Top cop fears 'sinister' forces

IT'S not often you hear a chief constable referring to the Home Secretary - or even the Home Secretary's policies - as 'sinister'. David Kenworthy is so mild-mannered that when he does so, it takes a few moments to sink in. He has been talking about why, after less than five years as Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police, he is about to retire.

Fixed term appointments for senior police officers are the norm these days, he says: a Government requirement since 1995. His own appointment was for five years. There are pros and cons to that: a chief constable who has been in post too long can become hidebound and resistant to change, but changing leaders too often can lead to discontinuity.

Then he drops his bombshell.

"There is a rather more sinister side coming out now," he says, leaning back in his chair in his sunlit office at police HQ near Northallerton. "At the moment you have chief constables who are operationally independent. That's a constitutional position which we should not give up lightly. This Home Secretary seems to have a view that he would like to be able to get rid of chief constables rather more easily."

I blink. Did he really just call David Blunkett sinister? Sinister is a strong word, Mr Kenworthy says. But it is clear he has real worries about a politician having the power to hire and fire chief constables at will - which is what he seems to feel the 2002 Police Reform Act is moving towards.

There has always been a degree of political control over senior police appointments. When he was appointed, Mr Kenworthy says, he was selected by the Police Authority (which consists partly of local elected politicians) from a shortlist and his appointment was approved by the then Home Secretary.

But he clearly thinks it would be unwise (indeed, sinister) for the degree of political control to be tightened, presumably because it could ultimately lead to direct political meddling in police operations.

Mr Blunkett, he says, has already taken 'a lot more powers' under the Police Reform Act. "Despite the Home Secretary protesting that he would never abuse those powers, he of course cannot control his successors," he says. "It would be a bad day if I were constantly looking over my shoulder when I was deciding how to act against criminality because I was worried about the adverse effect on my career."

People assume we could never have political prisoners in this country, he adds. "But we did not think we would have them in Zimbabwe because that was built on a British form of government and democracy."

He is not suggesting, of course, that New Labour is going to turn into another Robert Mugabe and begin instructing the police to lock up political opponents: merely warning that the checks and balances in place to assure the independence of the police are important, and that there is a slippery slope down which it is best not to start.

Even so, it is unusual to find him so outspoken. Perhaps it is because he is about to retire, and is 'winding down'. Next Monday, he jokes, is the "last Monday he will have to turn up for work". After 36 years in the force, he is obviously enjoying the prospect.

So how does he feel he has done in his five years in charge? He reels off a list of achievements: putting an end to the sexual harassment scandals; ensuring a proper training programme is in place; slimming down the police hierarchy and restructuring the force into three main areas (of which York and Selby is one), each with its own devolved command.

He is most proud of the way his officers dealt with the Great Heck rail tragedy and with the floods of 2000. He also mentions the assistance North Yorkshire officers gave Burnley police during the riots there. "Our officers were the best trained and best equipped by far, to the extent where Lancashire (police) have told me that North Yorkshire will be the first force of choice if they get any further trouble," he says.

All very well: but what the police will really be judged on is how they tackle crime. The stark fact is that in the last year, crime in North Yorkshire has soared after a steady year-on-year decrease for the six years before.

A blip, Mr Kenworthy insists - caused partly at least by changes in the rules for counting crime.

But York police chief John Lacy himself admitted that while part of the increase may be down to changes in the way crime is counted, there has, in the last 12 months, been a 'significant rise' in real crime, I point out.

Perhaps so, he accepts. But the underlying trend is still downwards.

The key to reducing crime, he says - and it is a point already made by Chief Superintendent Lacy - is tackling the relatively small number of serious criminals responsible for most crimes.

He says York police have been given £90,000 to target the 40 'most prolific offenders' in the city - and if they are successful, the crime figures may well tumble again by the end of the year.

He makes no secret of what he considers the prime target: drugs. The effects of crack cocaine on crime are horrendous, he says. A huge number of prisoners are drug abusers, and very often the people caught in the police net are the victims of drugs, rather than the big dealers. "We need greater efforts to catch the dealers."

That's why his announcement in yesterday's Evening Press that York is finally to get a greater share of the county's policing resources - with the bulk of a £600,000 crime fighting fund to pay for recruitment coming to York and Selby - is good news.

At last, the under-resourcing of Central area police (which includes York and Selby) has been recognised. York, Mr Kenworthy now concedes, "needs a greater share of people".

The £600,000 will not necessarily all be spent on more bobbies on the beat, however. Targeting known criminals needs good intelligence and undercover work. And one of the best ways of gathering criminal intelligence is forensics. So some of the cash, for example, may be better spent on civilian scenes of crimes officers.

Mr Kenworthy understands the frustrations of people who want to see more uniformed police on the street. "I live in Easingwold," he says "There are times when I look out of the window and think where is a police officer to come and sort this out?" But times have changed. Police perform many more specialised roles these days: undercover work, surveillance, fraud squad investigations.

"They are around, but you won't see them," he insists. "They are not visible."

Few would argue with that. The acid test, however, is not whether the police are visible, but whether they are effective. Banging up a few more of York's 40 master criminals before the end of the year may begin to convince people they are.

Updated: 12:20 Thursday, October 03, 2002