Commentary
| Date | 01 March 2002 |
| Published date | 01 March 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X0207500101 |
| Subject Matter | Commentary |
The
Police
Journal
COMMENTARY
Earlier this year the Home Secretary David Blunkett followed the exam-
ple set by several of his predecessors by publishing a series of reforms as
part of his attempt to modernise the police service of England and Wales.
Whilst it is the case that the present Government remains firm in its
attempts to modernise public services it is also clear that this latest
reform package will be met with equal, if not, more resistance than that
experienced by previous Home Secretaries. What is interesting in this
case is that opposition to David Blunkett's plans appears to be shared
equally amongst chief officers and those in the rank and file.
Hailed as a radical attempt to bring the police service into the
twenty-first century, in many ways the Home Secretary's plans are little
more than a package of reformed employment terms and conditions,
managerial processes and performance and accountability measures
already present within other areas of public service such as education
and health. However, what is particularly relevant in this latest batch of
reforms is that some ofthe measures appear to have been aimed directly
at areas which have been fiercely protected by the respective guardians
over the years and in some quarters are seen as 'no-go areas' .
The reforms set out a number of challenges for chief officers and if
they are legislated the Home Secretary will have unprecedented powers
to take over under-performing forces and to sack poor-achieving chief
constables. As news broke of government intervention in the senior
management of four poor-performing National Health Trusts, the Com-
missioner of the Metropolitan Police Sir John Stevens joined a number
of other senior public-sector officials in signing a letter expressing con-
cern at government plans for further modernising public services. Whilst
the whole area of Chief Constable independence, local government
accountability and central government responsibility remains the subject
of much heated debate (and the topic of many of my earlier editorials)
the stakes appear to have been raised. On the one hand it could be seen as
somewhat ironic that a number of chief officers who have been appoin-
ted on the back of a declared intention to improve the performance of
police forces they wish to lead now find the prospect of being held to
account for that force's performance unacceptable. On the other hand it
is argued that this is yet another example of central government inter-
fering with matters which are best managed at the local level. Another
The Police Journal. Volume 75 (2002) 1
To continue reading
Request your trial