EXAMINATION
OF WITNESSES
(QUESTIONS 1-19)
8 JULY 2003
DR KEVIN
BOND AND
MR STEPHEN
RIMMER
Q1 DAVID
WINNICK: Dr Bond and Mr Rimmer,
thank you very much for coming along to answer questions about
the Police Standards Unit. I doubt we will keep you here too long,
but we have a number of questions and we would obviously like
to see what progress—if any—has been achieved as a
result of setting up the Unit two years ago. I am not really encouraging
you, but if either of you wish to start by making a brief statement
you are welcome to do so, otherwise we will go straight on to
questions.
DR
BOND: I am very
happy to take questions if that is acceptable to the Committee.
Q2 DAVID
WINNICK: Indeed, Dr Bond, you
will soon be leaving, I understand.
DR
BOND: That is
correct.
Q3 DAVID
WINNICK: We may mention that later
on. The Unit has been in existence for two years and the inevitable
question is: what has it achieved? What difference has it made?
What problems have you experienced?
DR
BOND: Just for
the record I ought to mention that I have been associated with
the Unit for 18 months at the end of this month. As I have seen
it, there are two key issues to the whole issue of performance
which is really what the Unit's focus is in helping the Police
Service in England and Wales step change its performance. The
first thing is data—information—in order to allow
comparisons to be made across forces and within forces. The traditional
data sources when looking at police performance are published
crime statistics. Because of the way the crime statistics are
put together, analysed, cleaned in terms of statistics—statistical
rigour—and then published, by the time they are published
they are quite a number of months old, frequently in excess of
six months. If you are going to impact and effect performance
change, that is far too long. What you really need is data that
is quite close to the occurrence of the event. I do not think
in policing or public service one is likely to get point of sale
type information as you would in a retailer, but you can bring
the time right down. We have brought the time of collecting the
data in terms of what has been happening within police forces
down to approximately within a month of the month end of the previous
month; within fourteen days of a month end all police forces have
sent in their own crime data, their performance data in terms
of detections. That is now processed and available typically by
the third week of the following month. That allows us to do a
number of things and it took about 10 months of 2002 to get into
that position. Meanwhile we worked on a system within the Home
Office with Stephen Rimmer's team on the policy side within a
framework which is called the Policing Performance Assessment
Framework (which I will come back to) to identify what has been
happening in terms of performance issues. What I mean by that
is that we are now able to identify trend data in performance
terms within forces and between forces. That allows us to begin
to identify against a whole range of different crime types, actually
developing patterns. I am talking about volume crime here, not
organised or serious crime. In terms of burglary or vehicle crime
or street robbery, for example, we are able to identify developing
patterns. That means the discussion we have with police forces
is a discussion on the basis of fact and fairly recent fact. That
has allowed us to identify what parts of performance are doing
well and what are not, and also to feed back to all police forces
and have been for the past two months—and I think this is
the really important issues—comparable data for them in
managerial terms to look at what is happening in their performance
against their peer group. In effect, we provide them with some
benchmarking which has not been available before. For myself,
that is the single most important thing that has happened. As
a consequence of that, it has allowed us to talk on the basis
of fact to police forces about areas of performance improvement
that they can engage on and to begin to capture good practice
from forces and share that amongst forces. In summary, those are
the two major thrusts that we have been engaged on and when one
looks at the Police Standards Unit—as the data I have provided
to you I hope shows—we have built up within the group two
groups of people, one to bring the data together—so effectively
we have a common data warehouse for all of those people involved
in looking at policing—and secondly a team of mixed Home
Office policy professionals and seconded police officers who are
working in a consulting way with police forces on helping them
improve their performance.
Q4 DAVID
WINNICK: If this Unit had not
come into existence two years ago, would there have been the slightest
difference to the degree of criminality, one way or another?
DR
BOND: Yes.
Q5 DAVID
WINNICK: Why?
DR
BOND: As a consequence
of forces being able to look at the performance data and where
their performance is, we have begun to see a focus of resources
around those areas that they have not been performing as well
as other forces are.
Q6 DAVID
WINNICK: You are saying that if
this Unit had not been brought into existence criminality would
have been more than it is at the moment?
DR
BOND: I am saying
the high probability is that it would have. We will never know
what the truth is, will we? I think there is increasing evidence
that there would be, and I can point to a number of particular
examples. My memorandum refers to structuring the Automatic Number
Plate Recognition system which has been led from within the Police
Standards Unit in conjunction with ACPO. Technology reads the
number plate of a vehicle. It basically makes an intelligence
database—a live database instead of a passive database—and
the six months' trial in the nine forces that ran in the second
half of last year resulted in excess of 3,000 additional arrests
(and the data is in there) and recovery of property and has led
to a 23-force scheme which has been agreed by the Chancellor for
hypothecation of the revenue to support its roll out. If I point
to the fast-track DNA examples we have been sponsoring in a number
of forces in the West Midlands—in particular in Lincolnshire—where
we have taken two very different forces, a major urban force and
a rural force, we have seen a step change in the West Midlands.
There has been a 13% reduction in burglary in the three months
that it was introduced. In Lincolnshire there has been an increased
clear-up rate in excess of 20%. I think those would not have happened
had we not brought to the attention of the forces a number of
techniques that can step-change performance.
Q7 DAVID
WINNICK: I suppose it could be
argued that if the Unit had not come into existence there would
have been other ways in which what you have given as examples
could have been brought about.
MR
RIMMER: Could
I perhaps answer that as the official with overall responsibility
for police performance and the Police Reform Programme? You are
right in that some of these things would have been put in place,
but there is no doubt that what the Standards Unit has done—led
by Dr Bond—has been to act as a catalyst to accelerate the
process of focussing on performance, particularly comparative
performance, across forces and BCU's which was at a very embryonic
state two to three years ago. Although other key players including
HMIC, ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) and others
have played a part in that, there is no doubt that the Standards
Unit has brought a much greater focus and intensity to bear on
that.
Q8 DAVID
WINNICK: I am sure the Committee
will carefully note these points. I noticed that the Unit's budget—and
I am sure the Treasury will be pleased—for 2004-05 and 2005-06
remain the same. Clearly further monies were not required.
DR
BOND: I come
from a background where cash is a very considerable resource.
I think you have to earn it and I think you have to judge very
carefully where you spend it. I have no objections to that; I
think it is right and proper. It acts as an incentive to deliver
more with existing cash each year. The first year is always the
hardest, getting the programmes in place. I have no complaints
about that.
Q9 MR PROSSER:
Dr Bond, when the Unit was first set up there was some criticism
that its remit was too wide and there might be some confusion
between its different roles. How have you managed to balance the
Unit's different roles of auditing performance, trouble-shooting,
standard-setting and identifying policy problems?
DR
BOND: First
of all, as I have explained, by gathering some data. I do not
believe that you can logically deal with a range of challenges
such as the Police Service face today without understanding what
the actual facts are that sit behind that, which was why a significant
proportion of 2002 was spent in putting the data sources in place
in order to understand what is happening. I think one of the difficulties
that the Police Service and Home Office have had for some time
has been not having acceptable common sources of data in order
to draw a comparison. Those are largely in place and are being
developed now. The future, through the Policing Performance Assessment
Framework—which my friend Stephen Rimmer is overseeing—as
a policy lead will provide us with a considerable amount of information
to judge not just comparative effectiveness but comparative efficiency.
The question is, does the allocation of resource in money terms
make a big difference in terms of performance? We could speculate
about it but we actually do not know until we have some data.
That is in the process of being captured. Once we had the data
from the first part of last year we began to see some areas of
performance that needed more attention. The first one that was
very obvious at the beginning of the year was street crime. It
was very obvious—you only have to look at the data trends—that
there were major difficulties in some of our major cities in terms
of street robbery and snatch theft. An exercise was put together
to bring that data together. It became very apparent that this
was almost a straight 80/20 problem. A small number of major forces
were accounting for the major part of that problem. It was obvious
to focus on those areas, capture data on a regular basis. A scheme
was put in place to trap the data in fast-track and to work up
with those police forces strategies to deal with that particular
problem. There was a 16% reduction in the first 6 months of that
scheme because the police had got the intelligence systems together
and allocated their resources to deal with it. These things work.
Q10 MR PROSSER:
How do you combine your operational work with your police and
policy work within the Home Office? How do those two fit together?
DR
BOND: It is
through regular meetings with the policy groups that Stephen oversees
that we make sure that the developments that are being put in
place are fitting within the pattern of policy development within
the Home Office. Essentially, the key framework process at the
moment is the Policing Performance Assessment Framework which
is moving towards an integrated model of policing, trying to capture
across a range of different dimensions the rich variety of policing
to look at the comparative effectiveness and then this year capture
the data about where the costs are going.
Q11 MR PROSSER:
How successful have you been in engaging with the police and receiving
their confidence in the work you are doing?
DR
BOND: You will
have to ask police colleagues, many of whom I have known an awful
long time quite well. I have not in my experience across a number
of different areas of work found many people who go to work to
do a bad job. They go to work to do a good job; they are frequently
faced with considerable challenges and, if you can engage in a
constructive way, I have found the Police Service, by and large,
to be very willing to receive support and assistance.
Q12 DAVID
WINNICK: By and large. There are
some exceptions presumably.
DR
BOND: I think
there always are exceptions. There will always be those odd occasions
when you are dealing with something that is very special and very
sensitive to them and it takes a while to get through that hurdle.
Q13 DAVID
WINNICK: It depends how long a
while is really.
DR
BOND: I think
I can give you a good example of one. I think the city of Bristol
was hit by a very serious problem in their central Bristol Basic
Command Unit dealing with crack cocaine. I think that they felt
for some time that the answers lay outside rather than inside
the Force. We spent a lot of time working with them analysing
the data, then supporting them, and, once they really got to focus
on it, put their series of operations in place, moved resources.
I think the data shows that the management of Avon and Somerset
Force has had the most remarkable success in dealing with what
was a dreadful problem for the people of central Bristol. I think
they deserve huge credit for that, but I think it would be unreasonable
to expect any management team not to spend a bit of time asking
first of all why a group of outsiders should be pointing out their
problems. Eventually we got together.
Q14 MR PROSSER:
What issues—if it is not too long a list—have you
raised so far with the Home Office proactively?
DR
BOND: I think
all the indications, again on the data and on current performance
by the Police Service, in terms of volume crime—burglary
particularly, vehicle crime to a large extent and street robbery—that
the Police Service of England and Wales is pretty well on target
to meet the targets that the Home Office agreed with the Treasury
in terms of their PSA. I think there are areas of concern that
are developing in the more organised serious crime area. I am
talking here of two particular examples, one is on-line paedophilia
(which is a very, very difficult issue to deal with because of
the international and technology dimensions of it) and suspicious
transactions (in terms of the banking world, proceeds of crime
and all that kind of thing). There are systems now in place to
deal with these, but the volume of enquiries are building in such
a way that it means that the Police Service is having to think
very hard about new systems and structures to deal with that.
That is part of the process of development that I think needs
to be picked up now and is being picked up by ACPO and the Home
Office.
Q15 BOB
RUSSELL: HM Inspectorate of Constabulary's
strategic plan lists, amongst its functions, to promote the efficiency
and effectiveness of policing, that agreed standards are achieved
and maintained, good practice is spread and performance is improved.
Are they descriptions which you think also apply to the Police
Standards Unit?
DR
BOND: They are
not far off what the Police Standards Unit is dealing with.
Q16 BOB
RUSSELL: You will be aware that
in 2001 this Committee recommended that the Standards Unit should
eventually merge with the Inspectorate of Constabulary. How has
your Unit demonstrated, since its creation, the need for a separation
of roles?
DR
BOND: I think
it was a desire to have a focus on performance by creating a new
entity that acted as a catalyst. I think that is what has happened.
I think that has acted as a catalyst within the Police Service,
within the Inspectorate and within the Home Office. We have identified
a number of areas that needed particular attention; I think we
are in the process of doing that. As I have said, I think the
results are beginning to come through. If your question is about
the future, I am conscious of what you, as a Committee, have recommended
and it makes sense.
Q17 BOB
RUSSELL: The Home Office, in rejecting
our recommendation said that the Inspectorate of Constabulary
and the Police Standards Unit would work together to identify
where forces and Basic Command Units need support to improve their
performance. With the benefit of what has gone on since you have
been in charge, how do you work with the Inspectorate and the
new Independent Police Complaints Commission and other agencies,
and is there harmony?
DR
BOND: At the
moment there is harmony, yes. The new Independent Police Complaints
Commission is too early. With the existing Police Complaints organisation
then yes, I have been meeting with them quarterly with ACPO to
look at the developing trends in terms of complaints and how they
link through to performance. There has been a very fruitful series
of meetings with HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Keith
Povey. I have been meeting with Keith every month to talk through
issues that we are dealing with. We spent the early part of 2002
drawing up between us an understanding of remit and how we would
work together and I think there are a number of examples, particularly
over the last 12 months, where there has been a close working
together and an alignment. The truth is that our focus has been
on performance and being a catalyst on performance. I think it
was absolutely right of the Home Secretary to create a separate
body in order to jump start the focus on performance, but I believe
in any system or area of organisation too many separate bodies
in the long term is not necessarily helpful and I think there
is a time in the future when there may be a convergence of these
different bodies. I do not think we are just talking about HMIC;
you have the National Centre for Policing Excellence, you have
the Police Standards Unit, you have the Audit Commission. For
how long do you have separate bodies? That is a judgement call,
but you need them for a time in order to get a focus and a drive.
When that time for convergence comes, I think is for people in
the future to judge.
Q18 BOB
RUSSELL: Perhaps we will put that
question to your successor in a year's time.
MR
RIMMER: Could
I just give a broader Home Office view on that? There are at least
two specific reasons I would give as to why now is not the right
time to go for merger which is why ministers have gone for looking
for a successor to Kevin. One reason is in the context of focussing
on police performance. The Standards Unit is a very targeted resource;
it will focus on particular issues or particular areas within
the performance areas of particular priority forces concerned.
The Inspectorate, as you will be aware, has a regional focus,
an infrastructure, that is always there and is able to keep tabs
on a more regular basis in terms of what is happening within individual
forces. From my perspective—I chair a performance steering
group that brings PSU and HMIC together—that gives quite
a good synergy between those two rather different roles. The other
point I would mention in respect of the Inspectorate is that,
as you will be aware, there is a lot of focus and attention on
how to ensure that the Inspectorates work more closely together
across the Criminal Justice System as a whole. We are looking
to the Inspectorate of Constabulary to make important contributions
to that. That does, at the moment, run very much beyond the remit
of the Police Standards Unit.
Q19 BOB
RUSSELL: Is there a possibility
of duplication of effort between the various policing agencies?
Taking it on a bit further than that, is there confusion within
police forces about the roles of the various organisations? If
there is, what is the Home Office doing about it?
MR
RIMMER: My sense
is that in the early days of the Standards Unit there was some
confusion; I do not think there is any doubt about that. I think
over the last six to nine months—and this has crucially
depended upon the Inspectorate and the Standards Unit working
much more closely together—the parameters have been much
more clearly laid out in terms of the Inspectorate underpinning
an inspectorial and advisory role, which is of course independent
of the Home Office, and the Standards Unit as part of the Home
Office, being targeted in ways which have been agreed by the Inspectorate
to make a particular impact or added value. That process has not
concluded. Kevin referred to the National Centre for Policing
Excellence which is another body that is about driving up standards.
We need to continue to communicate—and more importantly
behave—in such a way that people understand those distinctive
roles. I think ministers are very clear that in terms of the overall
resource provision for driving up standards they still have a
pretty lean set of machines as it were, and it is very important
in that context that we avoid duplication, as you say.
| 
