Commentary
| Published date | 01 April 1976 |
| Date | 01 April 1976 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X7604900201 |
| Subject Matter | Commentary |
Politics
While no one in the Police Service would wish to bring back
the constitution of the watch committees that existed from 1835 to
1964, there must be a good deal
of
nostalgia for the standing joint
committees which were the police authorities of the constabularies
from 1888 until the Police Act, 1964. Their constitution gave them
an independence appropriate to their responsibilities and there was
no danger of anyone mistaking them for just another local govern-
ment committee.
The peril in the present order of the police authorities is that the
police committee has no more real independence than any other
committee of the local council. Where the financial decision of the
standing joint committee was binding upon the council, those of
the modern police committee are subject to the agreement of the
council, which means the agreement of the majority-party-dominated
finance committee. The greater part of police expenditure is, of
course, mandatory, but there remains a highly significant area of
funding which deeply concerns police efficiency, notably in the
provision of buildings, transport, equipment and innovation, and
this area, under the present system, is all too vulnerable to political
pressure.
Admittedly, the constitution
of
police committees laid down
in 1964 bears some resemblance to that of the standing joint com-
mittees in that one-third of the membership must consist of justices
of
the peace. Thus lip-service was paid to the very old bond between
the magistrate and the constable in its administrative aspect. But at
the level of political reality, it appears all too often that the majority
party of the local authority exercises influence on the appointment of
justices to the police committee. And politics being politics, con-
cerned with the key consideration of who has hold of the big stick,
the policy
of
the police committee almost inevitably reflects the
attitude of the party in power.
It
may be more democratic to order our police affairs thus.
It
was
more democratic when the French in 1789 decided to make their
police commissaries subject to biennial local election.
It
is more
democratic, no doubt, to have sheriffs elected for four years and for
police commissioners to be appointed by city mayors, as in the
United States today, but whether such ostensibly democratic pro-
cedures are in the best interests of the public is another matter
79
April
1976
To continue reading
Request your trial