The government’s announcement that Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are to be scrapped has reignited a fierce debate over police accountability in England and Wales. Dubbed a “failed experiment” by the Home Secretary, the system introduced 12 years ago is now set to be dismantled by 2028, with its powers transferred to elected mayors or council leaders. This move, promising to save £100 million and fund hundreds of new constables, forces a reckoning on the legacy of PCCs. Were they a vital layer of democratic oversight or a costly and ineffective bureaucratic tier?
The Case Against: A ‘Failed Experiment’
For its detractors, the PCC model has failed to deliver on its core promises, justifying its abolition.
1. Cost and Questionable Value for Money: The financial argument is paramount for the government. The Home Office states that the last PCC elections alone cost at least £87 million. Scrapping the 37 roles will free up an estimated £20 million annually for frontline policing—enough, they say, for 320 new constables. The Police Federation of England and Wales strongly supports this, arguing that the “tens of millions of pounds” spent on PCCs should be redirected to fund experienced officers.
2. A Democratic Deficit: Perhaps the most damning criticism is the persistent lack of public engagement. As the Home Office noted, less than 20% of voters can name their PCC. Policing Minister Sarah Jones stated the model had “weakened local police accountability,” suggesting that rather than enhancing democratic control, it created a remote and poorly understood layer of bureaucracy. Low voter turnout in PCC elections has consistently undermined their mandate.
3. Perverse Impacts and Centralisation: Critics argue the system has had unintended consequences. Minister Jones pointed to “perverse impacts on the recruitment of chief constables,” hinting at political interference and instability in police leadership. Furthermore, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Max Wilkinson, while welcoming the end of PCCs, warned against simply handing powers to mayors “who have dubious democratic mandates and little scrutiny,” suggesting the problem of remote accountability may simply be relocated.
The Case For: A Vital Link Scrapped Prematurely
Despite the criticism, defenders of PCCs argue that abolishing them is a short-sighted move that risks creating an accountability vacuum.
1. Direct Accountability and Scrutiny: Before PCCs, police authorities—made up of local councillors and magistrates—were often criticised as invisible and ineffective. Emily Spurrell, PCC for Merseyside, argues that the role has “improved scrutiny and transparency, ensuring policing delivers on the issues that matter most to local communities.” A single, elected individual provides a clear point of contact and responsibility for holding the police force to account.
2. A Strong Voice for Victims: PCCs have often championed services for victims and witnesses, tailoring support to local needs. The government has had to explicitly assure that these services will continue, acknowledging the role PCCs played in this area. Advocates worry that folding these functions into broader council or mayoral responsibilities could dilute this focused advocacy.
3. A Dangerous Vacuum: With policing facing a “crisis of public trust and confidence,” as Spurrell notes, abolishing PCCs “without any consultation… risks creating a dangerous accountability vacuum.” The shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, condemned the move as “tinkering around the edges” from a government “failing on crime and policing.” The question remains: who will provide the dedicated, force-level oversight that PCCs were designed for, and will they have the teeth to be effective?
The Verdict: Evolution, Not a Solution?
The debate over PCCs is ultimately one about the most effective model of governance. The government sees a costly, underperforming system that can be streamlined into existing local government structures, saving money for frontline crime fighting.
However, supporters see the abolition as an overreaction that ignores the progress made. They argue that the model brought a much-needed public face to police governance and that the solution to low public awareness is not to scrap the role but to reform and strengthen it.
As the final terms of PCCs end in 2028, the nation will watch closely. The success or failure of their successors—whether mayors or councils—in delivering accountable, effective, and trusted policing will be the ultimate judgment on whether scrapping the commissioners was a prudent saving or a retrograde step for local democracy.
Dorset PCC Blasts “Baffling” and “Disappointing” Plans to Abolish Role
Dorset’s Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), David Sidwick, has issued a fierce response to Home Office plans to abolish the role of PCCs, labelling the announcement “beyond disappointing” and “baffling.”
The strong reaction comes in response to a government proposal that would see PCCs replaced with a new system of accountability. Sidwick expressed profound concern over the lack of detail and consultation surrounding the move.
“The announcement from the Home Office is beyond disappointing for many reasons,” Sidwick said. “To announce this without any consultation or satisfactory advanced warning, and with no tangible detailed plans for how scrutiny of Dorset Police will happen beyond 2028 is baffling. This move raises more questions over the future of accountability in policing than it answers.”
Directly challenging the government’s rationale, the Commissioner defended the record of Police and Crime Commissioners. “I utterly refute the criticism that PCCs are a so-called ‘failed experiment’,” he stated. “When done properly, with a strategic Police and Crime Plan where priorities are set by the people and enacted on their behalf, this works. This is what PCCs should be doing; acting on behalf of the public, as we are doing in Dorset.”
Sidwick has called on the Home Secretary for immediate clarity, demanding to see the detailed plans for maintaining police scrutiny and service levels. “I urgently call on the Home Secretary to show me the details of how they intend to continue the necessary level of scrutiny policing requires, as well as how they plan to continue to provide the same level of service to prevent crime, reduce reoffending and support victims. Reassurance on this final matter alone is vital and imperative.”
A significant fear raised by the PCC is that the new arrangements will disproportionately favour urban centres at the expense of rural counties like Dorset. “I fear these new arrangements will only benefit large metropolitan areas, as we have seen with the funding formula, and once again, leave Dorset and other more rural counties behind,” Sidwick said. “Local priorities and expertise will be lost as policing agendas are set by large regions and central government, rather than those who know their counties and I am deeply concerned that those who will suffer will be the people of Dorset.”
Despite the planned abolition of his role in 2028, Sidwick vowed to continue his work with unwavering focus. “Let me make it clear, while I remain PCC until 2028, every ounce of effort I have will be put into making certain we deliver the Police and Crime Plan, set by the people of this county. By holding the Chief Constable to account, overseeing the budget, lobbying for vital changes to the funding formula, and supporting victims of crime, I am focused on delivering for each and every resident to ensure Dorset remains one of the safest places in the country to live, work and visit.”
