CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. 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. (Paragraph 25)
2. 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. (Paragraph 48)
3. 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.
(Paragraph 49)
4. 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. (Paragraph 64)
5. We 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. (Paragraph 65)
6. We 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. (Paragraph 66)
7. 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. (Paragraph
67)
8. 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. (Paragraph 75)
9. 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. (Paragraph 76)
10. 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.
(Paragraph 88)
11. 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". (Paragraph 89)
12. We believe that
it is sensible to involve CDRPs in police target-setting…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. (Paragraph
91)
13. 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. (Paragraph 101)
14. 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. However, further
elucidation is needed of the way lead forces would operate….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. (Paragraphs 110 and 111)
15. 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. (Paragraph 125)
16. 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. (Paragraph
126)
17. 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.
(Paragraph 127)
18. 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. (Paragraph 137)
19. 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 :
(a) 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. (Paragraph
146)
20. 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. (Paragraph 146)
21. 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. (Paragraph
148)
22. 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. (Paragraph 154)
23. 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. (Paragraph 159)
24. 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.
(Paragraph 172)
25. 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.(Paragraph 179)
26. 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. (Paragraph 180)
27. 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. (Paragraph 192)
28. 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. (Paragraph
193)
29. 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. (Paragraph 194)
| 
