« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
5 Failure to Discharge and Sanction
5.1 It may be the case that HMCIC feels it is inappropriate or premature to discharge a recommendation. Such a situation impacts on both the Force concerned and the relevant Police Board/Authority.
5.2 Forces may well feel that any failure to discharge is more an issue of process rather than a lack of diligence on their part. There may be issues surrounding the language in which a recommendation is framed and accordingly Forces may feel they have worked towards a goal, as they, rather than HMCIC, understood it.
5.3 Police Boards/Authorities may well seek clarification from the relevant chief constable as to the circumstances surrounding any failure to discharge. It may be that the chief officer is able to assure the Board/Authority that there is no cause for concern, and there the matter would rest. The Board/Authority may also feel it appropriate to refer the specific issue to any relevant subcommittee for further scrutiny.
5.4 Following such scrutiny, a Police Board/Authority may feel it appropriate to press the chief officer to implement practices ensuring compliance with the recommendation. Should a chief officer refuse to do this, there is little a Board/Authority can do to direct otherwise.
5.5 It is apparent that good relations and interpersonal relationships between chief officer and Board/Authority are essential elements in dealing with recommendations and addressing issues raised. It is submitted, however, that this position would feel strained in the face of disagreement, even over relatively minor issues.
5.6 Where disagreement does occur a Police Board/Authority is unable to direct a chief constable. This is a situation arising from the chief constable's perceived operational autonomy and the ability to link the vast majority of issues to operational matters.
5.7 Where a Board/Authority believes that a chief officer is ignoring its views or directions there appears little that it might do to address that issue or highlight its disapproval.
5.8 The only real step is a drastic and draconian one - for a Board/Authority to seek the removal of their chief officer
5.9 It is submitted that this situation makes the role of the Board/Authority a difficult one, and that there is little a Board/Authority can do to ensure that HMCIC recommendations are introduced when it thinks such changes are necessary and the chief constable disagrees.
5.10 Whilst a rare occurrence, consideration has to be given to the potential outcome of a chief officer either refusing to implement a particular HMCIC recommendation or failing to ensure sufficient work is done to achieve the set goal.
5.11 It is important to highlight that HMCIC does not have powers of sanction. Indeed, there is a widely held view that it would be unhelpful for HMCIC to assume powers of direction in respect of chief officers. Rather, HMCIC is regarded as the independent, professional advisor to chief officers and the monitor of standards for the Scottish Executive.
5.12 Consideration could be given to a power of sanction resting within the Scottish Executive. The review team feel that this would remove ownership of local issues from local representatives and elected members and effectively be too fundamental a shift in power and responsibilities to achieve maximum benefit to the public.
5.13 It is felt by the review team that sanction, should it be thought necessary, properly lies within the domain of the Police Board/Authority. This third option highlights the importance local members have in supporting chief officers within communities. Currently, Police Boards/Authorities do not have any powers of sanction over a chief officer other than dismissal nor, in general terms, do they have power to direct a chief constable.
5.14 If such powers were to be granted to Police Boards/Authorities, there might be concern that Boards/Authorities across Scotland lack the capacity to fully exercise their functions where sanction may be an option. Police Boards/Authorities are rarely serviced by a full time, independent, secretariat and chief executive. In this respect, there is a perception that there is an "inequality of arms" in the relationship between chief officers and Boards/Authorities. The review team feel it is vital that Police Boards/Authorities have the capacity to support and, if necessary, challenge chief officers. This capacity should exist regardless of the size of the Force or Board/Authority in question.
Lesson 10. There is no real method of sanction other than measures that are at best draconian. HMCIC should undertake a diagnostic review of the principles and benefits relating to support and sanction within the scope of HMCIC inspection, and thereafter provide guidance and support to Police Boards in respect of their findings.
« Previous | Contents | Next »