PPC0030 - Evidence on Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach?

Supplementary evidence from Rt Hon Alun Michael JP,
Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales

I am writing to provide supplementary evidence to the oral evidence I gave to the Justice Select Committee on the 11th September and I hope your colleagues will find this helpful.

I very much welcome the Committee's inquiry into the co-ordination of crime reduction policies. I have argued for many years now that all agencies need to take a partnership approach to crime reduction which is why I introduced Crime Reduction Partnerships as a key element in what became the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, which I will expand on later. In my view one of the missing links in the system for ensuring a co-orientated approach to crime reduction is to ensure that the courts have a duty to pay full attention to "what works" in reducing the likelihood and the seriousness of re-offending. At their best, the police do serve the clear policing objective set down by Sir Robert Peel that the first duty of the police is to prevent crime and disorder — though that cannot be done in isolation, and many of the levers in preventing crime fall outside of the hands of the police so partnership working is the only way forward.

Strides have been made in working collaboratively with local authorities in particular, and the NHS is another crucial partner. While there is still a long way to go, we are moving forward on that journey. I am concerned, however, that there simply hasn't been the same progress in our courts. For example, for some years I have argued that we should be much clearer about our expectations of the Criminal Justice System as a whole. You will recall that I moved amendments in the House of Commons when I was a member of your committee arguing that the Sentencing Council should be given as its key purpose the responsibility of informing and advising the judiciary (including magistrates) about the effectiveness of different sentences in protecting the public through reducing the likelihood of the offender reoffending.

This view is supported by the Ministry of Justice itself which states in its written evidence to your Committee that "When passing sentence, the court must have regard to the statutory purposes of sentencing, which include the reduction of crime" and that regard must be given to "the cost of different sentences and their relative effectiveness in preventing re-offending... Understanding what works in reoffending is a priority for government.'

A similar view was put forward in the Justice Select Committee's Report on Justice Reinvestment which says we should be:

"looking to the judiciary to adopt an active role within local criminal justice boards so that they better understand the outcomes of their sentencing decisions, and are enabled to draw lessons from what happens to those they sentence; judges and magistrates should be encouraged to work closer with criminal justice agencies as has been proved successful in community, and drug and alcohol, court initiatives

and identifies that a holistic approach to reform is necessary "with a very clear and explicit statement of the purpose of the whole system against which organisational aims can be tested to assess their contribution to cutting the extent and seriousness of offending and reoffending.”

But this message still doesn't seem to be adopted by the judiciary. Recently I asked the chairman of the Sentencing Council, Lord Leveson, when he agreed that there was a need to put more emphasis on informing the courts about "what works" in making offenders less likely to offend again, and he responded rather bizarrely by saying that we needed to ask that question of community sentences but not of prison sentences. Again, this is complete contrast to the challenge laid down by the Select Committee in 2009 that "the role of the Sentencing Council should. be to ensure that sentencing practice succeeds in reducing offending and re-offending"' It's encouraging that services like probation and the prisons are keen to work with us and very positive about the help they get from services like education, training and health that come under Welsh Government.

It is important to be mindful that the context in Wales is different to that in England. In Wales many of the levers used in crime reduction fall within the remit of the Welsh Government such as housing, health and education.

And the Welsh Government has taken its role very seriously. Welsh Ministers have provided us with 500 additional Community Support Officers to work with local communities to reduce crime; they are introducing the world's first legislation specifically targeting preventing violence against women; and they have provided grant funding for an innovative Community Speedwatch project in South Wales to target speeding in the most socio-economically deprived areas. They are also taking a lead role in collaborative working encouraging Local Government to work on a footprint model, for example in South Wales there is a project underway to merge Bridgend, Swansea and Neath Port Talbot's youth services to share resilience and best practice across the region.

Welsh Government has also sought to engage Commissioners and the four Welsh Police and Crime Commissioners meet ministers regularly. Also, I currently sit on both the Reform Delivery Group, and the Finance Sub-Group working in partnership with Ministers and Local Government leaders to develop a response to current challenges. These are opportunities not afforded to my counterparts on the other side of Offa's Dyke.

However, much as I applaud national commitment to crime reduction, it cannot just be done nationally. A national strategy for crime reduction will only work as an aggregation of local action and with an understanding of the local context.

One of the key partnerships in reducing crime is the health service, and I take a victim-centred approach seeing crime as a public health problem — both in terms of reducing victims who suffer visible injuries as a result of a violent crime, as well as the psychological impact on victims who may have suffered from the effects of long term anti-social behaviour, for example. I have attached an essay I wrote earlier in the year which outlines the approach

I am taking and the ways in which I am working with partners. I am also working more widely with partners across South Wales to reduce crime through Safer South Wales — a board which meets quarterly and brings together the Police with local councils, Youth Offending Team managers, Probation, the Ambulance and Fire services and Health Board representatives. This gives us a broad range of perspectives to share concerns and work together on a co-ordinated approach. For more specialised issues on criminal justice matters, I have reconstituted the South Wales Criminal Justice Board bringing together strategic leads from the Criminal Justice Agencies to work towards a more efficient and effective system and increase confidence in the system in South Wales. I also meet the Safer South Wales Action group — a more practitioner led group which co-ordinates the delivery of strategy from Safer South Wales across the force area.

These issues are central to my Police and Crime (Reduction) Plan — I have included Reduction in the title of my plan, though it is not prescribed in the legislation as I believe this is what should be at the core of everything we do. Prior to becoming an MP, as you know I was a youth worker in some of the most deprived areas of Cardiff and worked with young offenders as well as chairing the (then) City Juvenile Bench. I saw the impact that youth offending had not only on the victims of crime, but on the future of the offenders themselves who became weighted down with criminal records before they even finished school. That is why I established Youth Offending Teams in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act which have been hugely successful in reducing offending. The upper age limit of 18 was there simply because it made sense to tackle offending at a young age rather than being a fixed ceiling. I have therefore made it a priority in my Plan not only to continue working on tackling youth offending, but to extend this to the 18-25 age group.

Having said that, it is vital that at the heart of all of my work on crime reduction are victims of crime — and witnesses of crime who often themselves feel victimised. When the Justice Select Committee inquired into the needs of victims, I asked the then Chief Executive of Victim Support to summarise what victims want and need. She answered that what victims want, more than anything else (other than not to have become a victim in the first place) is to know that it's not going to happen again.

We need to make sure that victims are treated properly within the criminal justice system. Going to court is too, often an experience of re-victimisation, and that must change. But it is also imperative that we prevent offending, reoffending and re-victimisation — prevention here is most definitely better than cure.

The police role is vital - not on their own, but as part of the team with other agencies. Victims need to see the police as being "on their side" and I strongly support my Chief Constable's commitment to improving victim satisfaction with the police response to crime and anti-social behaviour.

This was my philosophy in the development of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, not only introducing local partnerships and evidence based policing in Youth Offending Teams but extending this into wider community safety through Crime Reduction Partnerships renamed "Community Safety Partnerships" in Wales - which have quietly and effectively beavered away at making the public safer in our communities bringing together the Police, Probation, Fire and Health services with Local Authorities at a local level. This should be a cross party mantra because these principles were reinforced in the 2011 Police and Social Responsibility Act and in the role of Police and Crime Commissioners.

It's worked across England and Wales, but I suggest that it has worked particularly well in South Wales because it fits with the nature of strong local communities and the style of police leadership in recent times. We've also seen strong collaboration between the four Welsh chief constables and their teams, providing a healthy precursor for the arrival of commissioners with the same combination of being both independent in spirit and collaborative in practical matters. And that's been helped by the style of Government in Wales, with the emphasis on a "public health" approach and on protecting services and collaborative working.

Another key success of the 1998 Act was the Anti-social Behaviour Order — more commonly known as the ASBO. This arose from widespread public concern with low-level antisocial behaviour and not just with serious crime. Thankfully few people are directly affected by homicide but large numbers of people in South Wales know about litter and graffiti and noise nuisance and the trauma of living next to the "neighbours from hell.”

And we also recognised the complexity of the public response to crime and disorder. During dozens of meetings on run-down estates up and down the country I heard the authentic voice of local anger about local youngsters being out of control, only for the same person to say later in the meeting ".... and there's nothing for the kids to do around here". Many of those who most passionately asked us to be "tough on crime" also demanded action to "tackle the causes of crime".

I had never intended for the order to be used against young people who do not have a well developed sense of risk — and the high breach rate amongst young people, one of the justifications being used by the current Government to scrap the ASBO, supports my view that these types of orders just don't work for that age group. They were intended for adults and indeed the Act itself applied the ASBO only to adults.

The reason that the ASBO worked well is that whilst the Criminal Justice System is very good at looking at a snapshot of a single event, it is not very good at dealing with the moving picture of low-level crimes which can have a real impact on quality of life, both for individuals and communities. That's why I believe there is still a key role for the ASBO in tackling crime.

It was introduced as a civil order, which meant that professional witnesses could be used in court, for example Housing Officers, Community workers, and Police Officers. As intended, that protects victims from any negative repercussions from offenders and makes early intervention more likely. A breach of the Order would then be considered a criminal offence and be subject to the higher burden of proof, and the offender arrested as a deterrent.

The involvement of housing authorities and local authorities as well as the police was another recognition that crime reduction isn't something the police can deal with in isolation.

The figures show that most anti-social behaviour stops following a letter or some alert from an authority that they are committing anti-social behaviour (65% after the first intervention, 86% after two and 93% by the third intervention). I think there is a good case for intervening at the start — making people aware that they are causing a problem before neighbourhood relations deteriorate — and using community mediation to let offenders hear how their actions are impacting on the lives of others. That's the way to enable people to escape from even getting an order or an injunction against them. Such an approach has benefits socially, environmentally and financially, and it works.

However, I also think that we need some form of deterrent. That was why I thought, and still think, it is vital there is the threat of arrest, a criminal prosecution and potentially even jail for serious breaches. Our police tell me that these orders are being used to manage offenders within the community, through the threat that if they do not comply they are liable to have the police come knocking. Nationally, changes of direction are damaging to local work and local accountability and retard partnerships and working patterns developed over a number of years.

This all links back to the findings of the Justice Reinvestment report by the Justice Select Committee that a number of the levers which affect crime and anti-social behaviour fall outside of the criminal justice system'. A co-ordinated partnership approach is the only way to ensure effective crime prevention, and I very much welcome the inquiry by the Select Committee in this area because it is an approach that works.

I welcome the Ministry's commitment to providing up to 12 months support for all offenders —including those who have served less than 12 months. But this work needs resources and stability and efforts need to be made to ensure this is a truly joined up approach. Drug and alcohol intervention, mental health issues, housing services, education and training, counselling and relationship services are all important if the cycle of offending is to be broken. As a local prison governor said to me, it's about making sure on release someone turns left to local services, instead of right to the nearest pub.

I have heard too many times from prisoners and ex-prisoners that they are better off inside with routine, hot meals and a bed than on the outside. It's shocking that only one third of prisoners reported being in paid employment in the 4 weeks before custody, that 13% reported never having had a job, 15% were homeless before custody and 25% were suffering from anxiety and depressionv. That simply isn't right.

Against this background the forthcoming changes to the Probation Service as well as the shift in legislation to tackle anti-social behaviour are deeply worrying. These changes threaten to tear up partnerships and creating a great deal of uncertainty in the sector fuelled by a lack of evidence from pilots — which were cancelled in Wales. Mr Richard Johnson told the Committee on 2 July 2013 that if you want the system to work, you would attach funding directly to an individual that would otherwise go to probation, prisons, police, health, employment and housing to ensure a co-ordinated approach. The worst possible outcome would be a silo mentality with each service only interested in their bit of the puzzle. Ironically there is a better level of collaboration now than for many -years. We can only hope that will survive the current round of changes.

And Justice cannot be totally divorced from Social Justice. Police and Local Government face hugely reduced budgets as are partner agencies and third sector organisations and meanwhile welfare reforms are reducing the support available to people in our poorest communities. Pushing people to such dire situations can only result in an increase in additional pressure on services later on. It makes early intervention even more difficult at the very time when we need to create head room for services. Prisons and police cells should not be used as a backstop where other agencies have failed.

I am pleased to say that unlike some past periods of financial crisis, when there was a tendency to withdraw into "core services", many public bodies fully appreciate that only joint working can bring about more effective preventative work and improved standards of delivery. Strategic demands from government, the service demands of the end user, and effectiveness in serving the public all require a more joined-up approach in order to enable each part of the public sector to do more with less while coping with the effects of funding cuts.

This approach is actually supported in relation to community safety by both the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, and the 2011 Police and Social Responsibility Act.

The 1998 Act states:

"Section 17: Duty to consider crime and disorder implications.

(1)Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall be the duty of each authority to which this section applies to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area."

The 2011 Act reaffirms this, and includes a specific reference to the Police and Crime Commissioner's responsibilities with regards to partnership working and engagement with the Criminal Justice System:

1. The Police & Crime Commissioner must, in exercising his functions, have regard to the relevant priorities of each responsible authority.

2. The Commissioner, in exercising his functions, and a responsible authority, in exercising its functions conferred by or under section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in relation to that police area, must act in co-operation with each other.

3. The Commissioner, and the criminal justice bodies which exercise functions as criminal justice bodies in that police area, must make arrangements (so far as it is appropriate to do so) for the exercise of functions so as to provide an efficient and effective criminal justice system for the police area.

This is reinstated by the Commissioner's Oath of Office, which unlike the oath on becoming an MP pledges to serve the people living within the force area, and specifically spells out what the responsibilities of the Commissioner are, as follows:

 I will serve all the people of South Wales in the office of Police and Crime Commissioner.

 I will act with integrity and diligence in my role and, to the best of my ability, will execute the duties of my office to ensure that the police are able to cut crime and protect the public.

 I will give a voice to the public, especially victims of crime, and work with other
services to ensure the safety of the community and effective criminal justice.

 I will take all steps within my power to ensure transparency of my decisions, so that I may be properly held to account by the public.

 I will not interfere with the operational independence of police officers.

This is a very powerful set of requirements and I often use it when explaining the role of the Commissioner, not just to external organisations but also to the force and Chief Officers to show that I have to have regard to all those factors which affect crime prevention and reduction. Part of this remit, explicitly, is ensuring an effective and efficient criminal justice system.

Another approach which I have taken as the cornerstone of my work are Peel's 9 principles for policing:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it

Although these nine principles have stood the test of time, I believe a 10th principle needs to be added to follow on from this to recognise that perception and reality are not the same. When the public are bombarded with "bad news stories" it is not surprising that the fear of crime is often greater than the reality. My suggested 10th principle would be:

"Understand the real levels of crime, not just what is reported, and share this knowledge with the public to reduce the fear of crime."

As well as the communications challenge this presents, there is a need to understand the true levels of crime rather than depending just on what is reported to the police. You will be aware of the work of Professor Jonathan Shepherd in Cardiff who has worked scientifically to help the police and the council to drastically reduce levels of city centre violence through analysis of the experience of victims presenting at A&E.

In the 1990s police, councillors and media alike knew that violence was random and unpredictable in Cardiff City Centre. Police and NHS and others had to wait to see what happened and react. The first results of the analysis of A&E Data showed that this was simply untrue. Violence was concentrated quite disproportionately in a small number of locations. That information led to prophylactic deployment of police, discussions with relevant licensees, better information for all emergency services and a significant drop in violent incidents. Analysis of injuries led to the use of toughened glass and a reduction in the seriousness of many offences.

Information can be anonymised and used to target resources by time and location to prevent further violence. We are applying that sort of analytic approach to other manifestations of violence and indeed other aspects of crime.

In these circumstances a focus on evidence (of need and of "what works") is essential to identifying the most efficient course of action and the most effective partnership approach. Reduction of pressure on partners is itself a tangible benefit, as is the cut in the number of victims and the reduction of public fear and concern. It has to be underpinned by the principle of strategic agreement and tactical delivery.

At the core of this approach is a need to identify specific local places of concern with regards to incidents of violent crime using injury reports from Accident and Emergency units in addition to recorded incidents and police intelligence. Data on "hotspots" of violent incidents enables police deployment to target problem areas and cut offending. Better deployment of paramedics, ambulances and other emergency services can cut demand so that fewer people become victims of violent crime, fewer people present at A&E and the injuries presented are less serious.

It is through these approaches and in partnership with agencies and voluntary groups across South Wales that I am trying to develop a co-ordinated, evidence-based approach to crime prevention. This is dependent on building relationships and understanding local needs and the local context which needs to be recognised by Ministers, and by the Treasury. Consistent local action can change the national scene, but national action is only truly effective if it empowers effective local action.

November 2013

PPC 14 — Written Evidence from the Ministry of Justice, Paragraphs 35-36

Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment, House of Commons Justice Committee (2009) Pg 8

iii Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment, House of Commons Justice Committee (2009) Para 92

1° Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment, House of Commons Justice Committee (2009) Pg 6 PPC 14 — Written Evidence from the Ministry of Justice, Paragraphs 38

Reducing harm: Using a public health approach to tackling crime

It's a great irony that one of the two great clarion calls for common sense on combatting crime came from a Conservative Leader while the other came from a Labour Leader — over 150 years apart.

Each offered powerful slogans based in clear principles and borne out by evidence. They show that neither political theory nor populist rhetoric can adequately define the role of the police in meeting the prime responsibility of the State - to protect its citizens.

My first champion for common sense is Sir Robert Peel, whose nine "Peelian Principles" (distilled by later commentators from his speeches) boil down to two key principles :

 "The basic mission for the police is to prevent crime and disorder."

 "The Police are the public and the public are the police."

My second champion is Tony Blair whose approach was famously summed up in a single message

 "We must be Tough on Crime and Tough on the Causes of Crime."

Actually, it nearly didn't become famous. Tony became tired of repeating the message, and as his deputy I had to keep reinstating it in one speech after another until a sarcastic comment by Michael Howard (Home Secretary at the time) provided the oxygen of media attention and we were able to expound and develop the practical ideas that underpinned the slogan.

We identified widespread public concern with low-level antisocial behaviour and not just with serious crime. Thankfully few people are directly affected by homicide but large numbers of people in South Wales know about litter and graffiti and noise nuisance and the trauma of living next to the "neighbours from hell".

The imperative for sophisticated and responsible police leadership became clear after the polarised period of the Miners' Strike, when many Chief Constables sought to re-connect the police with the community. They also gave enthusiastic support to the principles of partnership set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Crime and Disorder Partnerships, Youth Offending Teams, the Youth Justice Board and preventative interventions like the Anti-social Behaviour Order have all helped to make a real and lasting impact on crime levels across England and Wales. As Peel rightly said, "the efficiency and effectiveness of the police is proved through the absence of crime and not through the evidence of police action in dealing with crime".

The most significant statement of evidence-based principles came in December 2009 with a unanimous cross-party report from the Justice Select Committee after a major investigation into Justice Reinvestment. "If you had all the money that goes into the Criminal Justice System today, would you spend it in the same way?" Simple answer: "No!"

It showed that most of the public policy factors that affect levels of crime and disorder are outside the hands of the police and the Criminal Justice System. Education, skills training, jobs, opportunity, housing, substance misuse, alcohol abuse, mental health and early intervention to "nip things in the bud" DO affect crime levels.

In particular, mental health is an issue that is raised regularly. Research has shown that 70% of the prison population has two or more mental health disorders. So we are failing to identify people with mental health conditions and failing to get them to the help they need. Individuals with mental health needs often end up in police custody instead of getting the help they need. In contrast the NHS is expected to help those with other on-going (or even "untreatable") conditions, like diabetes or a heart condition. A crisis for them may result in fast transit to A&E, but not a trip to police cells and that's what needs to change.

So, if most of the levers are outside the hands of the police, how can a Police & Crime Commissioner make a real impact?

For me, it comes down to three key approaches:

 A victim-based "public health" approach to crime

 A passionate commitment to an evidence-based approach

 A partnership approach to prevention

Here's what they mean in practice:

A victim-based approach

When the Justice Select Committee enquired into the needs of victims, I asked the then Chief Executive of Victim Support to summarise what victims want and need. She answered that what victims want, more than anything else (other than not to have become a victim in the first place) is to know that it's not going to happen again.

We need to make sure that victims are treated properly within the criminal justice system. Going to court is too often an experience of re-victimisation, and that must change. But it is also imperative that we prevent offending, re-offending and re-victimisation .

The police role is vital - not on their own, but as part of the team with other agencies. Victims need to see the police as being "on their side" and I strongly support my Chief Constable's commitment to improving the satisfaction of victims with the police response to crime and anti-social behaviour.

Restorative justice too must be victim-centred, enabling the victim's voice to be heard while challenging the offender and tackling the "relational deficit" which is exhibited by so many offenders.

Evidence-based approach

Preparing evidence for the court is central to police professionalism, so it may seem redundant to demand an evidence-based approach to policing. But an evidence-based approach to crime reduction is different, and for a time was not seen as central to the police as a "blue light" service. The "blue light service" of reactive policing is essential to the public and central to the role of the police - but it's reactive rather than preventative.

The "can do" attitude of the police to tackling problems is a great strength. When a problem arises, their instinctive response is "let me take that away and sort it". —However this can be a weakness if the levers of preventative action lie with other people. So the big challenge for a Commissioner is to endorse the action-orientated approach while leading the search for "what works" and taking a clinical approach to asking "why does this bad stuff happen?" and bringing about change.

My passionate belief in the partnership approach comes from a history of working across different agencies long before I entered Parliament. I worked with young offenders, I sought to reduce offending locally, I worked in an analytic interagency context as a youth worker and I chaired the city's Juvenile Bench (as it then was). An "action research" project in the Ely area of Cardiff with a young researcher —now Prof Howard Williamson of the University of South Wales made a massive impact on me. Intensive work proved that people in different professions "knew" the area in general, but totally misunderstood the detail at the granular local level. It also proved that a silo approach by agencies and professions is not just ineffective but totally counter-productive.

Earlier, being involved in a major project on "Working Together for Children and their Families", led by the late great Barbara Kahan, opened my eyes to the ineffectiveness of a great deal of public policy.

We now have ample proof that an evidence-based approach to partnership works. The Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships required by the 1998 Act (Community Safety Partnerships in Wales) are a clear success, although the methodology of audit, evidence collection and analysis has not been as methodical as I intended.

The effectiveness of a rigorous approach is shown by the Cardiff Violence Reduction Programme led by Prof Jonathan Shepherd of Cardiff University's Medical School. Jonathan approached me in the mid-90s to argue that a scientific approach could cut violence significantly. His in-tray for treatment of facial injuries from car accidents was going down (in number and seriousness) but his in-tray of victims of violence was escalating.

It's a long story, but analysing incidents which brought victims of violence to A&E led to significant and sustained reductions in the number and seriousness of violent incidents. Peer-reviewed published evidence puts this beyond doubt. A crucial aspect of my Police and Crime Plan, supported by the Welsh Health Minister, Mark Drakeford AM, is to take a similar baseline approach to all Accident and Emergency Departments across South Wales.

Commitment to partnership and preventative approaches

So an analytic approach is vital and partnership works - provided partnership is much more than different professionals just feeling comfortable with each other. I am convinced that other aspects of crime will respond to a similar clinical and rigorous approach. That's why partnership needs to permeate all agencies and translate into activity on the ground — as happens in the late night triage in Cardiff where health, police, local authority and Third Sector staff work amazingly well together.

The benefits are obvious and borne out in the statistics: If police have fewer crimes to deal with, they can focus their limited resources on improving interventions, increasing the sanction-detection levels, improving victim satisfaction and improving engagement with the wider public. That's consistent with Sir Robert Peel's messages. It's good for a surgeon to have fewer cases in his in-tray, for courts to deal with fewer cases and subsequently for police officers to be spared wasteful hours in court ……. and it's good for those who do not become victims.

I can only speak for South Wales, where the police have pursued this approach for several years and we have the enthusiastic engagement of local councils and others. The 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review's severe cuts, compounded now by further cuts, puts this success at risk. Above all, we need to avoid what I saw in previous recessions when many agencies retreated into their silo, narrowed their focus and reduced interagency cooperation. Certainly in Wales there is good evidence that things are different this time : Welsh Government, local councils and others understand that in tough times you need more joint working, not less.

That's where the Police and Crime Commissioner can add value.

If many crime reduction levers are outside the hands of the police, are the police less important as a Force and as a Profession? Certainly not: The role of police officers is enormously complex, coping with an amazing range of demands from local antisocial behaviour to terrorism and extremism, from traffic to the night time economy, from helping vulnerable elderly people to tackling thugs and crooks, and much, much more. Clear operational direction by the chief constable is vital, complemented by the role of the individual police officer - a citizen to whom we have given powers to act on behalf of the rest of us.

Ministerial statements and Media headlines about Police and Crime Commissioners talked of "powers" and "holding chief constables to account". That's important, but any interested observer should study the "Commissioners Oath of Office". An MP's oath refers vaguely to serving the Queen as some sort of proxy for public service, whereas the Commissioner's Oath is detailed, complex and specific. It reflects the complex role of a Commissioner, which in turn reflects the complex role of the police and I have promised specifically to serve the people and communities of South Wales.

The formal duties of a Commissioner are important, but it's the "and Crime" part of the role that allows an imaginative and enthusiastic Commissioner to make a real impact as a real partner for the Chief Constable, mutually challenging but with clear areas of responsibility. The Commissioner can make the connections across public bodies in general and carry out the explicit duty to provide an "efficient and effective criminal justice system" in the local police area. Our leadership is about driving down crime and supporting excellence in policing.

The way forward is clear — it's through a "public health" approach to policing. The Media portray well the excitement of "blue light" activities in the NHS and in the police, but it's the hidden, painstaking, evidence-based approach to making things better that matter for victims and patients. To put it another way, fewer victims and fewer patient spells success.

There's just one problem.

For years I believed that cutting crime would lead to people feeling safer, but that's not how it works. When I ask public meetings whether the centre of Cardiff is safer or less safe than it was ten years ago, most people say "worse". In fact it's far safer — shown by the reduced number and seriousness of injuries that take victims of violence to A&E.

So I want to add a "Tenth Principle" to Peel's nine:

"We must understand the real levels of crime, not just what is reported, and share this knowledge with the public to reduce the fear of crime".

As newspapers struggle to survive, as aspects of social media become shrill and intolerant, and as the cacophony of public opinion becomes ever more deafening, it sometimes seems hopeless to argue for trusting the public with the facts. Local residents are a part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. Churchill described democracy as the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. That applies equally to the public health approach to cutting crime and disorder.

It won't make headlines, but having been given leadership responsibility by the electorate, that's the direction in which the Police and Crime Commissioner should lead the police and the public.

Rt Hon Alun Michael

7th September 2013