How do we best police the police?

This week has produced a plethora of reminders that our police are very removed from the 'Dixon of Dock Green' image some of our, particularly, right-wing newspapers would like to portray them. There have been two incidents from the recent G20 summit, one of which resulted in a man's death and poignant reminders today from Hillsborough 20 years ago when not only were the police responsible, by neglect, for the 96 deaths which occurred there but further compounded their sins by lying about what actually happened. Yet no single police officer - not even David Duckenfield the officer in charge - faced criminal prosecution.




Matthew Parris, journalist and himself a former Conservative politician, wrote in 'The Times' this week that he believed the Conservative Party since the war had made a grave mistake in promoting the view that any criticism of the police was close to seditious and would lead to a breakdown of respect for law and order.

What has happened as a result is a situation whereby investigation into police actions by the media is strongly discouraged and the police are allowed to police themselves, not always that convincingly. Parris made the point that if the unfortunate Ian Tomlinson, who died after being struck by a police officer at the G20 summit. had been hit by anyone else in broad daylight and the attack had been recorded in such clear detail, the assailant would already be in custody. As it is the policeman concerned has been 'withdrawn' from the headlines and the force again has pulled the security curtain around one of its own.

Today Britain's top cop, Sir Paul Stephenson, Head of the Metropolitan Police, has expressed disquiet at the pictures which have been emerging from the G20 summit and has invited Her Majestys Commissioners of Police to investigate policing methods at events like the G20. Now this procedure in itself is concerning. The boss of the very force whose officers stand accused of violent conduct is the man who decides whether to invite Police Commissioners in to investigate procedure.

The British tradition, as Parris again points out, is to keep the police out of politics...or to be more accurate, to keep the way the police do their job out of the reach of politicians. Parris makes the point that the police are a public service, just as firefighters, sewerage workers and council employees are, and should be equally accountable. They appear as a cost line on my council tax statement just as does every other public service.

But for some reason, it has been seen as appropriate to bestow an 'untouchable' status on the police force, supported by the argument that to allow them to be at the beck and call of politicians would pervert the nature of their role. That tradition has, of course, been broken this year when the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, effectively sacked the previous Head of the Met, Sir Ian Blair, a man he hasnt even the power to appoint.

Parris argues that to politicise the police within the remit of local politicians would give more accountability than does the present system, and would replicate the kind of system seen in the United States.

Simply looking at the Sir Ian Blair situation highlights one glaring weakness in the current system. The Home Secretary appoints the Head of the Met, rather in the way Prime Ministers appoint Archbishops of Canterbury, and have little say thenceforth in how they operate. It took Boris Johnson, who effectively overturned the rule book and said 'I may not be able to sack you but I can withdraw the cooperation of my officers' to make Blair's position untenable.

There are a bewildering array of interests which currently have some involvement in running the Met but the lines are drawn in a bewildering and inefficient fashion.

My answer would be similar to that of Parris. Lets put the Met under the total control of the London mayor and lets have other police forces directly answerable to an elected local political body. Already there are police authorities which have the responsibility of overseeing our regional police forces and these bodies need to be structured differently within the electoral system and given many more teeth. There would be problems but none that could not be overcome.

The biggest obstacle to change is likely to be the police service itself which is certain to guard its privileged position of virtual immunity from close political oversight with a jealous determination. This has to be overcome in the interests of greater accountability and , I believe, a better police service.