Attachment
APA BRIEFING: POLICE REFORM WHITE PAPER
BUILDING COMMUNITIES,
BEATING CRIME—A
BETTER POLICE
SERVICE FOR
THE 21ST
CENTURY
Overview and Summary of APA Views
The White Paper has three main objectives (page
6/7)
— Spreading neighbourhood policing
to every community and embedding a genuinely responsive customer
service culture.
— Workforce modernisation to ensure
the service is fully equipped to deliver these changes.
— Greater involvement of the community
and citizens in determining how their communities are policed.
The White Paper sets out "10 Commitments
to the public" and "10 Commitments to the police service"
and how these will be delivered (para 1.39).
APA Views
— We welcome the recognition of the
achievements already made by the service
— We strongly support the broad thrust
of the Government's proposals and the overall objectives set out
above.
— We generally welcome the two sets
of commitments although have some reservations about certain aspects
of delivery (eg earned autonomy).
Neighbourhood Policing
— We support the roll-out of neighbourhood
policing.
— We welcome the Government's recognition
of the APA's view that one-size does not fit all and that the
level and style of neighbourhood policing will need to vary according
to community needs.
— Neighbourhood policing is resource
intensive and we will need sufficient resources to deliver it.
— We support the development of national
customer service standards which can be built upon locally and
will work with partners to implement this but again there are
resource implications here.
— We recognise that there is popular
support for a Single Non-Emergency Number but have reservations
about the practicalities and would not wish to undermine local
responsiveness.
Workforce Modernisation
— We support the proposals to equip
police officers with leadership skills at all levels.
— We look forward to further discussions
about the proposed mandatory qualification for BCU commanders.
— We welcome the new approach to career
development and multiple points of entry.
— We have concerns about further extensions
of powers of PCSOs.
— We welcome the proposals for measures
to improve the recruitment, retention and progression of minority
ethnic, female and other under-represented staff.
— We welcome the new duty on police
authorities to promote diversity within authorities and the service.
— We welcome the recognition that police
authorities should play a role in the appointment of senior (ACPO
rank) staff.
— We strongly oppose proposals to reduce
police authorities' role in appointment of Deputy and Assistant
Chief Officers and equivalent ranks in the MPS (police authorities
will only be consulted on the chief officer's shortlist). This
is a retrograde step, which reduces local people's say over the
nature and style of local policing.
Greater Involvement of Citizens and Communities
— We support the need for more responsive,
citizen-focused policing services.
— We welcome the proposals for a new
duty on police authorities to ensure that local people are provided
with information about local policing.
— We welcome the Government's recognition
that local councillors should act as advocates in relation to
local people's concerns about policing or community safety and
that any community "trigger mechanism" should only operate
through local councillors. We look forward to working with local
government colleagues to implement these proposals.
— We welcome the proposed review of
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and are contributing
fully to that review.
— We note the proposals that accountability
and scrutiny arrangements should be exercised collaboratively
at neighbourhood, CDRP and police authority level and that police
authorities have responsibility for ensuring that robust accountability
mechanisms are in place with minimum bureaucracy. We intend that
the proposed APA pilots will test out options for improved accountability
and scrutiny below police authority level.
Police Authorities
— We welcome the stronger role for
local police authorities in ensuring local community engagement
at CDRP and neighbourhood level.
— We welcome the clearer role for police
authorities in holding forces to account, including through appraisal
of chief officers.
— We have strong reservations about
the proposed changes to the councillor membership of authorities,
particularly in two-tier areas and doubt that these will achieve
the government's aims or make it easier for people to understand
the membership of police authorities or make authorities more
visible.
— We welcome the recognition of the
valuable role independent members play and their continuing role
on authorities.
— We welcome the recognition of the
need for a continuing role for magistrates on police authorities
and the local flexibility proposed.
— We have strong concerns about restricting
members right to elect the Chair of the Authority.
General
— We welcome the Government's recognition
of the need to fully consider the financial costs of implementing
these reforms, including the implications for council tax and
will work with the Government to take this forward.
— We will be consulting all authorities
on the proposals and providing a corporate response by 1 February
2005.
9 November 2004
CHAPTER 1—BUILDING
A BETTER
POLICE SERVICE
This Chapter sets out the Government's approach
to reform; what it is seeking to achieve; the role of the police
and what reform will mean for the public and the police service.
White Paper
— Government's goal: to make policing
better—to build safe, secure, stable communities
Central/Local Control
— set the national direction, strategic
framework, priorities and targets
— provide resources and powers to tackle
crime/anti-social behaviour
— protect public by intervening where
demonstrable failure
— ensure coherence/consistency in policing
practices/systems in national interest
— build confidence and empower people
to keep their own communities safe
— Police authorities and chief officers
responsible for delivering effective, responsive policing to communities
they serve.
Role of the Police Service
— Police role should continue to be
broad based—both to maintain legitimacy and increase trust
and confidence.
— Police role is about both preventing/detecting
crime and reassuring the public.
— Need a shift towards more proactive,
problem-solving, intelligence-led policing.
Partnerships
— Crime and anti-social behaviour not
for the police alone.
— Effective partnerships vital both:
— locally with other criminal justice
agencies, local government, health, children's services, business,
voluntary sector; and
— nationally with SOCA and Security
Services.
— Also about individuals and communities
recognising their responsibilities—policing a shared undertaking
with communities.
Future Direction of Policing
— Revitalised Neighbourhood Policing.
— Responsiveness, customer service
and community engagement—moving from policing with consent
to proactive engagement and co-operation of communities.
— A new police workforce.
— Effective links from local to national
level.
— Clearer, stronger tripartite partnership.
APA Views
— Generally supportive of the overall
framework and direction of travel.
CHAPTER 2—PROGRESS
TO DATE
AND THE
CASE FOR
REFORM
This Chapter sets out progress to date; why
further reform is necessary and how this should develop.
White Paper
Progress to date
— Records successes to date: reductions
in crime; highest ever police numbers; funding increases; implementation
of NIM.
— Recognition of effective partnership
working—formation of LCJBs; CDRPs; introduction of ASBOs.
— Establishment of a performance culture
through the Police Standards Unit (PSU) and HMIC and provision
of information via i-Quanta and performance monitors
Drivers for Change
— Changing world places new demands
on police eg modern technology; public expectations.
— Falls in fear of crime have not matched
actual reductions.
— Crime is falling but still too high—key
issues:
— Prolific and Priority Offenders
— Drug and alcohol misuse related offending
Proposed Solutions
— Neighbourhood policing with real
community engagement in identifying problems; prioritising action
and shaping solutions.
— Customer focused policing to improve
public confidence and satisfaction, including eg tackling impact
of police use of stop and search powers and implementing recording
of stops.
— Community engagement—giving
people a greater say in determining local community safety priorities,
encouraging Specials and revitalising Neighbourhood Watch.
— Building a modernised workforce,
reducing bureaucracy and eliminating discrimination.
— Further training and development
for the whole police workforce required to achieve necessary culture
change.
— Tackling terrorism, including through
an expanding Security Service; expanding Special Branch and tackling
Organised Crime including through setting up SOCA.
— Clearer and stronger local accountability
arrangements—bolstered and simplified.
— Putting the law-abiding citizen at
the heart of the reform agenda.
APA Views
— Generally supportive but have concerns
about the detail.
— Agree entirely that workforce need
to have the skills required to deliver improvements in policing.
— But training should not be seen as
the sole answer. The service already spends very large sums on
training and it is not always clear that it delivers results.
We need to be absolutely clear what any new training would deliver
and ensure it is properly evaluated.
CHAPTER 3—A
NEW RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE
POLICE AND
THE PUBLIC
BUILDING TRUST
AND CONFIDENCE
Government's Aims:
— Accessible, responsive, neighbourhood
policing capable of dealing with 21st century challenges of crime
and anti-social behaviour across all force.
— Communities who know who is responsible
for their area with dedicated neighbourhood policing teams.
— New culture of customer responsiveness
and guaranteed standards of customer service.
— New opportunities for local communities
to have a say in local policing priorities.
NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICING
(3.6-3.16)
White Paper Proposals
— Roll-out of Neighbourhood Policing
to all forces.
— Dedicated "mixed economy"
teams comprising officers/PCSOs/wardens etc providing a visible
and accessible presence.
— Emphasis on local problem-solving
and responding directly to local priorities.
— Greater community engagement, creating
a more customer-focused police service.
APA Views
— Welcome the proposals to give communities
a dedicated resource and the opportunity to ensure local policing
is reflective of local needs and priorities.
— Welcome recognition that "one-size
fits" all inappropriate and nature and type of dedicated
resources will vary across communities.
— Further consideration needed to how
priorities raised at a neighbourhood level relate to decisions
at a more strategic level and police authorities may need to consider
how to ensure there is no duplication of effort in consulting
the public on their priorities.
— Police authorities will want to monitor
police performance in terms of detections, response to reported
incidents and actual crime reduction to ensure there are no local
negative implications of neighbourhood and visible policing.
NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICING
FUND (NPF) (3.17-3.18)
White Paper Proposals
— New NPF to bring together CFF, PCSO
funding, specials funding, workforce modernisation funding, some
new money.
— Police authority/force bid for funding—bids
need to attract partner support including match funding from eg
LSP, local authority, CDRP. Bid at force level but constructed
from proposals generated at BCU level.
— Funding would be to deliver neighbourhood
policing contract—outcomes and targets to include minimum
police and PCSO numbers, reassurance and crime reduction targets.
APA Views
— Neighbourhood policing is very resource-intensive,
so additional resources must be provided to deliver it.
— We would rather see this additional
funding provided via police funding settlement, so that authorities
and forces have the flexibility to decide how to spend money to
best meet communities' needs.
— Not clear how much new money will
be available, nor is it clear what will happen if funding is hugely
over-subscribed (as we expect it to be).
— What will happen to authorities unable
to secure partner support, for example because they have other
priorities—will funding still be available?
— Similarly would funding be available
where communities have been consulted and make it clear they do
not favour the neighbourhood policing model?
REDUCING BUREAUCRACY
(3.19-3.23)
White Paper Proposals
— New actionline for officers to raise
any questions relating to bureaucracy.
— Police Bureaucracy Gateway to identify
bureaucracy impact of new policies, legislation etc.
— Home Office reform will help reduce
burdens.
APA Views
— Police authorities very keen to reduce
bureaucracy wherever possible. We have a bureaucracy member network,
through which lead members from each authority share good practice
on bureaucracy reduction.
— IT is key here. Mobile data has huge
potential in terms of keeping officers out in the community and
providing them with better intelligence. However individual forces
are either going their own away in setting up local systems or
waiting for the centre to produce a national system. Getting an
effective system in place for all forces needs to be an urgent
national priority.
— We support the national bureaucracy
gateway and the setting up of local gateways. But it is crucial
to ensure that both the national gateway and any local gateways
are themselves streamlined processes that do not result in undue
delay of bureaucracy.
— Support actionline which we assume
will also be open to police staff, the extended police family
and any others involved in policing. Needs to be reviewed after
say 12 months to see if the cost of running it is justified by
gains from it.
— Look forward to true reform of Home
Office which would reduce burdens on the service. Have yet to
see detailed proposals in this area. Simply reducing numbers of
Home Office staff is not sufficient, especially if some of those
numbers shed turn out to be working in for example a new National
Policing Improvement Agency.
— Police authorities have consistently
met and exceeded efficiency targets and are fully committed to
delivering tough new efficiency targets. It's helpful that Government
Ministers have recognised how difficult it is to achieve especially
the 1.5% annual target for cashable efficiency gains.
GUARANTEED STANDARDS
OF SERVICE
(3.29-3.32)
White Paper Proposals
— The public should have a consistent,
high quality of service that meets their needs.
— There will be national standards
setting out the quality of service the police service is committed
to provide, which can be built on locally.
— By the end of 2006, police services
will have to agree a "Contract" with their communities
in order to reflect particular community needs.
— This will improve the service the
public will receive when they contact the police, and a system
will be put in place to monitor the quality of service received
by the public.
APA Views
— We welcome the proposals to ensure
communities receive a consistent and high quality service, and
support the development of national minimum standards.
— The role of police authorities in
agreeing the contract and ensuring it reflects the needs of communities
needs to be clarified.
— Need to consider what, if any measures
and targets are put in place to support the "Contract"
which may be necessary to give it enough substance to be taken
seriously by communities, but this should not lead to increased
bureaucracy.
— The resources implications will need
to be carefully considered.
SINGLE NON-EMERGENCY
NUMBER (3.33-3.37)
White Paper Proposals
— Direct single non-emergency telephone
number for the public, which will deal with non-emergency issues
of policing, crime and anti-social behaviour.
— Core of the system to be in place
by the end of 2006. Training to be provided for call handlers
to equip them with skills in customer service.
APA Views
— The important thing here is the service
people receive, not how they reach the police or other services.
There is no point facilitating contact with the police if the
back-up systems are not there, so it is crucial that before any
new system is put in place forces have in place suitable systems
to be able to cope with the expected demand.
— Customer service skills are important,
but it is at least as important that those receiving calls have
the knowledge to be able to deal with the calls or find the right
person who can deal.
— The example of Surrey, who have brigaded
together non-emergency call handing and 999 calls, seems to fly
in the face of the proposal to separate all non-emergency calls
through the three-digit number, and increase links to local authorities.
— The call handling project attributed
to ACPO is in fact a tripartite one under ACPO chairmanship.
— Agree with proposal that the police
can improve its responsiveness to various communities, including
people with learning disabilities. But the police often finds
itself dealing with people with mental health problems where there
is not a real policing role but other agencies have opted out.
It is important to clarify agencies' respective roles in terms
of dealing with people with mental health problems.
IMPROVING CALL
HANDLING (3.38-3.42)
White Paper Proposals
— National Strategy to improve call
handling.
— HMIC Thematic Inspection on Contact
Management.
— Manual of best practice based on
HMIC findings.
APA Views
— Recognise importance of this issue
to public.
— Will be engaging with HMIC as part
of the thematic.
MEASURING PUBLIC
SATISFACTION (3.43-3.44)
White Paper Proposals
— Public satisfaction to be measured
through new performance indicators that focus on quality of service.
— From April 2005, overall force performance
will include satisfaction with victims of crime in relation to
their experience.
— This will be expanded to include
victims of anti-social behaviour or "non-crime" users.
APA Views
— APA has been closely involved in
development of these measures and is strongly supportive of this
approach.
LOCAL PRIORITIES
(3.56)
White Paper Proposals
— Changes will be made to the way police
performance is measured and inspected so that it reflects the
priorities of the public and their views about the policing they
receive. This will include measures about local priorities in
PPAF.
APA Views
The APA welcomes:
— the Government's recognition of the
importance of involving communities in the process of identifying
which problems are priorities;
— recognition that performance against
local priorities set by police authorities should be a key element
in overall assessments of performance; and
— the recognition of the importance
of the views of the public about their local police services and
the work undertaken to assist authorities/forces in measuring
victim satisfaction in relation to the service they received from
the police.
The APA has long argued that performance against
local priorities needs to be a key element in performance and
Inspection Frameworks. The APA is leading the work within PPAF
to ensure that local priorities are properly reflected and this
is welcome recognition of the importance of that work.
BETTER INFORMATION
TO THE
PUBLIC (3.49-3.53)
White Paper Proposals
— Dissemination of better information
to the public about policing a necessary first step to increasing
engagement and accountability.
— Value in bringing an array of information
into one clear concise document summarising local policing for
the public.
— There will be a statutory minimum
requirement outlining what each household can expect in terms
of local policing information.
— the minimum requirements will include
information to be provided by Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
to rationalise the way in which police specific and CDRP information
is provided to the public.
APA Views
— Welcome the concept of ensuring local
people have important and useful information about their police
service, have concerns about prescribing the nature and type of
information to be provided by statute.
— Demands and expectations will change
over time.
— Need to consider how the new requirements
fits with information already provided in annual policing plans
and annual reports.
— Hopefully standards will be flexible
enough for the information to include very local, useful information.
— Look forward to further discussions
about these proposals.
INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES
FOR ENGAGEMENT
(3.57-3.62)
White Paper Proposals
— Sets out what effective engagement
looks like for the police service (page 67).
— Strengthening of statutory responsibilities
on agencies to have arrangements in place to actively engage with
communities at neighbourhood level
— Duty on police authorities to ensure
implementation of a strategy to secure community engagement at
all levels—including neighbourhoods.
— Duty on the police in partnership
with other bodies to implement the strategy and respond to neighbourhood
concerns.
— Duty on CDRPs to oversee delivery
of neighbourhood level priorities eg through Joint Tasking and
Co-ordination Groups.
APA Views
— Support the description of effective
engagement—reflects good practice already inherent in many
police authorities.
— Welcome new responsibility on police
authorities to ensure that there is an effective community engagement
strategy in place for its area and that this is implemented locally
by CDRPS and neighbourhoods. APA sees this as additional to, and
not instead of, police authorities current responsibilities for
consultation with local communities.
— Welcome duty on police and others
to implement the police authority's strategy and look forward
to detailed discussions about this will work in practice.
— Generally supportive of new CDRP
role to oversee delivery of local priorities, although much will
depend on outcome of the review of CDRPs, including in terms of
their role, constitution and composition.
GIVING COMMUNITIES
A STRONGER
VOICE (3.65-3.76)
White Paper Proposals
— Strengthening the role of local councillors
in community safety issues.
— Home Office to work with ODPM to
develop the role of local councillors in acting as advocates to
represent the views of the public about the services they receive
and to support access to policing services.
— Possibly building on the role of
community safety officers in communicating concerns to local councillors.
— Giving local councillors the right
to "trigger action" about acute/persistent community
safety/anti-social behaviour problems, subject to safeguards against
vexatious or malicious use by communities, at 3 levels:
— Requesting attendance by the police
or other agency at a public meeting.
— Requiring action by the police or
other agencies including local councils.
— Record of dealing with such "trigger"
requests to be monitored by local authority scrutiny committee.
— Further consultation on possibly
including provision to "trigger" inspections (to be
considered as part of wider review of Inspectorates).
APA Views
— The proposals represent a considerable
improvement on previous ideas.
— Welcome recognition that inappropriate
to set up a new body or set of individuals as "advocates"
and this is properly the role of local councillors.
— Equally, welcome the proposals that
"trigger mechanisms" can only be initiated through local
councillors—though will wish to work through the detail
of how.
— This works in practice and that action
may be for other partners/agencies, not simply the police.
— Not as yet persuaded that this should
include capacity to call in an inspection but will feed in our
views as part of the review of Inspectorates.
— APA will work with local government
colleagues to consider how local councillors can best be assisted
to fulfil this role.
BCU LEVEL (3.77-3.85)
White Paper Proposals
— BCU Commander now one of the most
important jobs in British Policing
— Greater empowerment and development
of police leaders at BCU level, with possible introduction of
specialist qualifications (see Chapter 4)
— Examine carefully role of BCU commander
and their contribution to partnership working.
— Develop further key enablers of delegation
to BCU level.
— Examine stronger mechanism for BCU
commanders to be held accountable for their performance and investigate
relationships with HQ and allocation of resources.
— Production of clear guidance on BCU
delegation and empowerment.
APA Views
— Agree that BCU role is important
and that proper training and support needed.
— Welcome the approach now being taken
to do further work and produce guidance, rather than attempt to
prescribe mechanisms or resource allocation.
CHAPTER 4—BUILDING
A NEW
WORKFORCE
Government's aim: further modernisation of workforce
to reinforce neighbourhood policing and build more responsive,
citizen-focused service; increased use of police staff to release
officers to frontline; professionalising roles of both officers
and staff; multiple entry points; strengthening leadership; and
making faster progress on diversity.
ROLE OF
CONSTABLE (4.2)
White Paper Proposals
— No intention of diminishing role
of constable.
APA Views
— There is an argument that police
officers should be employees in the same way as police staff.
This would make the unified workforce we seek easier to achieve.
— However, we recognise strong concerns
about any abolition of police officers' status as office holders
under the crown. In particular these focus on the possibility
of industrial action by police officers. The public needs to have
confidence in a politically impartial police service.
— We therefore accept the maintenance
of the status quo in this area, although we remain of the view
that ordinary employment law should be applied to police officers.
EXTENDED POLICE
FAMILY (4.23-4.31)
White Paper Proposals
— Develop minimum set of powers for
PCSOs and empower forces to be able to grant power of detention
to PCSOs.
— Develop role profiles for PCSOs and
training packages.
— Develop national recruitment for
PCSOs.
— Ensure terms and conditions provide
right rewards.
— Enhance career structure for PCSOs.
APA Views
— PCSOs have been an initial success
story. Communities like them and police authorities have been
proactive in their development and deployment.
— Fully support the measures being
put in place to give them the professional support they need in
terms of training, career structure and so on.
— But there is a huge amount to be
done given the need to support an additional 20,000 PCSOs.
— Remain of the view that the decision
to deploy an additional 20,000 before a full national evaluation
is a risk. And it will be police authorities and forces taking
very tough decisions about deployment of officers and PCSOs when
central funding eventually dries up.
— The popularity of PCSOs stems partly
from the fact that their role is distinct from that of police
officers. The more powers they are given the more potential there
is for that distinction to be blurred. We have expressed concerns
about recent proposals to extend their powers, and this applies
too when considering any additional powers for PCSOs in the future.
— Not clear what is meant by national
recruitment of PCSOs. While it may be helpful to develop national
recruitment standards, as for police officers, we see no reason
to depart from local recruitment.
DEVELOPING SENIOR
POLICE STAFF
AND POLICE
STAFF TRANSFER
INTO POLICE
GRADES (4.32-4.40)
White Paper Proposals
— High Potential Development Scheme
for police staff.
— Role for police authorities in appointment
of senior police staff same as for senior officer appointments.
— Make it easier for suitably qualified
police staff to become officers.
APA Views
— Agree proposed HPDS for police staff.
— Agree that police authorities should
have a key role in selecting police staff at ACPO equivalent level
given the importance of roles as head of finance, HR etc—however,
this is a damp squib given the proposal at para 5.112 that chief
constables should select their ACPO-level teams, with the police
authority's role limited to the very restricted one of being consulted
on short-lists.
— Agree with proposals for police staff
to become police officers more easily, as long as they have the
necessary skills and competencies.
PROFESSIONALISING
THE WORKFORCE
(4.42-4.69)
White Paper Proposals
— Government will define career pathways
and promote take-up.
— National recruitment standards to
become mandatory.
— Multiple points of entry, with pre-entry
training for those entering for outside.
— Consider more attractive graduate
recruitment including accelerated career development.
— External Qualifications including
accreditation of prior learning (APEL).
— Use PPAF to monitor PDR scheme.
— Enhanced training leading to specialised
qualification for people wishing to take on BCU commander role,
to become mandatory over time.
— Senior Careers Advisory Service.
APA Views
— We look forward to proposals on career
pathways. Career pathways have been under discussion for some
time with little clarity over what is meant.
— Our view is that police officer roles
are becoming increasingly complex and specialised and it makes
sense for officers to follow a pathway, rather than be expected
to be omni-competent, although there will be some core skills
all officers will have to be able to do to ensure resilience.
— Will need to see detail of proposals
to PAB, but on principle don't object to National Recruitment
Standards being mandatory.
— Agree with multiple points of entry,
and look forward to seeing proposals for how this would work.
— Happy for Government to consider
how to make police service more attractive to graduates, but wary
of offering accelerated promotion or other favourable treatment.
Need to attract those with highest potential to be police officers,
by no means all of whom would be graduates. We can do a lot in
speeding up processes and making the existing system, including
the HPDS, work better. Multiple points of entry will also make
a difference here.
— Support qualifications, APEL, which
are measures to professionalise service.
— Agree specialist training for BCU
commander role but not clear at this stage that this should be
mandatory. We don't want to produce clones to some centralised
model—this is about supporting people by giving them necessary
skills. Look forward to working on details of these proposals
as they develop.
— Pleased to see many of our concerns
about careers service have been addressed. Still believe this
would be resource-intensive and look forward to seeing cost and
business case. Not clear who is going to identify which superintendents
have potential to become chief officers. Need to ensure governance
of service tripartite to ensure buy-in from the service.
— Do not support PDR completion a PPAF
indicator. Need to keep number of indicators down and finds other
ways of promoting take-up and effective implementation of PDR
system.
DIVERSITY (4.70-4.84)
White Paper Proposals
— Changes to regulations to prevent
police officers being members of organisations whose aims, objectives
or pronouncements are incompatible with s71 of the Race Relations
Act 1976 (eg BNP, NF, Combat 18)
— Standards for language skills will
be developed so that forces can take the obvious advantage of
taking those skills into account in recruiting where this is operationally
justified. Such candidates will need to meet the other elements
of the national recruitment standard.
— National panel of assessors from
minority ethnic minority communities to be set up.
— National Recruitment Standards will
require that all assessment and selection panels include representatives
from ethnic minority communities and that where insufficient local
assessors are available, members of the national panel will take
part in the assessment centres instead.
— A standard exit interview procedure
will be introduced to help understand why people are leaving the
service.
— The Government will work with the
NBPA in support of its development plan and strengthen the support
network for minority officers.
— Specific exercises will be run to
encourage members of ethnic minorities with successful careers
in other professions to apply for lateral entry to the police
service having met the same standards for entry as majority community
candidates.
— Promotion and progression procedures
will be reviewed to ensure they are fair, transparent and have
no adverse impact on any group.
— A new duty on police authorities
to promote diversity within the police force and authority.
— Barriers to the recruitment of women
will be reviewed and more flexible, family friendly working patterns
made available.
— The stages of the promotion process
will be examined to identify barriers to the progression of women
and take steps to remove them.
— The service will be consulted on
the introduction of challenging progression targets to ensure
greater representation of women at higher levels of the service.
APA Views
— Strongly support the overarching
intention of these proposals to develop a truly diverse workforce
that is representative of the communities it serves.
— Welcome the new duty on police authorities
to promote diversity within authorities and forces.
— Welcome the recognition of the need
to ensure greater representation of women and other under-represented
groups, as well as BME staff.
— APA is working with Home Office and
ACPO to develop tripartite National Race Equality Plan.
PNB/PAB/PSC/PPAF ISSUES
(4.85-4.92)
White Paper Proposals
— Explore links between PAB and police
staff unions.
— Further pay reform rewarding performance
amongst other things and providing local autonomy within national
structure.
— Develop proposals for change in officer
deployment.
— Introduce more stretching sickness
absence targets.
— Encourage forces to assess people
management skills in PDRs at all levels.
— Develop measures within PPAF to reflect
broader range of HR activities, especially effectiveness of force
PDR systems.
APA Views
— Makes sense to consider involving
police staff unions in PAB. Look forward to considering detailed
proposals.
— Will shortly be considering what
police authorities want from further pay reform. We will need
to ensure that police authorities get value for money for any
performance pay arrangements.
— Very interested in recent Accenture
study on rostering. Clearly has great potential, but needs to
be carefully studied and we shouldn't assume that huge savings
can be made in practice. Police authorities will work with force
management teams to maximise potential benefits.
— Fully support tighter sickness absence
targets, which we insisted on as part of deal to provide increased
annual leave for officers.
— Agree people management skills should
be assessed at all levels—these are often neglected in the
police service and need to be improved.
— In developing measures to reflect
broader range of HR activities, need to keep PPAF measures to
a minimum and focussed on absolutely key areas. As things stand
do not support PDR use as a PPAF indicator.
CHAPTER 5—ENSURING
EFFECTIVENESS
Appendix IV: Review of CDRPs
Appendix V: Police Authorities
Government's aim: clear national framework which
supports locally responsive policing; intelligence-led policing
at every level; sharper focus on performance; culture of change
and self-improvement in service; right police structure and support
to meet challenges of today; clearer stronger methods to ensure
all communities enjoy responsive, citizen-focused policing.
NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
(5.5-5.25)
White Paper Proposals
— A more tightly focused National Policing
Plan.
— Not persuaded that need a national
police force but do need national consistency, where appropriate
(eg Bichard recommendations).
— A new Code of Practice to help embed
the systematic application of the National Intelligence Model.
— Provision of performance information
to the public (see Chapter 3).
— A new grading mechanism for police
performance—with new arrangements for rewarding success
and addressing under-performance.
APA Views
The APA welcomes:
— The recognition that the National
Policing Plan should be more strategic and concise than previous
plans and considers that this year's Plan could go even further
to achieve this.
— The five strategic outcomes and support
the need for police authorities to reflect these in their local
plans.
— The development of a performance
culture within policing.
— The recognition that the suggested
minimum standards of information that all households should expect
to receive should be tailored to local needs and the emphasis
on providing police performance information to the public.
— The APA has been closely involved
with the development of PPAF and the measures within it. We have
also supported the development of Baseline Assessment. We look
forward to further discussions about how these will be brought
together. We have reservations about the proposals for a single
grading of force performance. We recognise the appeal of simplicity
and accessibility but have yet to be persuaded that this could
do justice to the complexity of policing.
— The APA has signed up to the Bichard
Report recommendations as outlined in the National Policing Plan
although needs to be agreement about the test for adoption or
otherwise of national systems (eg authorities may well have justifiable
and reasonable grounds for not adopting national systems)
— We welcome proposals for a new Code
of Practice to ensure that the National Intelligence Model is
used as effectively as possible and that the legal framework within
which it must be applied is understood by all.
FREEDOM & CONTROL
(5.26-5.29)
White Paper Proposals
— Greater freedom & earned autonomy
for forces and BCU's graded "excellent", including:
— "Inspection Breaks" for
rolling 12 month periods.
— Additional funding and freedom on
targets.
— Detailed proposals to be developed
in time for 2006-07 financial year.
APA Views
— Have always taken the view that autonomy
should be lost rather than "earned".
— Welcome anything which reduces burdens
of Inspection.
— Await more certainty in detailed
proposals.
— Not clear how rolling proposals will
work—how can force be graded "excellent" if they
have not been inspected in previous 12 months?
— Not clear how increased force autonomy
sits with increased accountability of authority—particularly
at BCU level. Nor is it clear how increased freedom on force/BCU
targets sits with PA responsibilities to set strategies and monitor
performance against them.
INTERVENTION AND
INSPECTION (5.35-5.40 & SEE
ALSO 5.116/7 RE
POLICE AUTHORITIES)
White Paper Proposals
— Powers of intervention in forces/BCUs
introduced by Police Reform Act 2002 to be simplified in light
of experience and practical operation of Police Standards Unit
"engagement" with forces—to be based on "stages
of engagement protocol".
— Trigger for intervention to be widened
from an HIC inspection, to include wider range of information.
— Government to review inspection regime
for public services within Criminal Justice System to ensure better
coherence on cross-cutting issues.
— Detailed proposals to be developed
through consultation early in new year.
APA Views
— Recognise that, in practice, Home
Office has "intervened" without using the statutory
provisions through PSU "engagement".
— Concern that weakening statutory
provisions would mean intervention becomes more frequent.
— APA argued strongly at time of 2002
Act, that only an inspection by HMIC should trigger formal intervention—not
persuaded that this should now change.
— Welcome proposed review of inspectorates—keen
to ensure that burden of inspection is kept to minimum necessary
and will contribute to that review.
NATIONAL POLICING
IMPROVEMENT AGENCY
(5.42-5.55)
White Paper Proposals
— Agency will be set up to drive performance
improvements.
— Board will be a small body with significant
tripartite decision-making invested in it.
— Will lead to significant rationalisation
of existing national landscape eg PITO, Centrex, ACPO policy work,
some HO functions with full rationalisation by end of 2006-07.
— HMIC's inspection role and PSU intervention
role will remain outside the agency.
— Will make use of existing powers,
codes, regulations etc.
APA Views
— We welcome the concept of an Agency
which can promote self-improvement within the service. But important
that this leads to a genuine rationalisation of the existing landscape.
— For the agency to be successful including
having the links to the citizen it seeks, the service needs to
feel ownership and unequivocal tripartite governance essential.
There needs to be substantial APA and ACPO involvement in appointing
both the Chair and Chief Executive of the new Agency.
— Strongly oppose Agency having a mandatory
or directive role—that should in our view remain a matter
for the Home Secretary.
— Committed to playing our part in
helping to establish the agency and in helping ensure that the
early priorities for action reflect not just the professional
perspective but issues which concern communities.
LEVEL 2 CRIME/FORCE
STRUCTURES/LEAD
FORCES (5.56-5.66)
White Paper Proposals
— Creation of dedicated teams across
regions or groups of forces to co-ordinate effort against level
2 crime.
— Proposal to create a duty on police
authorities to co-operate with neighbourhood authorities to tackle
level 2 crime.
— HMIC commissioned to examine force
structures in England and Wales.
— Explore further development of arrangements
for lead forces or specialisms.
APA Views
— We believe that there is scope for
strengthening regional tasking and co-ordination but we are keen
to ensure that this does not lead to a return to regional crime
squads by default.
— Much improved collaboration between
forces and with the new SOCA can do a great deal to address deficiencies
in responding to level 2 crime.
— Welcome the proposal in the White
Paper for a duty on police authorities to co-operate on level
2 crime—we have consistently called for police authorities
to have a clear responsibility for ensuring collaboration across
forces including at regional level.
— We are pleased that the Government
has recognised the very real drawbacks in amalgamating force areas.
In fact Government was able to find no evidence that larger forces
are more efficient or effective than smaller ones.
— Much closer collaboration between
forces and authorities can do a great deal to make forces more
efficient and effective. An example is the three Counties Collaboration
project in East Anglia, which has helped to drive out efficiencies
and enabled much closer joint working.
— We expect to see collaboration between
forces and indeed with other agencies in the provision of corporate
services help drive efficiency savings as police authorities work
with forces to meet the new Government efficiency targets.
— We look forward to contributing fully
to the HMIC review of force structures.
— We support the proposal to explore
further development of lead force arrangements. In doing so consideration
needs to be given to how a lead force is accountable to communities
across the country. The relevant police authority clearly has
a key part to play in this, in liaison with other police authorities
as appropriate.
SOCA (5.67)
White Paper Proposals
— A new Serious and Organised Crime
Agency (SOCA) to bring together existing agencies into a groundbreaking
new national organisation (para 2.35).
APA Views
— Welcome new agency—it's crucial
to be able to respond to national and international criminal activity
in a concerted way. But need to ensure that views and concerns
of communities, who will be affected by the new agency, are reflected
in the governance for the new body.
— Also important to ensure that the
new body is able to work with existing agencies, including police
forces.
— SOCA needs to be resourced to do
its vitally important job, but aware that there will be start-up
and other costs associated with running the agency. Any funding
provided for this should not be at the detriment of funding for
local policing.
POLICE FUNDING
(5.68-5.75)
White Paper Proposals
— Update funding formula, including
possible link between performance expectations and resource allocation,
and incorporate specific grants.
— Examine how and to what extent three-year
settlements should be used for police funding.
— In the context of the Lyons review
of the balance of funding across local government, consider how
local accountability could be strengthened for the police precept.
— Look at whether the legislation on
charging for police services needs to be changed once the new
ACPO guidance on charging has been implemented.
APA Views
— The APA is working with others on
the updating of the police funding formula and looks forward to
a formula which is as objective, fair and transparent as possible.
— It is not clear how the proposed
link between resource allocation and performance would work. We
would need to see detailed proposals but on the face of it providing
additional resources to high-performing forces would inevitably
have a negative impact on funding levels of the rest, disadvantaging
communities in those areas.
— Three-year settlements offer the
potential for more stability and would enable authorities to plan
for the medium term with greater certainty. But we would need
to explore how it would work for policing, where authorities can
face large additional costs wholly outside the service's control
(eg following 9/11). It is also not clear to what extent data
or even formula methodology changes could be made within the three-year
period, which could have a very significant impact on authorities'
allocations.
— It's not clear how local accountability
for police precepts would be strengthened, but happy to explore
specific proposals. Police authorities already carry out extensive
consultation on proposed funding levels, which has normally provided
fulsome support for police authorities' proposals to increase
funding for the police, where it is clear that this additional
funding will be used to provide more visible policing.
— It's legitimate to consider how income
generation by the police could be increased. But this is a sensitive
area and in practice scope for increased sponsorship or changing
for special services is likely to be limited.
POLICE POWERS
(5.76-5.78)
White Paper Proposals
— Modernise police powers as per August
consultation document—conclusions following consideration
of consultation responses to be delivered later in 2004.
APA Views
— The APA submitted separate comments
to the previous consultation on the police powers proposals. We
support the thrust of the proposals to simplify and clarify existing
provisions, and to ensure that officers have the powers to tackle
crime.
— We have some concerns, especially
around the extension of PCSO powers and the search warrant proposals.
PCSOs are still relatively new and we feel it is too early to
consider giving them major new powers, such as the power to search
detained people and the extension of PCSO powers to deal with
alcohol-related anti-social behaviour.
— We would like to see restrictions
placed on search warrant proposals, so that the premises would
have to be named in the warrant, and the lifetime of the warrant
would be limited to 90 days.
— We also need to ensure bureaucracy
is kept to an absolute minimum.
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
(5.79-5.83)
White Paper Proposals
— Introduces details of the first National
Police Intelligence Computer system, IMPACT.
— That the Forensic Integration Strategy
fully integrates all forensic intelligence by March 2008.
— That the Forensic Science Service
(FSS) is to be transformed into a Public Private Partnership (PPP)
via a Government owned company.
— Highlights improvements in efficiency
and effectiveness from the continued roll out to forces of a number
of key information and communication technologies.
APA Views
— Welcome the proposals for IMPACT,
which will ensure that all forces use the same system to manage
and share intelligence information.
— Welcome the proposals for the Forensic
Integration Strategy which will improve the investigative process
and present more focused evidence to the Criminal Justice System.
The Strategy also supports Sir Michael Bichard's recommendation
for the delivery of a National Intelligence Framework.
— Welcome the transformation of the
FSS into a PPP which should assist in the delivery of a cost-efficient
and effective forensic science and help open up the market-place
to technological innovation.
— Welcome the continued successful
roll out and planned roll out of key information and communications
technologies such as AIRWAVE, NSPIS Custody and Case Preparation,
ViSOR (Violent and Sex Offender Register) and NMIS (National Management
Information System).
ENSURING EFFECTIVENESS
OF POLICING
White Paper Proposals
General Approach
— Public is unclear about how things
work and who is accountable for police performance.
— Recognise this is a complex area,
inextricably linked to local government arrangements—but
need to put in place stronger, clearer, more transparent ways
of ensuring that those with a responsibility for ensuring safer
communities are effectively held to account for carrying out those
responsibilities.
— Important that there are strong transparent
links between neighbourhood/district (CDRP/BCU) and strategic
(police authority) level.
— Given the complexity of the issues,
want arrangements which accommodate the different complexion of
communities in different parts of the country.
Review of CDRPs
— Many CDRPs are working well but not
as sufficiently visible or accountable to public as they should
be.
— New Performance Management framework
being put in place for CDRPs.
— Formal Review of Partnership provisions
of Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to report by end January 2005,
including:
— How to embed commitment to mainstream
community safety activity in local councils including through
CPA.
— How to reinforce democratic accountability
eg through involvement of local authority community safety portfolio
holders in CDRPs.
— Role of council scrutiny committees
in scrutinising delivery of partnership priorities.
— Involvement of all key local agencies
in building safer communities, including a review of duties under
section 17 CDA 1998 and potential consequences of non-compliance.
— Plans to develop a wider National
Community Safety Strategy in 2005.
APA Views
— Welcome this review of CDRPs, including
role, membership and accountabilities and fully engaged with it.
— Currently seeking police authority
contributions to the Review.
— Support development of wider National
Community Safety Strategy to ensure that other agencies contribute,
provided that this subsumes the national Policing Plan.
STRENGTHENING POLICE
AUTHORITY ROLE
AND MEMBERSHIP
(5.97-5.98)
White Paper Proposals
— Government encouraged by constructive
response of APA to Green paper "Building Safer Communities
Together".
— Changes needed to increase public
trust and confidence and community engagement in policing.
— Government's approach is to strengthen
police authorities to ensure that communities are policed effectively
and that forces are responsive to needs and priorities of local
public.
— Government also wants to increase
visibility of police authorities—by strengthening ties with
local government and by the proposals to require provision of
information about policing to householders (see Chapter 3 above).
— Police authorities should be responsible
for ensuring effective arrangements in place to secure public
engagement at neighbourhood and district (BCU/CDRP) level (see
Chapter 3 above).
APA Views
— The APA welcomes the Government's
confidence in police authorities and the recognition that it is
important to build on the considerable progress that police authorities
have achieved over the past 10 years, rather than, as proposed
in the Green Paper institute change for change's sake.
— We are pleased that there is no longer
any intention to have wholly or partially directly elected policing
boards.
POLICE AUTHORITY
MEMBERSHIP/CHAIRS
(5.99-5.107)
White Paper Proposals
— Government proposes to strengthen
the calibre, representative nature and democratic legitimacy of
police authorities.
— Police authorities should have between
17 and 21 members—depending on the area.
— There should be two types of member:
councillors and independents with councillors continuing to be
in the majority by one.
— Unitary areas (ie metropolitan districts/Wales):
councils should appoint their community safety cabinet portfolio
holders to the police authority.
— Two-tier areas: there is a need for
further discussion, but a number of potential approaches are suggested
in Appendix V as to how this might operate but generally includes
a mix of councillors from both counties and districts. Views on
the possible models are invited.
— The links with the wider CJS are
recognised but it is proposed that there should no longer be a
separate category of magistrate members per se: instead magistrates
will be incorporated within the independent membership group.
As a minimum at least one independent must be a magistrate but
beyond that it will be a matter for local flexibility.
— Independent membership.
— There will continue to be independent
members but these will be subject to a more rigorous competency
based selection process. The Hamer Report recommendations for
a new (five member) local selection panel with a veto by the Home
Secretary will be adopted.
— Police authority members should continue
to elect own chairs but only from amongst candidates who have
undergone a competency based selection process overseen by an
accredited OCPA assessor.
APA Views
— We have strong reservations about
the proposed changes to the councillor membership of authorities,
particularly in two-tier areas and doubt that these will achieve
the Government's aims or make it easier for people to understand
the membership of police authorities or make authorities more
visible.
— We are disappointed that the Government
has not taken on board our proposals that there is a need for
mechanisms which ensure that councillor members are appointed
according to skills and expertise, as well as political balance
and geography.
— We welcome the fact that the Government
is seeking views on these proposals and plan to work with police
authorities on possible alternative proposals.
— We welcome the recognition of the
valuable role independent members play and their continuing role
on authorities—they are already subject to competency based
selection.
— We welcome the recognition of the
need for a continuing role for magistrates on police authorities
and the local flexibility proposed.
— We strongly oppose the attempts to
prevent police authority members from electing their own chair
by restricting candidates to those who have passed a competency
based selection process.
POLICE AUTHORITY
POWERS (5.108-5.115)
White Paper Proposals
— Clarify police authority role, including
restating existing powers, for example, police authorities will
continue to have responsibility for setting force policing priorities.
— Holding chief officers to account
for performance—crucial part of police authority business.
— Authorities should have full access
to information and data held by forces to enable them to carry
out scrutiny.
— New duties on police authorities
to:
— To take into account local policing
priorities identified at Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership
(CDRP) level when publishing policing plans and strategies;
— oversee the relationship between
CDRPs and neighbourhood bodies and ensure the implementation of
citizen involvement—making sure that these arrangements
are not overly bureaucratic;
— co-operate with neighbouring authorities
to help tackle cross border crime—known as "level 2"
crime—and analyse the effectiveness of their own forces'
performance in doing so;
— promote diversity within the police
force and authority; conduct the chief constable's performance
appraisal and to decide pay and bonuses—with a requirement
to consult Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in
doing so;
— request inspection by HMIC or intervention
by the Police Standards Unit in respect of their force or particular
parts of it where they consider this to be necessary.
— A robust and positive approach to
efficiency should be at the core of police authority performance
including on issues such as:
— Increasing time officers and staff
spend on frontline policing;
— Continuing the drive to reduce bureaucracy;
— Increasing collaboration or amalgamation
to deliver corporate services eg financial HR;
— Buying goods and service more efficiently
and effectively.
APA Views
— We warmly welcome these proposals
most of which emanate from suggestions put forward by the APA
over the past year.
INSPECTION AND
INTERVENTION (5.116-117)
White Paper Proposals
— Police authorities should be subject
to inspection in respect of their full responsibilities and not
just as now, in relation to their compliance with best value under
the Local Government Act 1999.
— The APA's own police authority assessment
and improvement framework could provide the basis for such inspection.
— This will be explored further as
part of the wider review of inspectorates (See above).
— If an inspection identifies serious
problems, this should be subject to intervention, such as that
which applies to police forces.
APA Views
— We support the concept of police
authorities being subject to inspection.
— We do not consider that it is appropriate
for HMIC, as currently constituted, to take on this role.
— Nor are we convinced that the Audit
Commission would be suitable.
— Any body with an inspectorate responsibility
for police authorities would need to include those with experience
of serving on police authorities.
— We look forward to inputting our
views into the review of inspectorates.
— Similarly, we are not convinced that
the PSU as currently constituted could appropriately intervene
with or engage police authorities and there would need to be a
similar injection of police authority expertise if it were to
take on this role.
CHIEF OFFICERS
AND GOVERNMENT
(5.118 -5.122)
White Paper Proposals
— Chief officers should have freedom
to exercise proper operational responsibility for taking policing
decisions.
— Policing must remain independent
of political control and direction to retain public trust.
— Chief officers should be open to
proper scrutiny about policing decisions and how well their force
is doing in terms of reducing crime and anti-social behaviour
and building safer communities.
— Home Secretary should retain current
powers to suspend and remove chief officers, in extremis.
— Government will review suspension
process with APA and ACPO and discuss how best to ensure that
both informal and formal mechanisms for addressing chief officer
performance issues.
APA Views
— APA welcomes proposed review and
called for this, earlier this year.
CHAPTER 6—SUMMARY
OF PROPOSALS
Appendices
Appendix I—Summarises the Government's
wider Public Service Reform Agenda
Appendix II—Sets out how Police Performance
is assessed
Appendix III—Explains the role of SOCA
Appendix IV—Gives details of the Review
of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Appendix V—Sets out in more detail proposals
for changes to police authority membership and gives illustrative
examples of approaches to new Councillor membership
Appendix VI—Summarises the Tripartite
Relationship
Appendix VII—Glossary of Terms
November 2004
|
