POLICE
STANDARDS UNIT
18. The Minister told us that these powers would
be used if the new Police Standards Unit had not achieved the
desired result in its direct work with a Basic Command Unit.[18]
The unit itself has already been established in the Home Office
without a statutory basis. We understand that its origins lie
with a similarly-named body in the then Department for Education
and Employment which introduced the literacy and numeracy hours.
While there has been general support among our witnesses for measures
to improve police performance, the differing roles of the Standards
Unit and the long-established HM Inspector of Constabulary are
not widely understood. We have heard from a former Chief Inspector
of Constabulary:
"The proposal to set up [a Standards]
Unit...seems to cut across the central role of HM Inspector of
Constabulary...many within the Police Service will see the potential
for conflict".[19]
19. The Vice-Chairman of the Association of Police
Authorities shared this view:
"we are concerned about the Standards
Unit. We are already subject to inspections by Her Majesty's Inspector
of Constabulary and to some extent the two are doing the same
job. I think there is a case for saying that we do not need them
both".[20]
20. The General Secretary of the Police Federation
identified one possible problem:
"one of the difficulties with having
two units is if they both demand different sets of figures...produced
in different ways. It would be a nightmare...".[21]
21. The Minister explained:
"There is a difference in role between
the Inspectorate and the Standards Unit. The independent Inspectorate
is responsible...for inspecting and monitoring the overall performance
of every single police force in the country, and more recently
has developed a similar system of inspection for Basic Command
Units. The Police Standards Unit is going to concentrate much
more specifically on particular areas of performance, identifying
what works particularly well in some forces, working with other
areas with poor performance to enable them to increase their performance.
You could say in that sense it has a more directly interventionist
and supportive role and one that is focussed very much on performance
improvement in specific areas rather than the overall inspection
of forces".[22]
22. We recognise that this direct involvement
of the Home Office in Basic Command Units provides both risks
and opportunities. While the Home Office will be able to tackle
perceived poor performance in individual boroughs, it will also
make the Home Secretary responsible for a more detailed level
of operational policing than has been the case in the past.
23. We do not think the Home Office has made
out a convincing case for a Police Standards Unit separate in
the long term from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. There is much
to be said for providing the resources for this role to be carried
out by an expanded Inspectorate. That Inspectorate already conducts,
in addition to routine inspections, thematic inquiries on issues
which cut across the entire police service. We believe it is inevitable,
and desirable, that the Inspectorate and the Standards Unit should
eventually merge.
REGULATION
OF OPERATIONAL
PROCEDURES AND
PRACTICES
24. There are two other related powers in this
part of the Bill on which we have heard evidence: the powers on
regulation of equipment (now clause 5) and on regulation
of procedures and practices (now clause 6). Although there
is an obvious case for the former, concerns have been raised about
the latter. As originally drafted, it allows the Home Secretary
to make regulations that will apply to operational procedures
and practices in all police forces. There is disquiet about how
the power might be used and whether it would be done without consulting
interested parties. The President of the Association of Chief
Police Officers told us it was the greatest issue in the Bill
for him.[23]
Before the Bill had been amended in the Lords, he said: "You
could read the Bill and see that operational policy could be written
without any reference to police officers".[24]
25. The Minister described this as "a backup
power if we are not able to make the progress we would like".[25]
He gave two examples of how the power to make regulations might
be used:
"The National Intelligence model is more
than a computer system for...receiving police intelligence and
information...There are forces which are making very good use
of the National Intelligence model and there are areas where progress
has been very slow. The problem...is that the failure to have
a consistent approach in using intelligence does not just have
an impact at force level, it has a wider one...If you have a police
operation, for example, around armed robbery, which might involve
tracking suspected robbers from one police force area to one many
miles away, across several police force boundaries where the robbery
is due to take place, one needs to be able to ensure that there
is a consistent quality of armed support available throughout
that journey...".[26]
26. The Association of Police Authorities wanted
to be consulted in advance on the use of this power. Although
they did not think it was intended to use the power to enable
politicians to influence individual investigations, they conceded
there was a possibility that it could be.[27]
The Minister said : "We are very clear in the Bill...that
it is not our intention and we do not want to be able to intervene
to direct the way a particular operation is carried out or if
Bill Smith is to be arrested or whatever".[28]
27. The Government moved amendments in the Lords
to address concerns about the regulation of operational procedures
and practices. These include the removal of the word "operational",
inserting a requirement that such regulations may only be made
where it is necessary in the national interest, and requiring
prior consultation with police authorities, chief constables and
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.[29]
The Government has accepted the recommendation of the Lords' Delegated
Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the first use of the
power to make regulations on procedures and practices should be
subject to the affirmative resolution procedures.[30]
28. We welcome the changes to clause 6 (regulation
of procedures and practices) made by the Government in
the Lords and believe that as currently drafted it is satisfactory.
8 Q520-1 (John Denham). Back
9
Lords Hansard, 28 February 2002, col. 1624 (Lord Harris of Haringey). Back
10
Q. 513 (John Denham). Back
11
Lords Hansard, 5 February 2002, col. 524 (Lord Condon). Back
12
Ev 118. Back
13
Lords Hansard, 28 February 2002, col. 1606 (Lord Rooker). Back
14
ACPO briefing on the White Paper para 6 (not printed). Back
15
Police Superintendents' Association briefing on the White Paper,
para. 12 (not printed). Back
16
Q. 382 (Ms Leech). Back
17
Police Federation briefing paper on the White Paper, para. 29
(not printed). Back
18
Q. 517 (John Denham). Back
19
Ev 125. Back
20
Q. 376 (Mr Peel). Back
21
Q. 156 (Clint Elliott). Back
22
Q. 526 (John Denham). Back
23
Q. 22 (Sir David Phillips). Back
24
Q. 36. Back
25
Q. 538 (John Denham). Back
26
Q. 538 (John Denham). Back
27
Q. 414-5 (Dr Henig, Ms Leech). Back
28
Q514 (John Denham). Back
29
Lords Hansard, 15 April 2002, col. 784. Back
30
Twelfth Report, 2001-02, HL 73, para 5. Back
