Corporate report

Giving Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) greater powers of competence: government response

Published 8 March 2022

Introduction and contact details

This document is the post-consultation report for the consultation document, Giving Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) greater powers of competence.

It will cover:

• the background to the consultation
• a summary of the consultation responses
• a detailed response to the specific questions raised in the report
• the next steps following this consultation.

Further copies of this report and the consultation paper can be obtained by writing to the address or email below:

Police Strategy and Reform Unit
6th Floor
Fry building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

Email: GPCConsultation@homeoffice.gov.uk

Alternative format versions of this publication can be requested from: GPCConsultation@homeoffice.gov.uk.

Complaints or comments

If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process you should contact the Home Office at the above address.

Background

The government’s manifesto committed to strengthening the accountability of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and expanding their role. PCCs were introduced in 2012 to give the public a direct say over policing in their area. It is important that PCCs are strong, visible leaders in the fight against crime and have the legitimacy and tools to effectively hold their police force to account.

In July 2020, we announced a two-part review into the role of PCCs. During Part One of the Review we collated views and evidence from stakeholders across policing, fire and local government as well as voluntary and community organisations. We heard from PCCs and their Chief Executives that they need greater powers of competence to help them get upstream of crime issues and form partnerships with local authorities, criminal justice agencies and health bodies to reduce crime as well as to drive efficiency and make better use of police estate.

PCCs currently have a functional power of competence which enables them to do anything to facilitate or which is conducive or incidental to the exercise of their functions. However, we have heard that PCCs feel constrained because the existing powers limit their ability to undertake innovative activity, particularly where that activity might only be indirectly linked to policing. In concluding Part One of the Review, the Home Secretary announced in March 2021 that we would consult on giving a general power of competence to PCCs.

A targeted 8-week consultation on ‘giving PCCs greater powers of competence’ was launched on 1 September 2021. It invited comments on the opportunities, benefits, and risks of granting PCCs’ wider powers to enhance their levers to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. In particular, it sought views on giving PCCs either:

• a wider functional power of competence as held by fire and rescue authorities, which will include giving them the power to do anything indirectly incidental to their functions
• a general power of competence as held by local authorities, which will give them the power to do anything that an individual can do so long as it is not prohibited by legislation.

The consultation period closed on 27 October 2021 and this report summarises the responses.

Summary of responses

A total of 84 individual responses including responses from 80 organisations and 4 individual police and crime panel members were received by email and analysed. The consultation document was circulated to one lead individual for each of the targeted organisations.

The largest group responding to the consultation were representatives from local authorities, who contributed to 42% of the responses.

The remainder were from a range of organisations, including PCCs, Office of PCCs (OPCC), Police and Crime Panels, Police Forces, Fire and Rescue Services, Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRAs), and other organisations which included collective responses from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC), National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC), National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) and Local Government Association (LGA) (for England and Wales separately). Three of the 84 organisations responded outside of the consultation survey but have been included in the response count.

Organisation	Responses	Percentage
Office of Police (Fire) and Crime Commissioners	14	17%
Police forces	13	15%
Fire and Rescue Services/Fire and Rescue Authorities	13	15%
Local Authorities	35	42%
Combined Authority	1	1%
Other organisations (these included collective responses from Association of PCCs, National Fire Chiefs Council, National Police Chiefs Council and Local Government Association for England and Wales)	8	10%
Total number of respondents	84	100%

Responses to specific questions

Question 1. Do you think PCCs should be given greater powers of competence to enhance their ability to get upstream of crime issues as well as to drive efficiency and make better use of police estates?

Answers	Responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	23	27%
Agree	37	44%
Neither agree/disagree	9	11%
Disagree	8	9%
Strongly disagree	3	4%
Nil response	4	5%
Total	84	100%

The majority of respondents (71%) agreed that there is a need for PCCs to be given greater powers of competence. A small number of respondents did not agree with granting wider powers (13%). They argued that PCCs already have sufficient powers to perform their statutory duties and there is a need for stronger scrutiny if their powers are to be enhanced. There was broad support for giving PCCs greater powers of competence across all respondents, with 86% of PCC respondents (12 of the 14 respondents) and 60% of local authorities (21 of the 35 respondents) agreeing.

Question 2. Should PCCs be granted a wider functional power of competence including the power to do anything indirectly related to their functions, no matter how many times removed and to charge and trade?

Answers	Responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	23	27%
Agree	37	44%
Neither agree/disagree	9	11%
Disagree	8	9%
Strongly disagree	3	4%
Nil response	4	5%
Total	84	100%

Just over half of respondents (53%) agreed to giving PCCs a wider functional power of competence. 12% of the responses provided did not state a preference either way. 54% of PCCs were supportive of giving a wider functional power and 50% of local authority respondents agreed. A very small number of responses strongly opposed this (6%), stating that PCCs already have adequate powers to discharge their duties, and that they do not see any material benefit in the effective performance of PCC functions. Others disagreed because they wanted to go further and expressed the view that a general power of competence, rather than a wider functional power, would bring greater benefits.

Question 3. What do you see as the benefits that may come from granting PCCs a wider functional power of competence?

Respondents felt that giving PCCs a wider functional power of competence would better enable them to engage in partnership work to tackle crime, for example by funding specific services which have been discontinued by partners or by providing future investment in tackling crime and community safety through exploring commercial and other income generation opportunities. It was also identified that greater powers could give PCCs greater flexibility and strengthen partnership working through promoting innovative solutions in the multi-agency arena, for example through re-purposing premises for multi-agency use, such as drug and alcohol services.

A number of responses also emphasised the importance of creating consistency within the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner model (where PCCs exercise the wider functional power in their capacity as an FRA). Some respondents acknowledged that giving PCCs a wider functional power of competence would also level up their powers with the majority of Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs). Respondents also felt that clarifying a PCC’s ability to charge for services, in line with the functional powers held by FRAs and MCAs would also improve efficiency and help to achieve best value and PCCs could include work with private sector or individuals to share costs of appropriate projects.

Question 4. What do you consider to be the risks of granting PCCs a wider functional power of competence?

It was highlighted by some respondents that there could be a potential loss of focus on statutory duties or mission, or that PCCs might make poor financial decisions which could lead to loss of income or place pressure on the public purse. Some respondents felt that by widening the functional powers it could also be more difficult for statutory OPCC officers to ensure PCCs act within vires and could increase the risk of legal challenge for those matters which may be deemed by others to fall outside of the PCC’s core purpose or functions, however many times removed.

This is something that would be put beyond doubt by giving PCCs the full general power of competence. It was suggested that there could be a potential risk of additional expenditure, representing poor value for money and that PCCs could use their budgets to plug gaps in other agencies to deliver unrelated initiatives or projects. However, many of those responding to the consultation were confident that any potential risks created by a wider functional power of competence are minimal. It was reflected that PFCCs already hold these functional powers in relation to their fire and rescue responsibilities, and there are existing checks and balances within the PCC model which would ensure effective scrutiny of, and accountability for, their use.

Question 5. If PCCs were granted a wider functional power of competence, do you consider that additional safeguards or limitations on those powers would be necessary?

It was suggested by some respondents that steps could be taken to increase transparency to ensure greater checks and balances are in place for the use of enhanced powers, for example through a requirement for PCCs to report publicly on their use of them. An example given was that PCCs should publish the purpose for which the powers are being used, any associated risks and how they intend to mitigate these.

Additionally, some respondents from local authorities suggested that the Police and Crime Panel should have power of veto over PCCs use of their powers. Some respondents also felt that PCCs should undertake mandatory public consultation prior to implementing specific projects or interventions. However, most PCCs who responded considered that it is important to take a consistent approach with the existing use of these powers by FRAs and most mayoral combined authorities if these powers were given to PCCs in respect of their crime and policing functions. PFCCs are already able to utilise their wider functional powers in respect of their FRA functions without additional safeguards or limitations.

Question 6. Should PCCs be granted a general power of competence which would give them the power to do anything that an individual can do so long as it is not prohibited by legislation?

Answers	Responses	Percentage
Strongly agree	16	19%
Agree	11	13%
Neither agree/disagree	13	15%
Disagree	26	31%
Strongly disagree	15	18%
Nil response	3	4%
Total	84	100%

There was much less support for giving PCCs the full general power of competence. Only 32% of respondents agreed that PCCs should be granted a general power of competence, with an additional 15% not stating a preference either way. Just under half of respondents (49%) disagreed with granting PCCs a general power of competence. Views on giving PCCs a general power of competence were also split across the type of respondent, with PCCs and OPCCs themselves supportive of giving a greater power of competence, whilst local authorities predominantly disagreed (23 of the 35 local authorities who responded) and were of the view that there is the potential for increased financial risk and competing or overlap of responsibilities with the local authority.

Question 7. What do you see as the benefits that may come from granting PCCs a general power of competence?

Overall, respondents felt that the benefit of granting PCCs the general power of competence is that it would empower them to act creatively and flexibly across the policing and wider criminal justice system, with fewer limitations or restrictions. Some respondents felt that through better alignment with public services, it could also provide the opportunity for increased revenue for spending on tackling crime or improving community safety issues and could generate income, beyond cost recovery. For example, a GPC could enable a PCC to venture and invest in more commercial activity to generate income, to be reinvested, as well as investing in property or estates to future-proof operational delivery.

Some respondents noted it would give PCCs unrestricted powers to do what they consider to be appropriate and would provide greater parity with local authorities. It was suggested that a general power of competence would enable police bodies and respective constabularies to drive down costs and raise income. Additionally, it was felt that it could provide the opportunity of long-term revenue streams like local authorities, rather than being reliant on one-off capital funds.

Question 8. Please explain what you consider the risks may be to granting PCCs a general power of competence.

Overall, those responding to the consultation noted that there are risks in granting PCCs a general power of competence, particularly as it could distract them from their core focus on crime, and potentially see them engaging in activity that cuts across other local mandates or creates financial risk. PCCs could also potentially overreach, for example trading or setting up companies that may cost taxpayers a loss and overall increase financial risk, or at the very least divert funding away from frontline policing into other activities.

Most PCCs responding to the consultation recognised these risks but felt that they are outweighed by the substantial benefits the wider powers would offer. They argued that with a transparent approach to decision making around use of the GPC and strengthened accountability within the PCC model, that these risks can be mitigated effectively. Some respondents noted that appropriate governance arrangements would also need to be in place, mirroring those in place for local authorities.

Question 9. If PCCs were granted a general power of competence, do you consider that additional safeguards or limitations on those powers would be necessary?

Overall, respondents were of the view that additional safeguards should be considered if granting PCCs with a general power of competence in order to mitigate against any inappropriate or inadequately planned activities, ensuring a more robust framework is in place. There was suggestion by a number of respondents that there could be greater oversight from the police and crime panel, as well as a requirement to consult the public on specific areas of work or projects, plus a requirement to work with other statutory authorities.

It was felt that these such safeguards need to be put in place to minimise the risk of loss of focus on core statutory responsibilities. Respondents also noted that we need to consider the use of the existing police and crime panels in this space and highlighted whether there should be a requirement for statutory publication of powers used and outcomes achieved. However, some respondents felt that, in the main, the safeguards that apply to the local authorities should suffice. PCCs generally do not believe that additional safeguards or limitations would be needed if a general power of competence were granted. Most PCCs are confident that any risks relating to the extension of GPC can be mitigated by strengthening existing structures and by new transparency measures that facilitate effective scrutiny and oversight by these bodies.

Question 10. Given the benefits and risks of a general and wider functional power of competence, which approach would you prefer?

Answers	Responses	Percentage
Retain existing PCC powers	17	20%
Give PCCs a wider functional power of competence, in line with the powers currently held by standalone fire and rescue authorities and some combined authorities	36	43%
Give PCCs the general power of competence, as held by local authorities	24	29%
Unclear	2	2%
Nil response	5	6%
Total	84	100%

Having considered the benefits and risks, respondents significantly favoured giving PCCs a wider functional power of competence, in line with the powers currently held by standalone fire and rescue authorities and some combined authorities (43%). 29% were in favour of going further still by giving PCCs the general power of competence, as held by local authorities, and only 20% thought existing PCC powers should be retained. There is a clear locus for granting PCCs greater powers and overall, there is greater support for a wider functional power rather than the full general power of competence. 64% of PCCs and OPCCs (9 of the 14 respondents) were in favour of granting a general power of competence, whereas 38% of police (5 of the 13 respondents), 77% of fire service/fire authorities (10 of the 13 respondents) and 49% of local authorities (17 of the 35 respondents) were more in favour of giving PCCs a wider functional power of competence.

Question 11. Do you consider there to be any equality impacts with granting PCCs either a wider functional or a general power of competence?

Answers	Responses	Percentage
Yes - please provide details	22	26%
No - please explain	29	35%
Don’t know	26	31%
Nil response	7	8%
Total	84	100%

A number of respondents agreed there could be equality impacts arising from PCCs being given greater powers and it was felt that this needs to be considered and assessed where a wider power is applied. For example, it was identified that there could be a risk of PCCs focussing on income generation and the allocation of funding being unfair. It was believed that if investment was to occur in one geographical area, there could be feelings of inequality from residents in other areas overseen by the PCC. Additionally, it was suggested that a decision to charge for a certain service, could disadvantage those persons in poverty or low income. However, respondents also noted that PCCs are bound by the ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’ and would be required to comply with this duty in taking forward activity under any wider power of competence granted and would need to consider equality impact assessments of any respective decisions.

Conclusion and next steps

Having carefully considered the consultation responses, the government has decided to give all PCCs (including Mayors with PCC functions) a wider functional power of competence in line with those that are held by fire and rescue authorities and most mayoral combined authorities (such as in Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire) and by the London Mayor. There was strong support for this in the consultation, and it was the favoured approach overall. This wider functional power will include the power to charge and trade, as well as to do things indirectly related to PCC functions, no matter how many times removed. For example, FRAs can do anything which they consider is directly related or indirectly incidental to their functions and can enter into commercial arrangements.

Giving PCCs a wider functional power of competence would give them the confidence to act where there may be doubt. A wider power would also encourage greater ambition, innovation and creativity in their approaches to tackling crime and public safety issues. It will also enable them to play a wider role in the Criminal Justice System, particularly in the respect of offender management by providing them with the tools and levers to enhance wider public service delivery through forming effective partnerships with housing, education, health partners. For example, it could give PCCs the ability to tackle issues outside of policing, such as community safety, or enable them to have more influence over criminal justice agencies where there are evident shared priorities and outcomes locally. Preserving the link between these wider powers and PCC’s core crime and policing functions will also minimise any risk of distraction from their core purpose whilst permitting greater freedoms.

It is our intention that mayors who hold PCC functions (such as in London, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire) would have the same power of competence as other PCCs to maintain consistency of powers in the police governance model. This would also bring them into line with the wider functional powers these mayors hold in respect of their general functions and with the powers held by most other mayors of combined authorities. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West of England Mayors are the only two mayors to hold a general power of competence (granted through local consent mechanisms), but neither currently exercise PCC functions.

During the consultation we also explored whether there should be any additional limitations or safeguards on the use of the powers if PCCs are granted wider functional powers of competence. Some views were shared that there should be additional scrutiny and reporting mechanisms for PCC use of these powers; others considered that existing checks and balances go far enough. Having considered the views expressed, on balance we are satisfied that the existing scrutiny and accountability arrangements within the PCC model, coupled with the existing safeguards that apply to FRAs and most MCAs who exercise the wider functional power of competence, are sufficient. The Police and Crime Commissioner Review has considered options to strengthen accountability and transparency of PCCs to ensure the public can effectively hold them to account for the exercise of their functions. Further, Police, Fire and Crime Commissioners currently exercise the wider functional power of competence in respect of their fire functions without additional safeguards, and it is important to maintain consistency in the model. We therefore propose to mirror the powers and limitations of the FRA and mayoral functional power of competence, as appropriate in the PCC context.

Additionally, during the consultation we asked respondents to consider whether there are any equality impacts with granting PCCs with either a wider functional power or a general power of competence. Whilst it was recognised that equality impacts will need to be considered carefully on a case-by-case basis as PCCs use these powers and that PCCs are bound by the Public Sector Equality Duty when they do so, no specific negative impacts were identified under the equality duty.

We require primary legislation to provide PCCs with these wider powers. We will seek to implement the measures through the next appropriate legislative vehicle. We intend to provide both English and Welsh PCCs with the same wider power of competence.

Consultation principles

The principles that government departments and other public bodies should adopt for engaging stakeholders when developing policy and legislation are set out in the Cabinet Office Consultation Principles 2018.

Annex A – List of respondents

Suffolk Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

North East Lincolnshire Council

Chichester District Council

Avon & Somerset Constabulary

Cambridgeshire Constabulary

Office of Police and Crime Commissioner Norfolk

Exeter City Council

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole (BCP) Council

Norfolk Constabulary

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service

Hertfordshire Constabulary

City of York Council

Tewkesbury Borough Council

Hampshire Constabulary

Sevenoaks District Council

Surrey County Council

Gwynedd Council

PCC for Hertfordshire

Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner

Ceredigion County Council

North Kesteven District Council

Greater Manchester Combined Authority - refer to written response

West Yorkshire Police

West Mercia Police

West Yorkshire fire and rescue (Kirklees Council)

Warrington Borough Council

Central Bedfordshire Council

Peterborough City Council

Cambridgeshire County Council

County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Authority

Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service

Humberside Fire Authority

Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex

Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner

West Midlands Fire Service

City of Lincoln Council

Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Authority

Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes Fire Authority

Nottingham City Council

Hereford & Worcester Fire Authority

Cumbria Constabulary

Chelmsford City Council/Maldon District Council

Cornwall Council

Cheshire OPCC

National Association of Police, Fire and Crime Panels

Northamptonshire PFCC and NCFRA

Kent County Council

Merseyside Police

Office of the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire

Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service

Northumberland County Council

Warwickshire County Council

Essex County Council

Hertfordshire County Council

National Fire Chiefs Council

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

Gwent OPCC

Havant Borough Council

Waverley Borough Council

Essex Police

Cleveland Fire Authority

North Wales Police

APCC (collective response on behalf of all PCCs)

Suffolk County Council

Durham and Darlington PCC

North Yorkshire Police

Blackburn with Darwen BC

Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA)

Cumbria County Council

Essex County Council

Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service

Wyre Forest District Council

Local Government Association (LGA)

OPCC Thames Valley

OPCC Hampshire and Isla of Wight

National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC)

Durham Constabulary