EXAMINATION
OF WITNESSES
(QUESTIONS 40-59)
8 JULY 2003
DR KEVIN
BOND AND
MR STEPHEN
RIMMER
Q40 MR PROSSER:
What is the likelihood of the scoring process you use in the documents
becoming a league table?
DR
BOND: I would
rather it did not. The difference between forces are so profound.
What I am very comfortable with is to see what happens year on
year in terms of performance of either a force or a BCU. I think
to try to simplify it—we all like simplicity, I know—we
would have the danger of how do you compare the London Metropolitan
Police with Lincolnshire? Frankly it is a nonsense. Indeed, it
is very hard to compare the London Metropolitan Police with any
other UK police force which is why we are looking at some international
work. I think the way in which it is developing which has gone
through extensive consultation with ACPO and the Association of
Police Authorities, to try to do it across what is basically a
balanced score card multi-dimensional approach allows us all to
see year on year what is happening in terms of each of these different
angles and whether it is getting better or not. Some of the early
work that my team has undertaken in looking at the current year—2002-03—against
the baseline year—2001-02—begins also to show that
two or three very big complex police forces have made astonishing
step changes in performance. That will become available once we
have cleaned it up and published it.
Q41 MR PROSSER:
Mr Rimmer, you mentioned moving towards publication and more transparency
and openness, do you think those moves will satisfy the concerns
of the superintendents who said that it was difficult to find
out how they were scored, what judgments were made and how you
could improve matters?
MR
RIMMER: It has
not only been the Superintendent's Association; certainly ACPO
has raised concerns about what criteria we are using to assess
comparative performance. They have had a case to argue on that.
What we did in the National Policing Plan last year was to identify—to
use the jargon—the interim key indicators that we were going
to deploy prior to the full implementation of the Policing Performance
Assessment Framework as a means of giving forces some clarity
about what the key areas of measurement were going to be. We listed
key crime categories—street crime, volume crime, burglary—and
we looked at detections, we looked at some of the more public
focussed information around confidence and satisfaction measures.
We also added one or two issues, including sick absence, that
related to organisational health. As things stand, although it
is not a complete picture for the reasons that Kevin has outlined
in terms of how the data is developing, we already have some degree
of a framework which enables forces to know what they are particularly
being judged on. What the Policing Performance Assessment Framework
(which will go live as it were from next April) will be able to
do on top of that is that it will be more rounded, not introducing
additional measures for the sake of it, but actually incorporating
what forces are already measuring but not in ways we currently
feed back to them. It will also attempt, for the first time, to
give a proper breadth to what policing is all about which is not
just the easy things that are already measured, but also some
of the issues such as a sense of well-being. There are also big
issues for forces like the Met about their efforts to combat terrorism
which we do not properly measure at the moment. All of these elements
are very important, and there will also be a much clearer link
to the resource provision going into forces so that we start to
get the sense of the relationship between what capability forces
and BCU's have in terms of the resources available to them and
how they are doing in terms of performance based on that.
Q42 MR PROSSER:
Following on from that, the issue of transparency and putting
extra resources in particular units, how robust are those decisions?
Can you stand them up in front of other police forces? Is there
a danger of putting extra resources into a particular force and
being criticised as having rewarded poor performance?
DR
BOND: It is
a conundrum I think and it applies in all organisations. If you
have an entity that is not performing as well as another, what
do you do? It is something that is a universal service and one
that we all at some time may need, like policing. I guess health
must be the same. You cannot afford not to support an organisation
that is not delivering as good as somebody else can. When you
get into this, it is frequently as a result of them not knowing
that there is this new technology or somebody has done this and
it has worked well for them. The sharing of the knowledge management
is not as good as it ought to be. That is something we can work
on and make better. I think it is perfectly reasonable to make
an investment in those areas of money and time. Frequently it
is a consultancy support that is needed in order to help bring
that performance up to par. That is the process I have adopted
and I would like to think that it is working reasonably well.
Q43 DAVID
WINNICK: Any non-sexed-up material
that you want to leave us, please do so. You mentioned Bristol
and then you went on to mention Lambeth. Was the Unit involved
in any way in what did happen there in what was considered to
be a somewhat relaxed attitude to cannabis and the action taken
regarding the senior police officer involved, Mr Paddick?
DR
BOND: The previous
policy in relation to the experiment in Lambeth predated my Unit
so we were not involved in it. What we were involved in is the
process in conjunction with the command team in the Metropolitan
Police in looking at how the problems of street dealing, in particular
of crack cocaine, could be dealt with. One of my team, Commander
Pearman, who was seconded to us from the Metropolitan Police,
was involved in working up the Delivery Plan to tackle that area
of drugs criminality.
Q44 DAVID
WINNICK: I do not wish to lead
you into territory where you may well be reluctant to touch on,
but you know of the controversy about what happened in Lambeth
and I am just wondering if you feel that on the whole it was more
positive than negative.
DR
BOND: I am not
equipped to make that decision in that particular area. What I
am equipped to say is that the action that was taken by the teams
in the middle and end of 2002 in dealing with street dealing of
crack cocaine was remarkably successful and is having a lasting
effect. I am not equipped to make a comment on those other issues.
Q45 DAVID
WINNICK: Do you have any views
in your last few weeks or months as head of the Unit whether the
fight against drugs is being lost?
DR
BOND: It is
not having great success at the moment. I would not say it is
being lost. What I would say is that there is a set of processes
being worked up that will give us a very good reason to expect
a much better working relationship. The Drugs Directorate in the
Home Office is working through a series of plans which I think
have great benefit in being well worked through, considered and
supported in some funding and working along with law enforcement
agencies. However, I think if you look at the National Criminal
Intelligence Services Reports since 1998 in terms of the impact
of crack cocaine on the UK and you roll those maps out—they
have published a map each year since then—then effectively
we have a serious problem. If it were a medical map we would describe
it as an epidemic map. The real issue, I think, is how will we
deal with what is frankly an organised crime problem. I said earlier
that I think the Police Service is having considerable success
in dealing with volume crime, the targeted crime that Stephen
mentioned of burglary, street robbery and vehicle crime. I think
in terms of some of the issues relating to crack cocaine—particularly
the organising of the dealing of it, the movement from one city
to another, some of the related gun crime—there is still
work to be done. We are working on a number of projects with the
National Criminal Intelligence Service to aid the gathering of
intelligence in respect of that. Without good intelligence you
cannot have good operations. I think there is work being undertaken
that will deliver some step change in performance in the next
year or two years. I would not like to use the words "win"
or "lose" because I think they are really difficult
ones to evaluate. I think there is a great deal more to be done.
Q46 DAVID
WINNICK: You may be reluctant,
but there is the argument for what it is worth—and this
Committee looked at drugs and came to certain conclusions which,
as far as cannabis is concerned the Home Secretary (not due to
our recommendation I am sure) has indicated his intentions over
the re-classification—that the last thing the drug barons,
these arch-criminals (who have not the slightest concern at all
for the evil they undertake for profit) want is any change in
the drug laws. Do you have any comment on that? Like prohibition
to some extent in the States.
DR
BOND: I do not
want to get into that argument because I do not think I am the
right person. I am not well equipped to give that opinion. I do
know that in terms of enforcement I think the area you have to
go to is the assets. I have been part of sufficiently large businesses
that operate globally, I understand how global businesses move
assets around the world and understand the difficulty of investigating
and dealing with that. I think some of the work that is currently
being done in law enforcement in the United Kingdom is now beginning
to tackle that. Your comment about prohibition and legality issues
are matters for you gentlemen in terms of the political structure
of the country, but I think in terms of law enforcement going
at people's assets is the one area that no businessman wants touched.
Q47 DAVID
WINNICK: Fortunately they are
being touched in terms of legislation from the Government and
the previous Government.
DR
BOND: They are
indeed.
Q48 MR CLAPPISON:
Where the Unit has acted to help a force to improve its performance,
has this always been by contributing further resources? Will forces
be able to sustain improvements within normal budgets after funding
provided by the Police Standards Unit has finished?
DR
BOND: The first
part of the question, is it always the additional resources, to
some extent the answer is yes, but not in a significant way. There
have been a number of areas where we have undertaken reviews where
it has been marginal in the resource. For example, auditing the
forensic capacity of a police force, we have a team of experienced
forensic scientists that we have put into a number of police forces
to undertake an audit of both the processes and the effectiveness
of that force's forensic science team. That is a marginal input
in terms of cash but it has been the objective input of experts
who have looked at it and it has delivered results to the chief
constables that have required no additional cash in most cases
to sustain but has allowed the chief constable to say he can manage
things differently and take advantage of what has happened elsewhere.
The reality is that we work in a world where new money is very
limited. If there is going to be any real and sustainable value
to the work we are doing it has to be largely as a result of not
making promises of new money for the future but a change of working
practices and new information.
Q49 MR CLAPPISON:
Presumably where your expertise has brought about such a change
in working practice you will go back later on to see if the lessons
have been learned and applied.
DR
BOND: Indeed.
Q50 MR CLAPPISON:
You have told us quite a lot about best practice. The Metropolitan
Police Service states in their evidence, and I quote, "communication
remains an issue" and again I quote, "currently there
seems to be no comprehensive communication plan for spreading
best practice highlighted by the Police Standards Unit".
Do you have any comment to make on that?
DR
BOND: That is
absolutely fair comment I would say by the Metropolitan Police,
but it is something I spoke last week about with the head of the
National Centre for Policing Excellence Sir David Phillips. It
is something that needs to be systematised. I referred earlier
to the problems of knowledge management in that area of policing.
I just think it is an issue for the future. What we have done
is that we made a commitment last year that in three areas we
would deliver a considered review of good practice around policing
in England and Wales. Those three areas were street crime (robbery,
snatch theft), vehicle crime and burglary. We have delivered to
all forces a CD Rom and supporting book on the lessons of all
the tactical operations from the street crime initiative last
year.
Q51 DAVID
WINNICK: Are you going to leave
us a copy?
DR
BOND: I am very
happy to do that, sir, but I must warn you it will not keep you
awake at night watching the CD Rom. However, it has been signed
off by the Association of Chief Police Officers as good practice.
We have done the same in vehicle crime which was circulated last
week. We will complete, I hope, the burglary one before I finish
at the end of this month.
Q52 MR CLAPPISON:
Is there any timescale on this work?
DR
BOND: What we
are agreeing with the National Centre for Policing Excellence
is that it will be kept updated on a regular basis between them
and us. The National Centre for Policing Excellence is about developing
the doctrine, the strategic and tactical doctrine for policing
in England and Wales. It will be kept updated by them and we will
be able—and this I think is the real importance of getting
the data sources—to track performance now by force and by
BCU in terms of the data that is coming through. It will allow
us to go back and audit where we find a force is not improving
its performance or is being hit by a problem that is not hitting
others. We have done exactly the same in terms of the lessons
that we learned from the first policing priority areas (of which
Mr Singh knows one was Bradford). Putting a number of documents
round like this CD Rom is a first; it has not been done before.
However, it is not enough. I entirely agree with what the Metropolitan
Police say. It needs systematising and that is a process we are
reviewing at the moment.
Q53 MR CLAPPISON:
On that theme and as a matter of interest, do you have the power
to impose best practice solutions on forces or is that something
that does not arise?
DR
BOND: Absolutely
not. I have no power to impose on a police force. My remit is
to highlight and to recommend and then to work with police forces.
We do not have a national police force; we do not have a national
police chief. That would empower somebody but it is not the system.
We have 43 chief constables working to their police authorities
and to the Home Secretary, a well-established system. The Home
Secretary can require the Inspectorate to review a police force
that is under-performing and there is a process that can follow
that which is what is happening in relation to Nottingham as you
will know. The Chief Constable of Nottingham is very keen to see
his force improve and we are working with him on a delivery plan
to do that. I would prefer to see that process work.
Q54 MR CLAPPISON:
There has been a leaked suggestion recently that police constables
might be recruited from abroad. Do you have any comments on that?
DR
BOND: I think
there are two issues. I think the Police Reform Act makes that
possible anyway. In fact legally we have to open up recruitment
to members of the European Union countries. I think the issue
was around police chiefs.
Q55 MR CLAPPISON:
Presumably that would be subject to some sort of language qualification
and ability.
DR
BOND: Yes. It
is desirable they speak English. I have no problems with the issue
of opening up command posts for chief constables. The reason I
have no problems with it is that if they are the right people
you want them. Peter Ryan went from this country, having been
Chief Constable of Norfolk and then the Commandant of the Police
Staff College to run New South Wales and to oversee the policing
of the Olympics in Sydney. I am not aware that anybody in this
country had a problem with that.
Q56 MR CLAPPISON:
You have told us a lot about the business processes and explained
to Mr Winnick what a fairly unwieldy expression actually meant
in practice. Do you see your activities in the future continuing
in the same vein? Do you see the Unit going on in the future?
DR
BOND: I believe
an organisation like the Police Standards Unit is set up to step
change performance by being a catalyst and that you get to a situation
where you no longer need that. I would hope that would happen
in the future and at some stage in the future there is a natural
coming together of the different organisations. I am not equipped
to say when that should be; I think that is for the Home Secretary
to make decisions on and I am sure you will have views yourself
on that.
Q57 MR CLAPPISON:
Would you feel that point is still some distance away when the
catalyst will no longer be needed?
DR
BOND: Yes.
MR
RIMMER: It is
worth stressing from the Home Secretary's perspective that given
the excellent foundations that Kevin has laid on performance management,
on getting the performance assessment framework and measuring
performance and this key area of knowledge management and good
practice, there is still a big agenda for the Standards Unit and
that will certainly be for the next couple of years if not longer.
Q58 MR CLAPPISON:
Will that be part of the brief which is presented to Dr Bond's
successor?
MR
RIMMER: They
certainly had a specification which covers those areas, yes.
Q59 DAVID
WINNICK: Recruiting from abroad
has not harmed the English football team, so perhaps we should
bear that point in mind.
DR
BOND: At certain
times that is a matter of opinion, depending on the game.
| 
