House of Commons - Home Affairs

Select Committee on Home Affairs Fourth Report

THE COMMITTEE'S INQUIRY

1. Over four years have passed since the idea of police reform was first floated by the Government, at a conference at Lancaster House in October 2000.[1] Over three years have passed since the police reform programme was officially launched with a white paper, in December 2001.[2] We felt that the time was right to take stock. We have therefore carried out a short inquiry into the police reform programme. We have assessed what has been achieved so far, and where the process is heading. This has not been a comprehensive review of police reform, which is a complex and many-faceted subject, but an attempt at a 'snapshot' of the current state of affairs. We have necessarily been highly selective and have focussed on a small number of issues of particular concern.

2. During the inquiry we received 52 memoranda and held four oral evidence sessions. Our witnesses were the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Chief Police Officers' Staff Association, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Metropolitan Police Service, the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents' Association, the Police Standards Unit at the Home Office and Ms Hazel Blears MP, Minister of State for Crime Reduction, Policing, Community Safety and Counter-Terrorism, accompanied by Mr Stephen Rimmer, Director of Policing Policy at the Home Office.

3. In November 2004, following the conclusion of our oral evidence programme, the Government issued a white paper on the future of the police.[3]We invited our witnesses to comment on the white paper proposals, and their responses are printed with this report.[4]

Background to police reform

THE FIRST PHASE

4. The Government's police reform agenda was launched in December 2001 with a white paper, Policing a New Century.[5] The white paper argued that despite a fall in overall levels of crime, extra funding for the police, and a reversal in the decline in police numbers, the police faced challenges including: levels of crime that were too high, fears about crime remaining high, the need to target persistent offenders, a marked decline in detection and conviction rates, police performance that was too variable, and the need to maintain the confidence of the public.

5. The white paper outlined "a radical programme for police reform" to tackle these problems. This included:

Introducing an annual National Police Plan
Setting up a Police Standards Unit "to identify and spread the most successful approaches"
Improved training, leadership and professionalism, for instance by the establishment of a National Centre for Policing Excellence and a new national framework for police training, and by introducing appraisal for chief officers
Powers for the Home Secretary to intervene to suspend a chief officer or to require improvement in performance
Reform of police pay and conditions of service
More effective support from technology and IT
Making better use of police officers' time and skills, and tackling unnecessary bureaucracy
Use of Community Support Officers to carry out basic patrol functions
Setting up an Independent Police Complaints Commission
More effective working with other agencies.

6. The white paper was followed by a Police Reform Bill to authorise those parts of the agenda which required statutory authority. The Home Affairs Committee reported on the bill in May 2002.[6] We gave the bill "a guarded welcome". Our report focused on the most controversial elements in the bill. It endorsed the proposed Community Support Officers, but expressed reservations about the powers to be given to them.[7] On the Home Secretary's powers, the report stated that "We share the general concern that central interference in the running of individual forces is not desirable"; however, it welcomed the safeguards proposed by the Government and said that the powers should only be used as a last resort.[8] On the proposed Police Standards Unit the report commented "We do not think the Home Office has made out a convincing case for a Police Standards Unit separate in the long term from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary … we believe it is inevitable and desirable that the Inspectorate and the Standards Unit should eventually merge".[9] The Committee also called for further measures to reduce the number of retirements on medical grounds, further reform of police disciplinary procedures, and for police officers to be covered by the Public Disclosure of Work Act which protects whistleblowers.[10] The Police Reform Bill received Royal Assent in July 2002.

7. One development for which the Police Reform Act made provision was the annual publication of a National Policing Plan, to set out and keep regularly updated the Government's strategic vision for policing. Three such plans have so far been published, the most recent in November 2004.[11] In addition, each of the 43 police forces in England and Wales is also now required to produce a strategic three-year plan.

8. Many aspects of the reform agenda did not require legislation. In an attempt to embed a 'performance culture' within the police, a Police Standards Unit was set up within the Home Office, to identify and disseminate best practice and improve operational performance. In addition, a National Centre for Police Excellence has been created to promulgate more effective police training and development.

9. A 'National Intelligence Model' has been devised to provide well researched and analysed intelligence to senior managers. This is intended to form the basis for strategic decisions, tactical resourcing decisions about operational policing, and effective risk management. It aims to regulate the links between reactive, proactive and patrol work and those between local, regional and national priorities. The Model was developed by the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and adopted by ACPO in 2000. The Home Office has announced that all forces have now reached the minimum standards for compliance with the Model.[12]

10. Another initiative has aimed at reducing police bureaucracy and unnecessary paperwork, and redeploying constables to the streets. The Government set up a Policing Bureaucracy Taskforce under the chairmanship of Sir David O'Dowd, former HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Sir David's report was published in September 2002.[13] It contained 52 'change proposals'. In response the Government has set up a Policing Bureaucracy Implementation Steering Group, jointly chaired by the Home Office and ACPO.

11. A Police Science and Technology Strategy Group was set up in 2002 to encourage the effective deployment of science and new technology. Particular issues overseen by the group have included the increasing law-enforcement use of DNA, the use of biometric identification techniques, a new radio communication system for the police (Airwave), and more effective telephone call-handling systems, including the possible provision of a single non-emergency number.

THE SECOND PHASE

12. In November 2003 the Government published a green paper, Policing: Building Safer Communities Together. This was intended to launch a second phase of police reform. Its emphasis was on developing links between police and their communities, on increasing public reassurance as to police effectiveness, and on modernisation of pay and conditions. Comments were sought on issues grouped under four 'key areas', as set out in the box on the following page.

November 2003 Green Paper—Key Areas for Consultation
Community engagement

Empowering local people to engage with their local police
Making police more visible and accessible
Strengthening voluntary, community and business involvement in policing—especially through Special Constables, Neighbourhood Watch, a wider range of volunteers and local businesses

Accountability

Strengthened accountability of police at neighbourhood level
Enhancing leadership capacity and accountability of Basic Command Unit commanders
Possible introduction of a single, three-digit non-emergency number for accessing local police service
Developing a Community Advocate role
Possible radical change to police authority membership and broader partnership arrangements

Operational effectiveness

Possible structural change to police forces, replacing the current 43 forces with larger 'strategic forces', some of which would be 'lead forces' developing particular specialisms
Possible changes to police powers

Service modernisation

Rewarding good performance, and linking resources to performance
Delivering a more unified, representative police service with a better skills mix
Bringing forward a "transformational leadership agenda".

13. In July 2004, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Keith Povey, published Modernising the Police Service, a thematic inspection of police workforce modernisation.[14] A summary is given in paragraphs 156-57 below.

14. In August 2004 the Home Office published a consultation paper, Modernising Police Powers to Meet Community Needs. We do not comment in this report on these specific proposals for an extension of police powers: they will receive parliamentary scrutiny through the consideration of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill currently before Parliament.

15. The results of the consultation on the November 2003 green paper were published in September 2004.[15] On 9 November 2004, the Home Office published a further white paper announcing its decisions on which options would be taken forward as part of the second phase of police reform.[16] It commented that "a drive to increase neighbourhood policing, ensure that the police service has a stronger customer focus and increase the visibility, accessibility and accountability of officers is at the heart of the proposals".[17] The main proposals in this latest white paper are:

A neighbourhood policing fund will be created to support the development of dedicated neighbourhood policing teams
Local communities will be given the power to 'trigger' action where their police force, local authority or other 'community safety partners' are not delivering
The customer focus of the police service will be improved. New measures will include a national three-digit non-emergency telephone number, minimum standards for police call-handling, and more information for victims and the wider community.
A National Policing Improvement Agency will be established to oversee the delivery of priorities outlined in the National Policing Plan.

Police reform—general responses

16. In the original 2001 white paper, the then Home Secretary, the Rt Hon David Blunkett MP, set out what he saw as the fundamental aims of the police reform programme:

"Our task is clear. We want to prevent, detect, apprehend and convict the perpetrators of crime. We need and will have a process that enables those undertaking the basic task of protecting our homes, our streets, and our persons, to do the job more effectively. Whether in dramatically slimming down bureaucracy and reassigning tasks in a way that frees up police officers to do their job more effectively, or in extending what we are calling the 'police family' to engage others in policing, or in adopting more modern techniques: we will bring about change.

… In the end, it will not be the statistics on crime falling, or targets met for burglary or vehicle crime, but rather the difference felt in the neighbourhood and community itself which will be judge and jury of these reforms."[

17. In advance of the publication of the Government's latest white paper, we asked a selection of major stakeholders for their assessment of the success of police reform. Overall, the responses were favourable, though with some reservations over specific issues.

18. The Association of Police Authorities (APA) stated that it "strongly supports the principles underlying the Government's police reform agenda, particularly the aims of making policing more responsive to the needs of local people, whilst at the same time driving up standards of performance across the country". However, the APA expressed concern over the trend to centralisation which it saw as culminating in the original proposals for the Police Reform Act 2002, and called for this trend to be reversed. It described the Act as "a complex piece of legislation with far-reaching implications … two years on some parts are working well and can be developed further; others need more time to bed in, whilst others have proved more difficult to operate in practice."[19]

19. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) described itself as an "enthusiastic proponent of the police reform process". ACPO stated that while it is too early to make a valid assessment of the impact even of the first wave of reform, some initiatives have had an early impact (for instance, the adoption of the National Intelligence Model), whereas others (such as the National Policing Plan, the National Centre for Policing Excellence, and the Police Standards Unit) "are not yet achieving the full effect that they were intended to achieve".[20]

20. ACPO argued that the second wave of reform "appears to have been introduced before proper evaluation of the first wave". It called for data supplied by the National Intelligence Model to be used to govern priority-setting and resource distribution. It strongly supported the principle of local accountability—in particular that of the individual Chief Constable—and expressed anxiety lest the Government's proposals "strengthen central controls at the expense of flexibility and local responsiveness". ACPO would oppose "proposals that introduce highly complex and bureaucratic processes, with centralised target setting and complex lines of local funding".[21]

21. The Police Superintendents' Association (PSA) supported many of the initiatives within the reform programme. It called for radical structural change: the creation of a national police force deployed through a regional structure based on existing government regions.[22]

22. Of our witnesses, the Police Federation (the staff association for over 95% of police officers) was the least enthusiastic about the reform programme. It argued that the reform process has been piecemeal and lacked a coherent vision: "the service is in effect journeying into the unknown without a route map". It criticised the Government for insufficient consultation and stated that it "remains deeply unconvinced as to the effectiveness of many of the reforms of Police Reform Part One". However, the Federation added that there is also "much to applaud", and welcomed "a pronounced shift from the centralising tendencies that characterised Police Reform Part One to the 'new localism' of Police Reform Part Two—to all intents and purposes reforming the reforms".[23]

23. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) told us that "over the years [the Inspectorate] has fully supported the Government's efforts to modernise the police service", and described itself as "one of the key organisations driving improvements within policing". HMIC concluded that:

HMIC added that during 2003 it had conducted an assessment of the implementation of the Police Reform Act 2002 and the wider reform programme. It had found that "forces had embraced reform as a major strategic change programme, with particular successes in areas of police and community support officer recruitment".[25]

24. Following publication of the white paper Building Communities, Beating Crime in November 2004, we sought comments on these latest proposals from our previous witnesses. We provide a brief summary of their responses in paragraphs 98 to 100 below. In general the responses supported the broad thrust of the proposals, though with a number of specific criticisms.

25. Most of our witnesses agreed that the overall direction of the police reform programme has been the right one. However, the implementation of the reforms has varied in its effectiveness, and this is the focus of our report. Insofar as our witnesses detected a shift between the first and second phases of reform, from a 'centralising' to a 'localist' approach, this shift was welcomed. In the remainder of this report we look, first, at the extent to which the reform agenda is actually driving improvements in police performance, and, second, at some of the specific elements which make up that agenda.

Embedding a 'performance culture'

THE NEW MECHANISMS

26. A focus on performance is crucial to the police reform agenda. The 2001 white paper announced that:

"enabling the police to drive up standards to those of the best is at the heart of police reform. … Standards vary surprisingly between forces and between Basic Command Units. To the public affected—to the victims of violence, burglary, vehicle theft or anti-social behaviour—this matters profoundly. … We know the high standards which some police forces and BCUs attain. We must now make sure that these standards are promoted by all forces and their BCUs."[

27. The Government's main tool for achieving this objective is the Police Standards Unit (PSU). This is an internal Unit in the Home Office, set up in July 2001. Its terms of reference are set out in the box on the following page.

28. The PSU has supervised the development of new methodologies for assessing police performance:

the Policing Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF), which monitors policing performance across six areas or 'domains' (citizen focus; reducing crime; investigating crime; promoting public safety; providing assistance; and resource usage). PPAF focuses on outcomes rather than on who is responsible for delivery. It is claimed this will allow forces to be innovative in developing better ways of delivery. Work is continuing on drawing up revised PPAF measures for statutory introduction in April 2005.
iQuanta is an internet-based police performance analysis tool, available online, with passport protection, to the Home Office, forces, Basic Command Units (BCUs) and police authorities. It provides real-time data on the performance of all forces and BCUs across the major crime types. This provides "stakeholders with a consistent language for considering police performance", and allows forces and BCUs to compare themselves with their peers.
baseline assessments are HMIC's new assessment technology. They combine quantitative PPAF data with qualitative assessments of performance as part of a three-year planning and inspection process for each force. The first baseline assessments were published in June 2004. Revised assessments will be published later in 2004, and thereafter every autumn.[27]

29. These assessments of police performance are considered by the Police Performance Steering Group which meets fortnightly, bringing together the major relevant stakeholders. Its aim is to reduce the 'performance gap' between the best and worst performing forces. Data from 2002-03 shows that a number of forces showed performance more than 10% worse than the average performance of comparable forces.

30. The Police Standards Unit targets individual underperforming forces for intervention. It is currently engaged with eight such forces: Avon & Somerset, Cambridgeshire, Cleveland, Greater Manchester, Humberside, Nottinghamshire, Northants and West Yorkshire.[28]

Police Standards Unit—Terms of Reference
The Standards Unit exists to deliver the Government's commitment to raise standards and improve operational performance in the police and in crime reduction generally in order to maintain and enhance public satisfaction with policing in their area. Its core objective will be to identify and disseminate best practice in the prevention, detection and apprehension of crime in all forces in order to reduce crime and disorder as well as the fear of crime.
The Unit will:
a)  Work with forces and BCUs to ensure the most effective use of intelligence, detection and successful prosecution procedures.
b)  Identify BCUs or forces performing below their best, based on HMIC reports, statistical information, or particular cases of concern.
c)  Engage directly with the BCU or force to establish the nature of the problems, the extent to which best practice may be lacking, and the remedial action required.
d)  Engage similarly with other local agencies to ensure their effective contribution, including through Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, where it is apparent that this is the key to police success in tackling crime and disorder at force level and below.
e)  Identify where in exceptional circumstances combined cross cutting measures engaging other agencies are required to focus on and achieve early change within a specific geographic area or BCU boundary.
f)  Draw validated best practice from HMIC, National Police Training, the Crime Reduction College and other agencies, spread its use through local engagement, and identify for professional evaluation any new examples or techniques it comes across.
g)  Have a capacity to provide short term funding to support the remedial action it has identified and which could not otherwise be undertaken.
h)  Identify cases in which the Home Secretary should consider the use of powers under the Police Act 1996, the Local Government Act 1999, or other relevant legislation.
i)  Identify issues which raise policy, technical or legal questions for the Home Office to address.

31. The National Centre for Policing Excellence (NCPE) was set up in April 2003 as a national training and development resource for crime and operations. It also serves as the central repository for collecting and disseminating good practice within the police service. It produces codes of practice: the first, on the Police use of firearms, was issued in 2003; further codes, on the Police National Computer, the National Intelligence Model and the Serious Crime Analysis Section, have been drafted and are awaiting publication. Following publication of the Bichard report on lessons to be learned from the Soham murders, NCPE is now also working on a code of practice on information management.[29] NCPE is operated by Centrex (the Central Police Training and Development Authority), which was established as a non-departmental public body in April 2002 (replacing National Police Training which had been part of the Home Office).[30]

WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED SO FAR?

32. In July 2004, the Home Office told us that "a stronger focus on performance is now firmly embedding itself in the police service".[31] It states that "based upon the most recent data available, improvements have been made in all PPAF domains for which there is data available". Domain 1 (reducing crime) shows particular improvement with a reduction in target crimes per 1,000 population of 12.7%. 40 of the 43 forces in England and Wales have reduced the levels of target crime in the most recent 12 months compared to the baseline year. There was a fall in the fear of crime of 3.5% in 2003 compared with the previous year.[32] In addition, over 2003-04, the forces with which the Police Standards Unit was engaged reduced volume crime by 13.3%, which was twice the rate of the other forces in England and Wales.[33]

33. However, recent crime statistics have shown a mixed picture. The figures for recorded crime for 2003-04 showed an increase of 1% on the previous year for all offences and an increase in violent crime of 12%. The British Crime Survey figures for the same period show a fall in overall crime of 5% and a fall in violent crime of 3%.

34. In September 2004 the Home Office published Police Performance Monitoring 2003-04, their latest annual review of police performance using PPAF data. The official summary of conclusions is set out in the box on the following page. As will be seen, all the measures chosen show improvement over the last year, apart from detection rates. The Minister of State responsible for policing, Ms Hazel Blears MP, commented:

Changes in police performance: 2002/03 to 2003/04

	National 2002/03	National 2003/04	Change 2002/03 to 2003/04
Citizen focus
Residents thinking police do an excellent or good job	47.9%	47.7%	Not statistically significant
Reducing crime
Burglaries for every 1000 households	19.8	18.2	8.1% reduction
Vehicle crimes for every 1000 residents	18.6	16.9	8.9% reduction
Robberies for every 1000 residents	2.1	1.9	6.3% reduction
Investigating crime
Percentage of offences brought to justice	18.2%	18.7%	0.5% point increase
Class A drugs supply offences brought to justice for every 10,000 residents	2.0	2.4	17.9% increase
Percentage of offences detected and sanctioned	19.1%	18.8%	0.3% point reduction
Promoting public safety
Residents very worried about burglary	15%	13%	Statistically significant decrease
Residents highly worried about car crime	17%	15%	Statistically significant decrease
Residents perceiving disorder as high	21%	16%	Statistically significant decrease
Providing assistance
Percentage of police officer time spent on frontline duties		63.6%
Resource usage
Sickness days lost for each officer each year	10.4	9.6	7.5% reduction
Sickness days lost for each civilian each year	11.7	10.9	7.0% reduction

35. Detection rates were identified as a problem when the police reform agenda was originally launched. Notwithstanding the reform initiatives since taken, the rates have continued to decline. The most recent bulletin of annual crime statistics describes the trend:

Changes in recording methods have had an impact on detection rates, but it is unclear whether the overall effect of the changes had been to increase or decrease the rates. The detection rate in 1988 was 35%. The annual percentages for detection rate for the past six years are as follows:[36]

Area	1997-98	1998-99	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04
London Region	25	22	16	15	14	15	16
England & Wales (excluding London Region)	29	31	28	27	26	26	25
England and Wales	28	29	25	24	23	24	23

36. Most detections are recorded on the basis of a judicial sanction having been imposed. However, there is a smaller category of 'administrative' detections where an offence has been counted as 'cleared up' but no further action was taken, for various reasons including the death, illness or incapacity of the offender, his being under the age of criminal responsibility, or the police or CPS having decided that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding. Some police forces are now concentrating their monitoring of performance on 'sanction' detections.[37] The Government has committed itself to increasing the sanction detection rate. One of the "five key priorities" in the latest National Policing Plan is for the police to "take action with partners to increase sanction detection rates".[38] The Plan—

37. The President of ACPO, Mr Chris Fox, told us that it would be wrong to place undue emphasis on detection rates:

38. He added that "in all, save detections, we can demonstrate an upward curve of performance. The British Crime Survey will show crime moving downwards in all directions in every category over quite a long period."[41] He claimed that "a very strong performance culture [is] being embedded in the Service".[42]

39. Giving evidence to us in October 2004, the Minister of State, Ms Blears, argued that the decline in detection rates was partly attributable to new recording methods which have led to more recording of low-level violent crime, "the pushing and shoving that sometimes goes on in a drunken encounter". She pointed out that detection rates for serious crime are much higher:

40. ACPO subsequently submitted written evidence to us on detection rates. They argued that "an over-emphasis on this measure is … misleading and has the potential to skew policing activity by encouraging effort on the more minor and simpler crimes, such as low-level shoplifting, rather than the more complex and serious crimes". Nonetheless, they added, "the police service is committed to improve performance in this area but not as the sole measure of police effectiveness".[44] They listed measures in hand to improve the ability of the police to detect crime: "the development of common minimum standards for investigation; enhancing the skills of detectives; improving forensic capabilities, making all officers more proficient in interviews of suspects and developing the Service's line of process through the Crown Prosecution Service and courts".[45] The Director of the Police Standards Unit, Mr Paul Evans, also said that he expected detection rates to improve, and to increase them to about 30% would be "not overly ambitious".[46] Both Mr Evans and Sir Keith Povey, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, acknowledged that improving the police's capacity to detect crime had not been a priority in the early days of police reform.[47] Sir Keith said that "part two of the reform programme … will make forces to a great extent put more resources into and concentrate on the detection of crime as well as reduction".[48]

41. The Minister of State argued that a combination of police reform and increased resources was having an impact on crime statistics:

42. The Association of Police Authorities told us that that a performance culture is beginning to develop, but there is still much to do before it is embedded at all levels in the service. APA has a performance policy group which brings together lead members from authorities to share and disseminate good practice.[50] APA stated that the Police Standards Unit has "played an important role in helping inculcate a performance culture" through PPAF and iQuanta, and through promoting initiatives such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition. APA considered that NCPE has started to produce codes and guidance, "perhaps more slowly than expected"; when fully effective, NCPE will have a "significant impact".[51]

43. Most of our other witnesses answered the question as to whether a performance culture is being embedded with a qualified "yes". ACPO told us that the existence of the Police Standards Unit and the NCPE had contributed to "a more robust performance culture", but argued that there was overlap and wasteful duplication between the two bodies (a subject we deal with in paragraphs 50 to 67 below).[52] The PSA stated that there have been significant improvements in the inculcation of a performance culture, with many examples of sophisticated data collection and analysis designed to drive up performance. However, they criticised inconsistencies in approach to data collection between forces.[53]

44. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir Keith Povey, strongly supported the view that a performance culture was being embedded. He told us that:

45. In its written evidence, HMIC commented that:

However, HMIC added that they were concerned that—

46. The Police Federation expressed scepticism about the concept of a 'performance culture'. They claimed that in practice this meant an over-emphasis on quantifiable targets leading to "straitjackets or additional bureaucracy imposed on police officers".[57]

47. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) told us that it is developing an "already strong performance culture", reinforced by increased accountability through target-setting and PPAF performance indicators. However, the MPS stated that the work of embedding a performance culture had been hindered by obsolescent computer systems and a lack of urgency in developing such a culture in other organisations such as the courts system.[58]

48. On the basis of the evidence submitted to us we conclude that a performance culture has begun to embed itself in the police service and that this is widely regarded as a valuable development. However, there is clearly still scope for considerable improvement. Some of the original aspirations expressed when the police reform process was launched have not yet been met—in particular, an improvement in the crime detection rate. We accept the argument that an overall detection rate which does not distinguish between serious crimes and minor ones has a limited usefulness as an indicator of police effectiveness. Nonetheless, it is still a matter for concern that too few criminals are brought to justice. We welcome the assurances of the Director of the Police Standards Unit that in the second phase of police reform more attention will be paid to improving the capacity of the police to detect crime. We emphasise the importance of the Government's target of increasing the sanction detection rate from 19% to at least 25% by 2008.

49. Overall it is right that the top priority should be crime reduction. The success of police reform will in large measure be judged by whether crime rates fall—and in particular, in the short term, by whether the Government meets its new PSA target (announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review in July 2004) of a 15% reduction in crime by 2007-08.

Too many organisations?

50. One criticism raised by witnesses is that there is now a confusing variety of bodies charged with the oversight of various aspects of the police reform process, and that there is unnecessary overlap between these bodies.

51. In its 2002 report on the Police Reform Bill, the Home Affairs Committee expressed concern about the dangers of overlap between the work of PSU and that of HMIC, and stated that "it is inevitable, and desirable, that the Inspectorate and the Standards Unit should eventually merge".[59]

52. In its reply, the Government argued that—

53. Giving oral evidence to the Committee in July 2003, the then Director of the PSU, Dr Kevin Bond, said that the unit had been brought into being as a separate entity from HMIC to "act as a catalyst" within the police service. When asked about the possibility of a future merger with HMIC, Dr Bond said "I am conscious of what you, as a Committee, have recommended and it makes sense".[61]

54. However, the present Director of the PSU, Mr Paul Evans, giving evidence in October 2004, asked to comment on his predecessor's remark, said:

55. HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Keith Povey, then added:

56. ACPO told us that there is "considerable overlap and duplication of resources" between the Police Standards Unit, the National Centre for Policing Excellence, the central Home Office and ACPO itself, leading to inefficiencies and lack of co-ordination. ACPO supports the PSU's targeted interventions but is "less content with the growing remit of PSU to orchestrate national campaigns and to work to identify the most effective operational tactics". It argues that this function would be better performed by NCPE or ACPO itself. ACPO also supports the establishment of a Police Improvement Agency, which would "help working police officers change their culture and practices to improve productivity and performance delivery".[64]

57. The Association of Police Authorities comment that the respective roles of the PSU and of HMIC are now better understood than used to be the case. However, they say that they "remain concerned about the level of monitoring, inspection and auditing which is currently undertaken and the number of those engaged in such roles centrally whether in PSU, the Home Office, HMIC, or the Audit Commission. There is undoubtedly scope to streamline and reduce radically the extent of such activity."[65] APA supports the proposed National Improvement Agency, and argues that the work done by NCPE should be subsumed within the new agency.[66]

58. The Police Federation claims that there is much overlap between the PSU, NCPE and HMIC; and yet "the overlapping remits can paradoxically create holes through which important work may fall", for instance analysis of pan-service intelligence capability.[67]

59. HMIC support in principle the establishment of a Police Improvement Agency, but argue that NCPE, Centrex and PSU should be subsumed within such an agency to avoid duplication of resources (but with HMIC itself remaining independent).[68]

60. HMIC "strongly supported" the introduction of the NCPE. It argues that NCPE has a key role in developing national policing standards and thereby assisting the Inspectorate in its work. However, HMIC expresses concern that "resource and capacity issues mean that it will be some considerable time before there is an integrated suite of professional standards for the service. … If the positive steps achieved through the introduction of the NCPE are not to be lost, appropriate levels of political support and funding need to be provided."[69]

61. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Keith Povey, confirmed other witnesses' views that the NCPE has not yet had much of an impact. He said that this was not the NCPE's fault because—

62. The Minister of State, Hazel Blears MP, told us in October 2004 that:

63. This was confirmed as the Government's policy in the November 2004 white paper. This stated that:

"A strong pre-requisite for the establishment of the Agency is the rationalisation of the landscape of national organisations. We propose to slim this landscape down considerably, around a new infrastructure of the Agency, the Police Standards Unit and the irreducible core of policing responsibilities which must rightly sit within the Home Office. The Agency's introduction will clearly therefore mean significant change for Centrex, the Police Information Technology Organisation, and the National Centre for Policing Excellence, as well as the other parts of the Home Office concerned with policing. We also hope that many of ACPO's policy making functions will also become enshrined within the new body, in line with the objectives which they outlined in their vision for the new Agency.

64. There is a strong case for a rationalisation within a single body of many of the functions at present carried out by separate bodies connected with police reform. We accept the logic of the Government's proposal to create a Policing Improvement Agency into which NCPE and other existing bodies will be wholly or partly subsumed. However, there must be clarity about the role of the Agency and its relations with other bodies. It is quite right that HMIC should remain separate and retain its vital independent scrutiny function. We note that the Government is also proposing that the Police Standards Unit should remain separate from the new Agency. It is not apparent from the white paper whether PSU will retain all its existing functions or whether some—for instance, guidance on practice and co-ordination of national campaigns—will transfer to the Agency. It is important that there should be a clear and logical differentiation of roles. In particular, responsibility for carrying out short-term interventions in underperforming forces should be separated from the long-term task of improving the overall skills base of the police service. If the two roles are combined, there is a danger that immediate priorities will take precedence over the long-term, year in, year out development of police skills and capacity nationwide.

65. We also note that in recent years there has been an increasing trend towards centrally directed operations; for instance, in relation to alcohol and drug abuse or anti-social behaviour. Hitherto these campaigns have been directed on an ad hoc basis by the PSU. It is not clear at present how this trend will develop or where future responsibility for such operations will lie.

66. We therefore recommend that the Government should publish as soon as possible a more detailed elucidation of the proposed future division of responsibilities between the Agency and other bodies including the PSU, and that this should recognise the need to separate short-term from long-term interventions.

67. In the light of the criticism we have received that the NCPE has hitherto been hobbled by inadequate funding, we emphasise the importance of providing adequate resources for the new Agency.

Police training

68. The subject of police training is a large and complex one. Our predecessor Committee issued a lengthy report on this in 1999.[73] We do not propose to revisit those issues here, but will confine ourselves to commenting on one specific matter, that of funding.

69. The Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation and the Association of Police Authorities all expressed concern about cuts in the funding of the police training body Centrex.[74] The Police Federation made a series of criticisms about training, alleging that training in some areas (such as PACE, stop and search and diversity) is insufficient and varies greatly between forces, that there is a paucity of refresher training for custody officers, and that other European countries give a higher priority to police training.[75] The Federation also argued that police training is disproportionately targeted at the higher ranks, and that "many senior officers have limited understanding of the training requirements of federated ranks".[76]

70. ACPO also criticised a lack of adequate funding for NCPE, and a lack of separation between the training function (Centrex) and the policy-making function (NCPE).[77]

71. HMIC carried out a formal inspection of Centrex in early 2004 and found the organisation to be "inconsistently effective". Centrex has responded with an action plan which is currently being considered by the Home Office and ACPO.[78]

72. HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Keith Povey, told us that the recent reduction in the probationer training programme from 15 to 12 weeks was "as a result of the budget cuts" and was driven by the Home Office, though he also said that the "the reduction was justifiable when you looked at some of the dross that was taken out of the curriculum".[79]

73. The Minister of State, Hazel Blears, told us that:

74. Ms Blears also countered criticism of the reduction of residential probationer training from 15 to 12 weeks:

75. In spite of the Minister's assurances, the evidence suggests that police training has recently been squeezed on budgetary grounds. Such budget-driven cuts are likely to prove a false economy. There is no substitute for continued in-service training which raises skills levels. We recommend that there should be no further cuts in the police training budget unless areas of obvious waste have been clearly identified.

76. We share the concern of the Police Federation that police training is disproportionately targeted at the higher ranks. We recommend that the Home Office and ACPO should investigate whether this is the case. It is important that the training needs of police officers at sergeant and inspector level should not be neglected.

The National Policing Plan and PSA targets

77. The 2001 white paper announced that the Government would introduce an annual National Policing Plan (NPP). This would be—

"[a] single place where the Government's priorities, performance indicators and plans for new developments come together, [to give] police authorities and forces … a clear sense of where the Government believes the police service should be going."[

78. The Police Reform Act 2002 requires the Government to lay before Parliament by the end of November each year a plan for the following three years. Three such plans have so far been published. In addition, each of the 43 police forces in England and Wales is required to produce its own strategic three-year plan.

79. The first NPP, issued in 2002, and to a lesser extent the second in 2003, were subjected to much criticism. APA told us that the two plans did not achieve the desired "strategic priority and focus".[83] ACPO stated that they were "not yet an effective driver of performance, … being too general with no prioritisation amongst far too many targets".[84] Likewise, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Keith Povey, told us that "there were so many priorities that what was a priority?"[85]

80. The Police Superintendents' Association stated that though they originally welcomed the concept of a national plan,

81. The PSA argued that the 2003 plan was actually no improvement in this respect on the 2002 plan, because although the number of priorities had decreased "each priority had acquired sub-priorities, the overall effect of which was no change". This approach "fundamentally undermined any credibility that remained in the concept". They called for a plan which "all staff can remember" and which is "short, written in plain English".[87]

82. The Police Federation claimed that the 2002 and 2003 NPPs gave "scant recognition to several core elements of policing", in particular, 'reassurance policing' (i.e. a uniformed presence on the streets) and traffic policing. The Federation also criticised target-setting for being burdensome and creating false incentives, and disputed the Government's claim to have introduced fewer but more relevant targets:

83. The third and most recent NPP was published in November 2004, following extensive consultation.[89] It "sets out the framework and context for policing in England and Wales for the next three years, to create a culture for policing which can tackle crime effectively at local, national and international levels". It is intended to "inform local planning and help to ensure that all communities know what they should expect from their local police force".[90]

84. The 2004 NPP sets out five "key priorities":

reduce overall crime—including violent and drug related crime—in line with the Government's Public Service Agreements (PSAs);
provide a citizen-focused police service which responds to the needs of communities and individuals, especially victims and witnesses, and inspires confidence in the police, particularly among minority ethnic communities;
take action with partners to increase detection rates and target prolific and other priority offenders;
reduce people's concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour and disorder; and
combat serious and organised crime within and across police force boundaries.

In addition, work to reduce the threat from terrorism is described as "an overarching imperative for all forces".[91]

85. The NPP was developed in the context of the police-related Public Spending Assessment (PSA) targets announced with the Comprehensive Spending Review in July 2004. The new and old PSA targets are set out in the box on the next page.

Old and new police-related PSA targets
The old PSA targets were:
—  Target 1: "to reduce crime and the fear of crime; improve performance overall, including by reducing the gap between the highest crime Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership areas and the best comparable areas; and reduce:

vehicle crime by 30 % from 1998-99 to 2004;
domestic burglary by 25 % from 1998-99 to 2005;
robbery in the ten Street Crime Initiative areas by 14% from 1999-2000 to 2005; and maintain that level."

—  Target 2: "to improve the performance of all police forces, and significantly reduce the performance gap between the best and worst performing forces; and significantly increase the proportion of time spent on frontline duties."
—  Target 3: "Improve the delivery of justice by increasing the number of crimes for which an offender is brought to justice to 1.2 million by 2005-06; with an improvement in all CJS areas, a greater increase in the worst performing areas and a reduction in the proportion of ineffective trials."
The new targets are:

Target 1: "to reduce crime by 15%, and further in high crime areas, by 2007-08."
Target 2: "to reassure the public, reducing the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour, and building confidence in the Criminal Justice System without compromising fairness."
Target 3: "Improve the delivery of justice by increasing the number of crimes for which an offender is brought to justice to 1.25 million by 2007-08."

In addition to these new targets, the Home Office has agreed the following new standard that "will be achieved and maintained":

"to maintain improvements in police performance, as monitored by the Police Performance Assessment Framework, in order to deliver the outcomes expressed in the Home Office PSA. The links between the indicators in PPAF and the PSAs, and the performance improvement in these indicators implied by the PSAs, are set out and reported on in the National Policing Plan."

86. Giving evidence to the Committee on 20 July, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, Mr John Gieve, said that:

87. In both the new PSA targets and the new NPP there is a shift towards fewer and simpler targets and priorities. There is also an emphasis on 'localism'. The main changes in the NPP are (1) an increased emphasis on partnership between police and other bodies (local authorities, probation, prison service), and (2) a move towards giving police flexibility to achieve desired outcomes, rather than micro-managing from the centre. The main changes in the PSA targets are (1) they are less specific—individual targets on vehicle crime, burglary and robbery have been replaced with a target of reducing overall crime by 15%; and (2) the target of improving police performance, and reducing the gap between the best and worst performing forces, has been replaced by a 'standard' to "maintain improvements in performance".

88. We welcome the simplification of priorities and greater emphasis on local decision-making in the most recent National Policing Plan. This is clearly an improvement on the two previous Plans. A similar simplification and streamlining of the police-related PSA targets is also welcome. In our report on Home Office Target-Setting 2004, published in February 2005, we give broad support to the Home Office's decision to reduce the number and simplify the content of its targets. We comment that "it is right that national target-setting should be concerned with setting a strategic direction but not to micro-manage matters that are best left to local discretion". We cite the new PSA target of a 15% reduction in overall crime as an example of a "realistic but stretching" quantitative target which can and should motivate towards better performance.[93]

89. However, in that report we also comment that if the benefits of flexibility at local level are to be achieved, there is a need "for a real reduction in centrally determined targets that are set outside the PSA framework".[94]

90. One possible complication here is that targets at local level will henceforward be agreed not only between police forces and police authorities, but between forces and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), which comprise all the local authorities in a CDRP area, together with the police, police authority, fire authority and primary care trust. The Home Office points out that :

"clearly, of course, there does need to be alignment between targets agreed with CDRPs and those which forces agree with their police authorities. That is why we have stressed throughout the key important of both force and authority representatives being part of the discussion process at CDRP level."

The Home Office also envisages a role for regional Government Offices in monitoring this process and reporting back to central Government if they consider that agreement has not been reached on "appropriately stretching sets of targets".[95]

91. We believe that it is sensible to involve CDRPs in police target-setting. As the Home Office notes, this "reflects the Police Service's view that they cannot on their own deliver the required reduction in crime. They depend on many other organisations and agencies to contribute as part of a joint and structured effort."[96]However, in practice setting targets for CDRPs has a direct impact on local police targets. There are two dangers: one is that this becomes a back-door way of setting local targets for the police, and the other is that there is potential for overlap and confusion between the role of the CDRP and that of police authorities in setting local targets. There is therefore a danger of a proliferation of local targets which might undo the benefits of simplification at national level. We recommend that, in addition to the oversight role exercised by regional Government Offices, the Home Office should invite HMIC to monitor the operation of local police target-setting and report on any problems and lessons to be learnt. Any review of target-setting should, of course, take into account the fact that some areas, particularly under-performing ones, may well require more detailed sets of targets than other areas.

Accountability mechanisms

THE EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS

92. The current governance arrangement for policing in England and Wales is known as the 'tripartite' structure. This comprises three elements of equal authority:

chief officers of police: the chief constables of the 43 police forces (or, in the case of the Metropolitan and City of London Police, the commissioners); they are by law responsible for the direction and control of their force

police authorities: local bodies usually comprising 17 members (9 councillors, 3 magistrates and 5 independent members); they are responsible for ensuring there is an efficient and effective police force in their area, for appointing senior officers and for holding the chief officer and force to account for their delivery of services

the Home Secretary: answerable to Parliament and the public for the provision of an efficient and effective police service nationwide; he sets the Government's strategic priorities through the National Policing Plan, and determines the total level of grant for policing.

93. The geographical boundaries of the 43 police forces usually follow the divisions of the English counties or Welsh local authority areas. Each force has a headquarters (containing the chief constable's office, central services, central CID, Special Branch, etc.), which co-ordinates the work of usually between three and ten Basic Command Units (BCUs). Each BCU covers the area of a town or district, is commanded by a superintendent or chief superintendent, and consists of several hundred police officers and staff. They will usually have some specialist units such as a local CID. Each BCU is in turn divided into smaller sectors based around one or more police stations, usually under the leadership of an inspector.

PROPOSALS FOR INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY

94. The Government cites Home Office research indicating "a general consensus" that "the public does not have a say in decisions about policing and that people want better communication, information and involvement". The vast majority of people involved in the research had not even heard of police authorities. [97]

95. The original 2001 white paper did not propose sweeping changes to local accountability mechanisms. However, in the November 2003 green paper and the July 2004 Strategic Plan, the Government places major emphasis on measures to increase accountability of the police at local, district (i.e. BCU) and force level. The Government added that "in no way will these changes damage the principle of the tripartite approach".

96. In its November 2003 green paper the Government gave more details about possible changes to the system of police authorities. Options for consultation included:

wholly elected police boards to replace the existing police authorities
changing the membership arrangements of police authorities, to include a mix of councillors, magistrates, people nominated by BCUs or neighbourhood panels, co-opted members from the local community, and directly elected members; or
a wider oversight arrangement with a range of agencies concerned with community safety being subject to scrutiny.

97. The November 2004 white paper contains a series of firm proposals for increasing local accountability. The main proposals are:

b) Each force will agree a Contract with its community.

c) Local communities will be given the power to 'trigger' a response by the police and other responsible agencies to particular or persistent local problems of crime or anti-social behaviour.

d) The customer focus of the police service will be improved. New measures will include a national three-digit non-emergency telephone number, minimum standards for police call-handling, and more information for victims and the wider community.

e) There will be changes to the arrangements for membership of police authorities. There will no longer be a separate category of magistrate member. Appointments of independent members will henceforward be judged against a competency-based framework of criteria. There will be criteria for diversity in respect of race, gender, age and skills. Chairs of police authorities will be subject to a competency-based selection process.

f) The powers and duties of police authorities will be extended. Authorities will be required to take into account local policing priorities identified at Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level, to oversee the relationship between CDRPs and neighbourhood bodies, to co-operate with neighbouring authorities to help tackle cross-border ('Level 2') crime, and to promote diversity. They will also conduct the chief constable's performance appraisal, in consultation with HMIC; and be able to request inspection by HMIC or intervention by the PSU if they feel this to be necessary.

g) Police authorities, like police forces, will be subject to independent inspection.

98. We received written comments on the white paper proposals from several of our previous witnesses. The APA told us that they "strongly support the broad thrust of the Government's proposals" and the white paper's objectives of greater community involvement, creation of a responsive customer service culture, and workforce modernisation. However, the APA were criticial of some aspects of the white paper, especially the proposed changes to the role and membership of police authorities.[98]

99. Most of our other respondents also supported the thrust of the white paper proposals. Some concerns were expressed. For instance, the PSA criticised the white paper for failing to address what they see as the need for significant structural change: "we feel that the Government has missed an opportunity to radically reform the police, preferring to 'tinker round the edges'".[99] UNISON, the largest union representing staff in the police service, told us that the white paper set out "a very positive vision for workforce modernisation", but were worried that its implementation would be hampered by insufficient funding.[100] The Chief Police Officers' Staff Association (CPOSA) also supported the overall direction of the white paper, but were concerned that its proposals relating to neighbourhood policing "will raise public expectations without necessarily providing the means to deliver". CPOSA were critical of the proposals for performance appraisal of chief constables and for changes in accountability arrangements.[101]

100. HMIC sought clarification of the idea of Contracts between police forces and their communities. It commented, "more work is required to identify what form these Contracts will take, will they be at force or BCU level, who on behalf of the Community will agree the contract and in reference to the increasing multi-agency response what is the responsibility of the partners?"[102] HMIC expressed some scepticism about the proposed mechanism for local communities to trigger a police response: they caution "against any proposals which introduce the use of stronger mechanisms of accountability for BCU Commanders who are already held to account by their Chief Officers and a wide range of partners and stakeholders".[103]

101. Home Office research shows that there is widespread public ignorance of the existing police authorities, combined with a desire on the part of the public to be more involved in local policing. The Government should recognise this. We support the principle of greater public involvement. However, we wish to add three caveats:

There is no clear evidence that public involvement of itself leads to better policing. Better communication between police and public should be a priority, but this does not mean that the public should determine operational priorities. The views of the public should inform decision-making but not dictate it.
There is a limit to how far the limits of local involvement can be defined nationally. The Home Office should avoid imposing an identical consultative structure on every area. Much will depend on the quality of local police leadership.
This reinforces the need for local flexibility in setting priorities. It is difficult for the police to engage in meaningful dialogue with their communities if their priorities are imposed on them from the centre.

Future of the 43-force structure

102. In its November 2003 green paper the Government stated that it "believes that the time is right to consider whether the present 43-force structure … is the right one … we welcome comments on how things might be structured differently".[104] It floated the idea of larger, 'strategic' forces at a regional level, and of 'lead' forces which might develop particular specialisms (in the way that the Metropolitan Police now takes the lead in relation to counter-terrorism).[105] However, the Government insisted that it does not want change for change's sake, and that structural changes must ensure that policing connects to "real people in their neighbourhoods", rather than creating "remote and disconnected forces".[106]

103. The Government summarised for us the results of its consultation on this issue:

"the responses were mixed with some strongly in favour of restructuring, some strongly opposed and many offering a cautious welcome to the debate but noting that a lot more work was needed to gather evidence and look at issues such as greater collaboration. A clear message was that form should follow function. The majority of those who welcomed the debate … acknowledged that restructuring should not be rushed into and that work was needed to define what capability and capacity a force needed and to assess whether existing forces meet the definition."

104. They added that "the Government has not yet come to any firm conclusions on the question of force structures", but that HMIC had been commissioned to look at this issue and report by early 2005.[107]

105. ACPO argued to us that "the case for restructuring has not yet been made; more work needs to be carried out to assess the possible business benefits (reduced costs, economies of scale, performance improvements, greater operational resilience, etc.) and the risks (cost of change, disruption of performance improvement, etc.)".[108]

106. The PSA called for a national police force deployed through a regional structure, which could be based on the existing government regions. It argued that although people feel "a deep and very genuine loyalty to their current forces, … the existing structure of 43 autonomous entities aligned to boundaries which no longer reflect government structures in the regions, or the very local identities felt by individual communities has, we believe, outlived its usefulness".[109] The PSA identifies as a particular problem the "clear gap in the way the current structure copes with Level 2 criminality [i.e. serious and organised crime]" crossing force boundaries—a problem also identified by HMIC.[110]

107. HMIC comment that "if England and Wales was a 'greenfield' site for policing then few doubt that it would be structured according to a more logical design. But this is not the case and HMIC does not underestimate the enormity of the task in hand. … Structural change is almost always accompanied by distraction of effort and disruption—clearly, it should only be contemplated if it can be shown to deliver a step change in police performance."[111]

108. The then Deputy Commissioner (now Commissioner) of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, told us that some degree of structural change was probably necessary to deal with the problem of Level 2, cross-border criminality. He argued that small forces were ill equipped to deal with relatively rare events such as serious crime by organised gangs:

112

Sir Ian thought the two options for dealing with this problem were either force amalgamations or, preferably, individual forces playing a 'lead' role with particular specialisms.[113]

109. We do not yet know the results of HMIC's review of the force structure. However, there are indications that the Government is not, for the present at least, envisaging radical change. The Minister of State, Ms Blears, told us that "we are not interested in huge structural change for its own sake".[114] The white paper published in November 2004 stated that the Government's preferred option is the development of 'lead forces':

115

110. From the evidence we have taken it is clear that there is little appetite within the police or within the wider community for a major structural upheaval or for large-scale force amalgamations. Final decisions on this must await publication of HMIC's review of individual forces' strategic capabilities, but at present it looks as though the sensible way forward is through the development of a limited number of 'lead forces', who will develop particular specialist expertise and share this with neighbouring forces.

111. However, further elucidation is needed of the way lead forces would operate. What would be the accountability arrangements? If lead forces were to report direct to Ministers on their specialist areas (in the same way that the Metropolitan Police is not answerable to its police authority on its counter-terrorism responsibilities, but directly to Ministers), would there be a danger of eroding the tripartite structure? What would be the funding arrangements? And could this proposal lead to a skills void in some smaller forces, with many experts in a particular specialism transferring to the lead force? We raised some of these questions with the Minister of State, Ms Blears. In response she told us that the Government had not yet reached decisions: "these are very important issues you raise that we would need to explore".[116] We recommend that the Home Office should issue clarification of funding and accountability mechanisms for lead forces, and an assessment of their implications, beneficial and otherwise, for smaller, neighbouring forces.

Police bureaucracy

112. According to the 2001 white paper, "the increase in police numbers will only result in a more visible police force if we deal with the bureaucracy and blockages which are keeping officers off the beat".[117]

113. A Home Office commissioned study, A Diary of a Police Officer, found that officers were spending almost as much time in the police station as they were on the street. Only 17% of time was being spent on 'reassurance patrols', mostly in vehicles. Of the 43% of time spent in the station, 41% of this was spent on preparing prosecution files and paperwork.[118]

114. The report of Sir David O'Dowd's Policing Bureaucracy Taskforce appeared in September 2002.[119] The report made 52 recommendations. It claimed that these, if implemented, would lead to the following benefits:

Incident response and resolution: the time equivalent of over 6,000 uniformed officers returned to patrols duties
Crime recording and investigation: the time equivalent over 2,400 uniformed officers released for reinvestment in scene and near-scene crime inquiries
Intelligence handling and effective patrolling: hypothecated fines revenue from fixed penalty notices will allow 2,000 additional uniformed officers on visible patrol and intercept duties
Defendant management and the criminal justice system: the time equivalent of over 8,000 uniformed officers released, enabling a significantly increased control presence on the streets
Management support: the time equivalent of over 900 uniformed officers returned to patrol duties.

115. In response to the report, the Government has set up a Policing Bureaucracy Implementation Steering Group, jointly chaired by the Home Office and ACPO, to carry out an action plan. To date, 27 of the 52 recommendations have been implemented, work is in progress on a further 21, and "it has been agreed collectively that four should not be taken forward nationally".[120] Every force has a named officer to oversee the reduction of bureaucracy, and a National Bureaucracy Adviser liaises with individual forces.

116. In July 2004 the Home Office draw our attention to a number of achievements in the battle against bureaucracy, including:

over 7,700 forms made obsolete nationwide;
over 72,000 police officers and staff using Airwave radios to cut down on time spent returning to the station;
around 20,000 fixed-penalty notices for disorder issued between April (when the national roll-out of the scheme was completed) and June 2004, each representing a file for court not having to be prepared;
ten pilot projects testing new ways of using police staff, to free officers to go back on the beat; and
efficiency gains of £25 million across 25 forces attributed by HMIC to implementation of Taskforce recommendations.[121]

117. In September 2004, the Home Secretary announced the introduction of a bureaucracy 'gateway', under which no new paperwork would be introduced to the police without first undergoing "a rigorous test to ensure it was absolutely necessary".[122] In the same month, the Home Office published force-by-force details of the percentage of police officer time spent on frontline duties, compiled from 'activity-based costing'.[123] Nationwide the average was 63%. The worst performing force was Gwent with 54% and the best was Bedfordshire with 70%. The Minister of State, Ms Blears, told us that she believed that the nationwide average could be driven up to about 73% by cutting further bureaucracy, which would free the equivalent of a further 12,000 police officers for frontline duties.[124]

118. The figures cited in the previous paragraph were based on a definition of 'frontline policing' which attracted criticism in the press for including the activity of "case file and report preparation on incidents" as well as more obviously frontline activities such as patrolling the streets, making enquiries, giving advice and warnings, and dealing with incidents.[125] The Minister of State, Ms Blears, was quoted as saying:

"she was satisfied it was correct to include hours spent on paperwork in the frontline statistics. She said that if paperwork was excluded, police would spend roughly 53 per cent of their time on frontline duties.

126

119. The President of ACPO, Mr Chris Fox, said that there had been big successes in fighting bureaucracy, such as the introduction of electronic identification parades, and that "we have … removed thousands of forms. … Every force has gone through every cupboard and every system and weeded them out and thrown them away". However, a "major stumbling block" in the way of reducing paperwork had been the failure to introduce an integrated electronic case and custody system.[127]

120. The PSA described the response to O'Dowd as pragmatic and effective. It reported the view that bureaucracy is not now at the top of the list of issues persistently complained about by staff, and looked forward to further improvements when the police service was 'joined up' technologically with the rest of the Criminal Justice System.[128]

121. The Police Federation was much less sanguine, stating that "two years down the line we are yet to witness satisfactory progress on the frontline". It called for greater investment in joined-up IT systems and hand-held equipment to allow officers to conduct their work more speedily; coupled with "a parallel change in ethos" to ensure that counter-bureaucracy measures are not sidelined.[129] The Chairman of the Police Federation, Ms Jan Berry, told us that though there had been some advances (for instance, use of fixed-penalty tickets), the best way of reducing unnecessary paperwork would be through use of new technology which was being introduced very slowly. She said that—

130

She gave an example:

131

122. The Mayor of London told us he welcomes the principles of the O'Dowd report and will monitor its implementation.[132] The Metropolitan Police Service stated that they had allocated each of O'Dowd's 51 recommendations an ACPO-level lead. Most of the recommendations have now been implemented.. Positive developments have included moves towards an integrated IT system using mobile data terminals, desktop computers and hand-held devices. However, the MPS also lists the following "key areas for improvement":

inefficient methods of recording crime
poor understanding of the rules for detecting crime
frustration and confusion with some aspects of the National Crime Recording Standard
frustration with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
inefficient custody and prisoner-handling procedures
increasing bureaucracy re case preparation and file handling.[133]

123. The then Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, reinforced the point made by the Police Federation:

134

124. The Home Office told us that the National Strategy for Police Information Systems (NSPIS) Custody and Case Preparation software is being gradually introduced:

135

125. There is a strong public desire, which we support, for more police officers to be returned to the beat. Good progress has been made in implementing some of the recommendations of the Bureaucracy Taskforce. In particular, the use of fixed-penalty tickets has played a significant part in freeing up police time.

126. However, these gains have been at the margins. There has been too little progress in introducing more effective information technology. It is here that the real potential lies for saving police time and resources. Sir Ian Blair and other witnesses drew attention to the long-standing failure to introduce an integrated case and custody system. There is an acute need for an integrated transmission system allowing the police, the courts and the CPS to communicate electronically with each other. Police officers and staff are entangled in paperwork because they do not have the IT systems they need and want. Redressing this deficiency should be a Home Office priority. We recommend that in its reply to this report the Home Office should supply a detailed strategy and timetable for the introduction of an integrated case and custody system, and should continue to supply us or our successor Committee in the next Parliament with annual progress reports on this project until it has been fully implemented.

127. We are also worried by the Minister's definition of 'front-line policing' as including work in the police station on case files and report preparation. These tasks may be essential but they are not what most people would consider to be 'street policing'. Their inclusion therefore skews the statistics and gives an exaggerated impression of the Government's success in returning police officers to street duties. We recommend that the definition of 'front-line policing' should be changed to exclude time spent dealing with paperwork indoors.

Workforce modernisation

REFORM OF POLICE PAY, CONDITIONS AND WORKING PRACTICES

128. The 2001 white paper commented that "police employment regulations … do not provide for the flexibility required of modern operational policing nor do they meet the needs of current employment patterns".[136]

129. The white paper highlighted problems including:

Varying entry standards
An insufficiently diverse service
Police regulations that are "rigid, out of date and inflexible"
Pay determined by length of service, irrespective of the demands of the post
One third of all police retirements being on medical grounds (as high as 63% in one force)
Pension arrangements give no incentive to stay in the service beyond 30 years
Excessive time lost through sickness (average number of days lost per officer in 2000-01 was 12.2, compared to public sector average of 10.2 and private sector average of 7.2).[137]

130. The 2003 green paper set out progress in tackling these problems:

Pay and conditions: a "major package" is being introduced which includes introduction of competence-related pay, extra pay for more difficult posts, and measures to reduce dependence on overtime
Health: "we are focusing on reducing sickness absence and ill health retirements and improving occupational health services"
Diversity and equal opportunities: progress has been made but "there is still some way to go to reach the 7% national target for minority ethnic staff by 2009"
Civilianisation: Community Support Officers are increasingly being deployed [see separate section below] and the Police Reform Act 2002 provided new powers for police staff to act as detention or custody staff.[138]

131. In July 2004 the Home Office gave us some further updating:

Greater pay flexibilities have now been implemented. Over 75% of eligible officers receive competency related threshold payments (CRTPs)
All forces now operate Special Priority Payment (SPP) schemes, and 40% of officers can receive the payments. However, the Home Office states that it is too early to evaluate the impact of SPPs on retention in frontline posts, and notes that they are regarded as divisive by the staff organisations and as inflexible by ACPO
Proposals for a new police pensions scheme are on track for introduction from April 2006
All but one police force have implemented national recruitment standards, a common application form and a standard assessment centre. Applications to join the police service are at "a very high level"
National recruitment standards provide "a strong evidence base" from which to address issues raised in 'The Secret Policeman' (the BBC programme last year which exposed racist recruits in Greater Manchester police)
Sickness absence has fallen from 12 days per officer and 12.6 days per support staff member in 2000-01 to 10.4 and 11.7 days respectively in 2002-03.[139]

132. The November 2004 white paper set out further proposals on workforce modernisation. These included arrangements for more flexible working, introducing multiple points of entry to the service, removing the requirement that all officers serve specific periods at junior ranks before being promoted, and removing barriers to police staff becoming officers.[140]

133. The issue of Special Priority Payments (SPPs) has been particularly controversial. HMIC stated in their memorandum that SPPs—

141

134. ACPO told us that they are in broad agreement with the principles of workforce modernisation.[142] The Police Federation in their submission focused on the issue of civilianisation (see next section). The PSA stated that CRTPs and SPPs do not directly affect their members, but they commented that "there has been little uniformity in the processes by which the payments are authorised and therefore a bureaucracy has grown up around them".[143]

135. The Association of Police Authorities commented that "while SPPs have been controversial and many officers feel they are unfair, they have helped authorities to deal with recruitment and retention problems … and reward officers in frontline, '24/7' roles". They argued that it is not clear that the aims of CRTPs, to help drive up performance, have been met in practice. They described the new approach to ill-health retirement as having been "very helpful in bringing down what were in some areas unacceptably high rates of ill-health retirement". They noted that a number of forces are behind schedule in the target to reduce overtime by 15% over the three years to 2006-07.[144]

136. We asked the Minister of State, Hazel Blears, to comment on HMIC's assertion that Special Priority Payments are "divisive". She replied that it was "very early days", and that as the payments had only been introduced in December 2003, "it is a bit premature to decide that they are divisive". She argued that in time they would embed themselves, and prove useful "in those posts where it has been difficult to recruit, and to make a public statement that these posts are tremendously well valued". As a result of an initial assessment of the payments, which revealed that forces wanted to include more people in the SPP system, the threshold had been raised so that up to 40% of a force could qualify for the payments.[145]

137. We congratulate the Home Office on its success in reducing high rates of ill-health retirement and sickness absence. We recognise that it is too early to carry out a full assessment of the effect of Special Priority Payments, which were introduced only just over 12 months ago. In general, we support the greater flexibility they will allow in the use of resources. However, we recommend that the Home Office should address criticisms of lack of uniformity in the process by which SPPs are authorised. In a year's time it should conduct a full assessment of the operation of SPPs.

DIVERSITY

138. In 1999 the then Home Secretary set targets for the recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic staff within the Home Office and its linked agencies and services. The target for the Police Service was that at least 7% of police officers and staff should be from a minority ethnic background by 2009. The latest figures on progress towards these targets were issued in January 2005. The Police Service has seen a rise in representation from 3% in 1999 to 4.3% in 2004.[146]

139. Although the Home Office has presented this latest figures as only "narrowly missing the 2004 milestone target of 4.6%",[147] there was scepticism amongst our witnesses as to whether the 2009 target of 7% was likely to be achieved, and general agreement that the Police Service was moving too slowly towards becoming more representative of the wider community. Dr Ali Dizaei, a Chief Superintendent in the Metropolitan Police, commented that:

148

The Chairman of the Police Federation, Ms Jan Berry, told us that "the Police Service does need to mirror the structure of society and at this moment it does not … I do not believe … that the Police Service has been as committed as it could be to achieving that".[149]

140. However, Ms Berry expressed doubts about the introduction of formal quotas for minority ethnic officers:

150

141. The Metropolitan Police Service told us that:

151

The Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, said that although the MPS had some 2,000 candidates who had passed the selection process and were waiting to join the force, very few of them were from ethnic minorities. Given that it was a strategic requirement "for the Metropolitan Police to look like London, … at this rate it will take us decades not years to achieve that, and I do not think that is acceptable".[152] He said that while there should be no lowering of standards:

153

He added that in its recruiting processes the MPS would also seek to prioritise certain skills such as knowledge of languages or of particular communities.[154]

142. The National Black Police Association (NBPA) called for 'affirmative action'. They define this as "the selection amongst equally and suitably qualified candidates to ensure trust and confidence in policing".[155] However, they argue that there is widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of affirmative action, and they emphasise the need to prepare the service and manage perceptions of any change.

143. The NBPA appended to its memorandum a paper from Chief Superintendent Dr Ali Dizaei of the Metropolitan Police giving further details of how their proposed system of affirmative action might work. Dr Dizaei argued that the "selection among equally qualified candidates" model is best suited to public sector organisations, including the police:

operational imperative

community needs

156

144. Dr Dizaei proposes that "the affirmative action programme will not run indefinitely but operate until equilibrium is reached and then it will be disbanded. Thereafter, natural selection will take place." He also rejected claims that "many black staff and women will lose self-esteem and be accused of getting their promotion or selection because of their colour or gender", citing a 1995 opinion poll which asked employed ethnic minorities and white women whether they had ever felt others questioned their abilities because of affirmative action:

157

145. Addressing the NBPA's annual conference, the Minister of State, Ms Hazel Blears, said: "We have got a whole range of views about these issues. We need to move forward together. What we don't want is a situation where we have real division … We have also got to explore whether we are using the current law to its full extent, before we change the law."[158] Ms Blears told us that a majority of forces were on course to meet their targets for minority ethnic recruitment, but conceded that there was a particular problem with the Metropolitan Police.[159]

146. The issue of positive discrimination is a very sensitive one. There is undoubtedly a problem which needs to be tackled. Despite recent increases in recruitment from minority ethnic groups, many police forces remain unrepresentative of their wider communities. This is particularly the case in London. Doing nothing is therefore not an option. Equally, it would be counter-productive to take action which led to a lowering of recruitment standards, or which created a widespread sense of unfairness on the part of white police officers. We believe that the best way forward is through a combination of :

increased effort put into 'positive action', that is, promotional and outreach activities aimed at encouraging more members of minority groups to apply to join the police;

b) the prioritising in recruitment of certain abilities such as language skills and knowledge of cultural background, where relevant to policing needs in particular areas. A case can be made for doing this on a purely crime-fighting basis.

We recommend that the Home Office should explore as a matter of urgency the extent to which proposal (b) above can be implemented without a change in the existing law, with a view to issuing guidance to individual forces on how best to modify their present recruitment practices. However, the position should be regularly reviewed by the Home Office, and if no significant progress has been made, then further action should be taken, including consideration of legislation to enable proposal (b) above to be implemented.

147. We also took evidence from the Minister of State on the Government's proposal to ban membership of the British National Party on the part of police officers or staff. She told us that following a declaration by ACPO that membership of the BNP was inconsistent with being a police officer—

160

The Minister subsequently told us that the "similar organisations" she referred to would include Combat 18, the National Front and any other organisation "whose constitution, aims, objectives or pronouncements are incompatible with the general duty under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act to promote race equality".[161]

148. We support the view of ACPO and the Government that membership of the BNP and similar racist organisations is incompatible with being a police officer, and look forward to this restriction being made legally enforceable. We believe that formal restrictions should be complemented by a determined effort to root out unacceptable attitudes.

CAREER BREAKS

149. Police officers can apply for unpaid career breaks of up to five years. In September 2004, a judge dismissed a dangerous driving case because a police officer who had been due to give evidence was on a career break in Spain and could not be contacted.[162] Following adverse press coverage of this incident, we raised with our witnesses the question of whether the current arrangements for police career breaks are satisfactory.

150. The Minister of State, Ms Hazel Blears, told us that as at October 2004, 776 police officers were on career breaks. The vast majority of these were police constables, and only one was of the rank of chief superintendent or above. Ms Blears commented that "as far as I know, the system is working pretty well", enabling police officers to acquire valuable outside experience. Chief constables were responsible for ensuring that officers on career breaks received appropriate refresher training and induction into new technology so that they were not disadvantaged on their return to police duties. They were also responsible for ensuring that such officers were available to give evidence in court as required and that their absence did not have a damaging effect on the operation of the force in general.[163]

151. HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Keith Povey, in a response seen and endorsed also by ACPO, told us that a national policy on police career breaks had been agreed by the Secretary of State in 2000. This aimed "to support personal needs of staff by providing an extended break from work and subsequent return, whilst maintaining effective operational capability". The policy guidelines were "not prescriptive" but allowed individual forces the flexibility to make their own arrangements. Research indicated that individual force policies—

164

152. The Metropolitan Police gave us an example of such a requirement, from their formal career break policy:

165

153. ACPO, the PSA, the Police Federation, the APA and HMIC all felt that the current policy on career breaks was working well.[166] The PSA added a comment about the particular case which had excited media interest:

167

154. We have no reason to believe that there are any major problems with the current system of police career breaks or that a full-scale review is called for. A limited use of career breaks, subject to the overall demands of the service, helps to motivate and retain staff. However, we note that HMIC describes individual force policies as being "likely" to contain "specific information in respect of criteria and eligibility for a career break and also court commitments", and that "in some cases [our emphasis] this includes an undertaking by the individual concerned to advise of any known impending court commitments and to attend any court commitments as required". The implication is that some forces do not require officers on career breaks to give undertakings in respect of court commitments. We recommend that the Secretary of State's national policy on police career breaks should be amended to make it a requirement that all individual force policies should contain stipulations in respect of court commitments following the model of the Metropolitan Police's policy, which we cite in paragraph 152 above.

'CIVILIANISATION'

155. In the November 2003 green paper the Government stated that "we want to explore the scope for convergence between the pay and conditions for all police staff" and "to move towards common performance, management and development systems". [168]

156. In July 2004, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Keith Povey, published Modernising the Police Service, a thematic inspection of police workforce modernisation.[169] The report addresses the implications of 'civilianisation' of the police—that is, replacing police officers with non-sworn police staff in specific roles—in the context of the wider reform agenda. It poses the key question as being, "how should the service and individual police forces determine and effectively manage the optimum mix of officers and police staff in order to deliver the increasingly complex services required of a modern police organisation?"[170]

157. The report—

advocates "a significant programme of change"
argues that "for too long the service has dealt with officers and police staff in silos as if somehow they were not part of the same organisation. This is divisive"
calls for a more integrated approach to civilianisation, with the Home Office playing a more pro-active role and significant changes to funding mechanisms
questions the concept of the "omnicompetent officer" and recommends a more flexible approach to the delegation of police powers
advocates "a fundamental review of concepts such as the single point of entry to the service, the 30-year police career and the current non-transferability of training, skills and qualifications".

158. The Police Federation argue strongly in support of maintaining the present differences between the pay and conditions package of police officers and that of support staff.[171] The Police Superintendents' Association supports convergence in terms and conditions of police officers and staff, but believes that the office of constable should remain, arguing that in police forces across the world "there is a distinction between those members of that force who carry a power of arrest and those who do not".[172] The Association of Police Authorities comment that they "strongly support an integrated workforce without artificial divisions" and welcome the HMIC report.[173]

159. We support the Government's intention to merge the pay and conditions of police officers and staff. There should be a single police service pay spine up which individuals will progress according to their skills and experience. However, we recommend that the office of constable should be retained.

COMMUNITY SUPPORT OFFICERS

160. The Police Reform Act 2002 provided for the introduction of Police Community Support Officers (CSOs or PCSOs). The Home Office defines CSOs as—

"police authority employed staff who can perform a high visibility, patrolling role. They complement the work of police officers by focusing predominantly on lower level crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour, providing reassurance to the communities they serve."[

174

161. CSOs' present powers include those of issuing fixed-penalty notices relating to anti-social behaviour, requesting a name and address, and detaining someone for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable. The Government has recently proposed that CSOs be given extra powers equivalent to those of police officers to direct traffic, to issue warnings to beggars, to enforce byelaws, and to search a detained person for weapons where the CSO has reasonable grounds to believe that the detainee might present a danger to himself or others.[175]

162. The appointment of CSOs is optional for each force. Following pilots in 2002-03 in six forces, 38 forces have now appointed a total of over 3,800 CSOs. The Home Office describes them as "providing a visible, reassuring presence in communities—typically spending around 70% of their time on patrol".[176]

163. The Home Office Strategic Plan envisages recruitment of a further 20,000 CSOs by 2008. £50 million of new money is being provided to "kickstart" recruitment. The Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, giving evidence to us on 20 July 2004, said that "the exact criteria and rules" governing this funding "have yet to be devised", and therefore it was not clear whether the money was ring-fenced for the appointment of CSOs, or would be available if forces chose to spend it in other ways.[177] The Home Office has stated that it intends to make provision for local communities to co-fund extra CSOs, if that is desired by local people or businesses. It has undertaken that "growth in CSO numbers will not be at the expense of police officer numbers".[178]

164. HMIC's recommendations on workforce modernisation also have implications for the future use of CSOs.[179] HMIC's overall assessment of CSOs is that they have been "highly successful". However, HMIC draws attention to the uncertainty over their long-term funding.[180]

165. The President of ACPO, Mr Chris Fox, told us that CSOs had been very successful when working in teams with police officers, in 'high visibility' situations in streets and neighbourhoods. He thought that in taking a decision on whether to extend CSOs' powers, care should be taken not to change this role. As the ACPO submission put it, "additional training, more paperwork, court appearances, etc., would result in less 'street' time and defeat their reason for being".[181]

166. The Association of Police Authorities refers to the introduction of CSOs as "a success story". "All the indications to date are that PCSOs are extremely popular with local communities." They note that the need for forces to have police authority approval in order to receive ring-fenced funding means that in practice authorities have an input into most decisions to recruit CSOs. However, they also point out that no proper national evaluation of the impact of CSOs has yet been carried out. They argue that such an evaluation is necessary to establish the optimum deployment of CSOs, and see whether there is a difference in their effectiveness as between urban and rural areas. They say it is not clear how the figure of 20,000 extra CSOs was arrived at, and express the hope that future funding arrangements will provide flexibility for police authorities and chief offices to decide locally what the right mix of police officers, CSOs and other staff should be.[182]

167. The Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, said that CSOs had proved to be "deeply popular with the public". He stressed the need for them to work as part of an integrated team with police officers. In the MPS 33% of CSOs had been recruited from black and minority ethnic groups and 30% were women; he concluded that CSOs were an effective way of rapidly increasing the representation of minority groups and women within the Police Service.[183]

168. In contrast to our other witnesses, the Police Federation expressed deep scepticism about the value of CSOs. They referred to a "woeful lack of analysis as to [CSOs'] effectiveness to date". They acknowledged that surveys showed the public welcome—

184

169. The Chairman of the Federation, Ms Jan Berry, told us that "there is a level of confusion by police officers as to what PCSOs are doing and by the public as to what the powers and real role of a PCSO is".[185] The General Secretary, Mr Clint Elliott, added: "there is a point, I think, and we are not far away from that point, when PCSOs are actually, in everything but name, police officers, but are actually cheaper, less well trained and less well selected police officers. That has got to be of concern to the public."[186]

170. The Police Federation subsequently sent us a summary of findings from a series of focus groups containing police officers drawn from seven forces. The main findings were that the "vast majority" of officers did not believe CSOs had been given sufficient training, and thought it essential they should wear a uniform that was clearly distinct from that of police officers; while some officers expressed "heavy dissatisfaction" at the practice of CSOs getting involved in confrontational situations that they were not trained to handle. The Police Federation reports that, overall, "there was a split as to whether police officers approved or disapproved of CSOs".[187]

171. Responding to the criticism that the decision to expand the numbers of CSOs had been taken before proper evaluation of their effectiveness had been carried out, the Minister of State, Ms Hazel Blears, told us that—

188

The Home Office has supplied us with a summary of the results of these local evaluations.[189]

172. It is clear that Community Support Officers have proved popular with the public in their role as high-visibility patrollers. The Government's proposed expansion in CSO numbers was supported by most of our witnesses, though not by the Police Federation which represents uniformed officers. Several witnesses made the point that CSOs are most useful when they work in close liaison with police officers, and that any extension of their powers which reduced their street presence would be counter-productive. We agree with this assessment. We also think it is desirable that individual police forces and police authorities should be given the flexibility to decide for themselves whether they wish to spend extra resources on CSOs or on other personnel or activities. We recommend that the arrangements drawn up by the Home Office for the proposed neighbourhood policing fund should make allowance for such flexibility, allowing local communities to take decisions in the light of local priorities.

Science and technology

173. A Police Science and Technology Strategy Group was created in July 2002 to bring together key stakeholders including the Home Office, ACPO, the Forensic Science Service, the Police Information Technology Organisation, police authorities, industry and academia. Two Police Science and Technology Strategy reports have been issued; the most recent, in May 2004, covers the period 2004-09. In financial year 2002-03, a total of £224 million was spent on national police-related science and technology projects (out of £9 billion in total for policing).[190] Police use of science and technology is a vast topic. In the context of the present report we confine ourselves to briefly summarising developments in respect of two specific issues.

CALL HANDLING

174. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary drew attention in its written evidence to police call-handling as an area of current weakness, with relatively few forces possessing a high-calibre facility. HMIC is about to undertake a thematic inspection of the end-to-end call handling process.[191]

175. In September 2004, the Home Secretary unveiled what he called a 'copper's contract', aimed at improving call-handling:

"The 'copper's contract' between the Home Office and ACPO will set national minimum standards which cover:

making it easier for the public to contact the police through call handling systems designed for the task;
clearer information to the public about how to get in touch;
how the police should deal with the initial call, make sure they give the caller realistic information about what will happen next and what should be done to follow-up each call with the person who made it; and
how to measure feedback from the public about the service they have received.

192

176. The Minister of State, Ms Blears, commented that:

193

177. The Government's proposals were subsequently embodied in the November 2004 white paper.[194] A number of our witnesses commented on these. UNISON told us that it supported the development of call handling standards, but "these will not succeed unless the manifest HR/industrial relations problems that beset this sector of the service are first tackled. Our call handler members complain of under-staffing, poor training, ineffective resource management and health and safety problems with stress."[195] The APA said that they recognised the importance of good call-handling to the public and would be engaging with HMIC during their thematic inspection.[196]

178. The PSA expressed disappointment at "the seeming lack of progress" towards introducing a single non-emergency number. They comment that:

197

The APA, on the other hand, urged caution against introducing the new number too hastily:

198

179. We support the Government's proposals to improve call-handling. At present it is often difficult for members of the public to contact the police. This is not acceptable. However, the Home Office must ensure that suitable training and staff resources are made available to ensure that the new systems are a success.

180. We also welcome the proposed introduction of a single non-emergency number. We note the concern of the APA that appropriate back-up systems should be in place before the new number becomes available. We recommend that the Home Office should address these concerns in its planning for the new number.

USE OF DNA

181. In 1999 the Prime Minister announced a programme to expand the National DNA Database. The aim was to enable the police to take a DNA sample from all current known active offenders by April 2004. In the four years from April 2000, the DNA Expansion Programme provided £183 million to police forces. At the end of March 2004, the Database held 2.5 million DNA profiles taken from suspect offenders, which the Home Office describes as being "the great majority of known active UK offenders".[199]

182. In 2002-03 there were nearly 50,000 'offender-to-scene' matches, and over 21,000 'DNA detections' (detected crimes in which a DNA match is available), an increase of 145% over the figure for 1999-2000. DNA matches have had an impact on detection rates:

while the overall detection rate for all crime is 24%, this rises to 38% where DNA has been successfully recovered from a crime scene; and
the detection rate for domestic burglary rises from 14% to 48% where crime-scene DNA is put on the database.[200]

183. The number of profiles on the Database is projected to increase to 370,000 in 2007. This takes account of likely extra growth attributable to the new power (in the Criminal Justice Act 2003) to take DNA samples immediately after arrest.[201]

184. The Home Office told us that:

202

185. At present, DNA, fingeprints and other scientific process are used independently. The Home Office Forensic Integration Strategy is intended to achieve full integration of all forms of forensic evidence by March 2008. It is claimed that "such integration will raise the level of detections in a highly cost-effective manner" and will be a "step-change" in the use of forensic science.[203]

186. Two reports from HMIC—Under the Microscope (July 2000) and Under the Microscope Refocused (June 2002)—criticised the effectiveness of police use of DNA. The 2002 report found that though good progress had been made in some areas, police processes and management were still proving too slow to adapt to the possibilities being opened up by DNA technology.

187. The report stated that: "concern has been expressed from a number of quarters that inept interview techniques and the inappropriate disclosure of evidence to defence representatives prior to interviews may be one explanation for a high number of legitimate access outcomes". The report also concluded that "many forces still have a great deal of difficulty in managing the process of turning identifications into detections, and this is rooted in a paucity of quality performance information".

188. The report found that there was also an emerging problem with multiple identities appearing on the National DNA Database, i.e. the same individual's DNA linked to several names. The report called for greater checking to limit the recording of DNA under several alias, false or misspelt names.

189. It was reported in the press in September 2004 that Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, of the Department of Genetics at Leicester University, had called for police DNA databases to hold more information to lessen the chances of a false positive.[204]

190. We raised Sir Alec's reported criticisms of police use of DNA with the Director of Forensic Services in the Metropolitan Police, Mr Gary Pugh. In response Mr Pugh commented that:

"I think Sir Alec Jeffreys was referring to the fact that we do not actually analyse the whole DNA molecule, we use a method in the UK and world-wide which looks at different sites of the molecule. Therefore, if you like, from a scientific perspective it is possible that the DNA profile for one individual could be the same as another. That is a remote possibility given that the statistics involve around one in a billion in terms of the likelihood of that. The safeguards around that, I think, are through the fact that the DNA profiling method in the UK is thoroughly tested in the courts, and in fact there is considerable guidance about how it is to be used and how that information is put before juries. In addition to that, we have a custodial role for the National DNA Database which not only ACPO and the Home Office participate in but the Human Genetics Commission as well. So I think there is significant oversight on the use of DNA profiling, and certainly from my professional perspective public confidence in DNA is key to its continued usage."

191. The President of ACPO, Mr Chris Fox, told us:

205

192. There is great potential for increasing the effective use of DNA by the police. As HMIC has demonstrated, there remains unacceptable variation in the adoption of DNA technology by individual forces. The Home Office and ACPO should push for more rapid progress on the part of under-performing forces.

193. We note the concerns expressed by Sir Alec Jeffreys in relation to police use of DNA and recommend that, as a precautionary measure, the Home Office should consider whether changes in practice are necessary to deal with the potential problem of multiple identities. The Home Office should report to us the conclusions of this review.

194. We welcome the Forensic Integration Strategy, aimed at integrating all forms of forensic evidence by 2008. We recommend that in its reply to this report the Home Office should supply us with an update on progress in implementing the Strategy.

1 The conference, convened by the then Home Secretary, Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, was held on 9 October 2000; it involved interested parties including ACPO, APA, PSA and the Police Federation. Back

2 See paragraph 4 below. Back

3 See paragraph 15 below. Back

4 Ev 203-59 Back

5 Home Office, Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform (Cm 5326) Back

6 Second Report of Session 2001-02, Police Reform Bill (HC 612) Back

7 Ibid., paras 65-68 Back

8 Ibid., para 17 Back

9 Ibid., para 23 Back

10 Ibid., paras 86, 40, 79 Back

11 Home Office, National Policing Plan 2005-08: Safer, Stronger Communities Back

12 National Policing Plan 2005-08, para 2.11 Back