformity"
across England and Wales. In wider CJS terms the National
Criminal Justice Board (NCJB), the Youth Justice Board
and various
ministerial/administration/professional groupings are
creating policy. |
|
The NCJB will pursue Central Government
ambitions to improve the attrition rate via LCJB's,
alongside the pursuit of other targets for the police
(to bring to justice 5% more people) for the Probation
Service (Drugs Treatment and Testing Orders) and for
other elements of the CJS.
|
| For the police, national policy flows from
dialogue between ACPO and the new National Centre for
Policing Excellence on police operational practice; ACPO,
the Home Office and the Police Standards Unit - structured
management and operational initiatives; the Standards
Unit is producing a "model" development structure
for BCU's and via ACPO Council (the 43 Chief Constables)
on other issues. There are regional ACPO structures and
Welsh ACPO (WACPO) seeks to agree policy and practice
across Welsh forces. |
Though the Assembly has no formal role,
the Chief Constables meet regularly with senior Assembly
Ministers and administrators. The forces have a Liaison
Officer based at the Assembly tasked to represent the
forces and to develop better working between police forces
and the Assembly. Similarly, a Police Inspector is being
placed with the
Regional Crime Reduction Director. |
| Therefore, the Assembly has the ability
to influence the thinking of the four forces and they
have the ability to influence the Assembly. One such example
is the Assembly's Substance Misuse Strategy. |
Inter-relationships of Powers and Functions
|
| In the late 90's the Government introduced
a Substance Misuse Strategy, drafted by their "Drugs
Czar". In 1999 the Assembly introduced its own strategy
in which alcohol and drugs were included. |
| In 2002 the three South Wales forces identified
a serious issue over the influx of hard drugs, primarily
heroin and crack cocaine from the Bristol area. An analysis
of the situation conducted by the National Criminal Intelligence
Service and a team sponsored by the forces identified
the almost complete failure of the Assembly strategy insofar
as drugs were concerned |
| A paper was prepared outlining police concerns
as to failures in itself, the Health Service and in conveying
messages through the education system. |
| Proposals to introduce a regional intelligence
effort to combat the influx of drugs; to produce a cohesive
and coherent approach to drugs trafficking, drugs treatment
and harm reduction and education provision were put together
and presented to the Police Standards Unit, Home Office
Ministers, Assembly Ministers and MP's and AM's. |
| The Chairman of WACPO presented the issue
to the Assembly. Subsequently, the Finance Minister was
placed in charge of an All Wales response to the drug
issue. The police provided the Minister with a research
capacity to assess Health Service provision for drugs
in Wales. |
A bid for funding to support the proposed
Regional Intelligence Office and an Operations Unit was
made to the Central Government and the Assembly. The Assembly,
though having no duty to fund police activity examined
its powers and agreed to assist over a three year period
with funding for civilian staff and support equipment.
The
Home Office, though clearly uneasy with the Assembly involvement,
agreed to provide funding providing it was match funded
on a 2:1 ratio by the three forces. |
|
The four Chief Constables met with
the First Minister and Finance Minister to discuss the
issue further.
|
At the request of the Finance Minister
police involvement in schools was examined by the forces
and in
December 2002 a proposal to introduce an All Wales approach
to police in schools was agreed by WACPO, under the leadership
of one Chief Constable. |
|
As matters stand the Finance Minister
supported by the four Chief Constables, is driving a
comprehensive drugs strategy involving police, health,
education, local authorities and others. The Home Office,
Crime Reduction
Director for Wales is involved also.
|
| The reality of the current situation is
that without a formal remit or devolved powers in relation
to policing, the Assembly is closely integrated into the
thinking and strategic direction of the four police forces.
The National Policing Plan priorities are concerns of
the Assembly, though it was not consulted and the future
direction of policing in Wales will be constructed with
in depth consultation the Assembly. |
Conclusion
|
| I trust the above assists the Commission. |
| It is the view of the four Chief Constables
that a closer relationship with the Assembly is both desirable
and inevitable. There are many practical issues that would
need to be examined and resolved prior to any formal devolution
of powers, not least because all training, IT, emergency
support and many other issues are built around the forty-three
forces. However, change properly examined and implemented
would be possible and welcomed. |
