Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 139)
TUESDAY 14 SEPTEMBER 2004
BARONESS HENIG
OF LANCASTER,
LORD HARRIS
OF HARINGEY,
FIONNUALA GILL,
SIR IAN
BLAIR AND
GARY PUGH
Q120 David Winnick (in the Chair): If
you are in the police station or outside, if inside the police
station the visibility of course is so much reduced.
Sir Ian Blair: But contact with
the public is the key point, and to some extent contact with the
public can be inside the charge room because they are also part
of the public.
David Winnick (in the Chair): Mr Prosser.
Q121 Mr Prosser: Still on the PSA
targets, the standard attached to the new PSA target is to maintain
improvements in police performance as monitored by the police
performance assessment framework. What does that mean? Do you
think it is clear enough or is it a bit vague?
Sir Ian Blair: It is probably
clear enough to those of us who are inside this rather arcane
world of i-Quanta and PPAF, and so on. It is a developing framework
and we have to improve across a number of different processes,
one of them is citizen focus, which is going to be measured by
public satisfaction. Another one is crime reduction, another one
is crime detection. To some extent, yes, I think this is the right
way. We have to get away from the variations in performance that
we see; I see that in London as well as between London and elsewhere.
If I could bring the least well-performing boroughs up to the
level of the middle-performing boroughs I would be very happy.
That is about individual categories. There is no borough that
is performing badly across every category otherwise we would have
done something about it. You will see one borough that is very
good about domestic violence, one borough that is very good about
robbery and what we want to do is keep pulling them up and that
will be the same across the country as a whole.
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: Can
I come in on this one? Talking about PPAF, one of the most significant
developments in the last two years has been the development of
performance radars. I very much remember the earlier discussions
we had over this whole area of: how do you project visibly in
a way that people can actually see on the page police performance
and the effectiveness of that performance. I have to say that
I think the development of those performance radars has been one
of the significant moves forward, particularly for police authorities
who now look at these radars, they pour over them, they quiz their
force about them and they have really proved their worth. John
Denham will know that some of us will perhaps have a bit of scepticism
about this to begin with. One has to hold up one's hand when one
has queried things, but they have really proved their worth. I
would want to put in a plea that they have been a very valuable
tool for assessing performance and levelling up performance; I
must say that.
David Winnick (in the Chair): Thank you.
Mr Denham.
Q122 Mr Denham: I am pleased that
the radars have turned out to be useful, but can I ask a question
that follows on from Mr Prosser's about the PSA target. On the
face of it, it looks like a greatly simplified target. Do you
yet know how it is going to work in practice and is there a danger
that individual police forces, when this comes to be applied to
individual police forces will get a very complicated range of
local targets which they have to hit in order to help the overall
improvement in the standards. Is that likely to happen and is
that a good idea or has that just moved the demanding targets
from the Government's headlines to the operational level of police
force level?
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: If
I can leap in ahead on this one. At the moment that 15% is a strategic
level target which has been agreed between the Home Office and
the Treasury as I understand it. I hope it will not be breaching
state secrets that when we had our last bilateral with the Home
Secretary what the APA was arguing for was that clearly that target
will be a very challenging one and we would want to see negotiations
with individual forces as to how they would feel able to contribute
towards that target in very much the same way as local criminal
justice boards were asked to assess how they could perform against
national targets on the criminal justice side. Therefore, I think
this overall target needs to be followed up by discussions with
individual forces because as well as having a strategic top down
target it is absolutely crucial to get bottom up ownership here
and to get forces signed up and committed to helping to deliver
that. I think we are just at the beginning of that second process,
which I would see as very important.
Q123 Mr Denham: Sir Ian?
Sir Ian Blair: I agree. There
has to be a lot of negotiation here. One of the pieces that is
quite interesting is that it is measured by the British Crime
Survey rather than by recorded data, if I have this right. Understanding
where you have got to in this field would be lagging anyway. To
me, it is what I was saying earlier on, I think the next development
is weighting the basket because I am concerned about a perverse
incentive to deal with, or whatever it is, relatively minor offences;
not saying that they are not important, but I would hate to see
those pulling down the effort against more significant crimes.
Mr Denham: Thank you, Chair. I apologise
for being incredibly late.
David Winnick (in the Chair): Some questions,
really important questions, on police accountability and related
matters: Mr Russell.
Q124 Bob Russell: The Government
has set out a range of options which it says will increase police
accountability at local district level. Which of these options,
if any, are desirable?
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: If
I can perhaps start by agreeing with the general thrust of the
proposals but particularly the fact that the proposals are actually
centred at three tiers, which is to say they focus on force level
accountability, neighbourhood accountability at district level.
I think that is a very helpful distinction. We would share the
Home Office's view that it would be helpful to look at those three
levels of accountability. We have no doubt whatsoever that there
is need for a strategic body at police authority level to whom
the chief constable is accountable; he is accountable or he or
she is accountable to local communities through the police authority.
We are in no doubt that has to be a strategic level police authority.
I think there is also general agreement that at the neighbourhood
level we need to build on what is already there at neighbourhood
level: neighbourhood councils, the extension of neighbourhood
groups, that there should be accountability between local groups
and what they are asking for and what the local commanders are
doing. I think the reassurance pilots are pointing the way forward
there. Very, very small local pilot areas which are bringing together
neighbourhoods and policing. For me the most interesting question
is: what happens in the middle because in the middle of the three-tier
model—
Q125 Bob Russell: Would these be
the basic command unit levels?
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: You
either have a BCU level of accountability or a crime and disorder
reduction partnership accountability. The difficulty is that in
two tier areas, for example Lancashire, for example Devon and
Cornwall you have a problem. You have BCU units that cover more
than one district. They might cover two or three districts. So,
where a BCU has two or three districts within its remit, it might
be easier to work at BCU level. Where, however, you have got unitary
authorities, it would be easier to work at community safety partnership
level, and that, I think, is something still to be decided, because
you want to work on what is there already, and there is a lot
there already and I am not sure entirely that it is clear-cut
what the most effective local accountability mechanisms are within
particularly two-tier areas.
Q126 Bob Russell: You have given
us a catalogue of practical problems which clearly need to be
addressed, but there is a common problem or a common question
I would put to whatever level?
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: Sure.
Q127 Bob Russell: Are we looking
at a tier, a tier of two or three levels, of quangos?
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: This
is a question you have actually put to me on a number of occasions
in the past.
Q128 David Winnick (in the Chair):
He is very persistent.
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: One
can have different views on how police authorities are made up,
but I take the fact that over half of police authority members
are, in fact, councillors, elected councillors, to be significant,
because that, whatever it is, 55%, or over half of police authorities,
do stand for election on a regular basis, they are accountable
to their electorate and the public is certainly aware which of
their councillors sit on police authorities. So I do not take
the view that police authorities are quangos—I never have
done—I actually believe that they are locally accountable
bodies.
Q129 Bob Russell: Is there not a
case for directly elected members of police authorities at any
level? I can understand why you may feel at local level, but at
the moment the Essex Police quango, while it has elected members,
is not directly answerable to the people upon whom it services
a Council Tax levy?
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: I
hear what you are saying on this one. I think it is important
to guard against, for example, the risk of turning policing into
a political football and politicising authorities; and one of
the problems with elections which would be just about policing
would be that I think you would have candidates making very extravagant
promises about policing and there would be difficulties. I am
not saying there would necessarily absolutely certainly be. I
think there would be the risk of extremist groups getting elected.
I think there are a number of fears that I would have about the
sort of model that you are proposing which one has to take into
account in deciding on what the most effective way forward is.
Q130 Bob Russell: So are you saying
that the new arrangements could lead to unsustainable raised expectations
at whatever level?
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: It
could. I think what I am trying to say is that from where I am
sitting, and I used to be on an old-style police committee with
36 members and I remember all the debates about the changes that
took place and the reasons why those changes took place, and I
actually believe that the police authorities which are now coming
up to nine years old have actually been a success story. One of
the reasons that they have been a success story is that they bring
together different expertise: they bring together local council
expertise, they bring together magistrates with their knowledge
of the criminal justice system and they also co-opt local people
who are independent of the political process but who have a lot
of expertise to bring to the table, and that mixture has worked
very effectively, and, in particular, what it has meant is that
police authorities are very focused on policing issues; they operate
politically but they do not operate party-politically and it has
made a big difference in the way in which policing is approached.
I actually think they have been very effective and I would not
want anything to be changed, simply for the sake of it, which
would undermine the great strides forward that I believe have
been made.
Q131 Bob Russell: You refer to "the
good old days", you refer to the success and you concluded
your comments by suggesting there should not be any changes, or
at least not substantial changes. That being the case, is that
the advice you would be giving to the Home Secretary, to leave
alone and build on the success?
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: The
message we have put forward is a lot of changes have taken place,
a lot of what has changed in the last 10 years has worked very
effectively and we believe that you should build on what is there
certainly, not undermine the good things. Where there is a proven
need to move forward and to make changes, by all means, yes, we
are very open-minded, but we are not convinced at the moment that
in the accountability field at strategic level changing the composition
of police authorities would actually improve police authority
performance; and I would particularly, I think, draw attention
to the fact that police authorities at the moment have very substantial
elements of ethnic minority members. Some 10% of our members are
ethnic minority, which is very, very high, I think much higher
than you would find if they were directly elected. They also have
30% women members. I think these are a very important strength
in terms of diversity and I would not want to lose those advances.
David Winnick (in the Chair): Not represented
in the police force itself, but we will come on to that later!
Q132 Bob Russell: You do not feel
there is a need for the current membership in general to be able
to increase their links with the community because, broadly speaking,
police authorities have got the balance. Have I got right what
you have just been saying in term of ethnic—
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: I
would not want to be complacent. For example, I think we need
more younger members. If there is an imbalance, we tend to have
a large proportion of our membership perhaps over the age of 35
and we are a bit lacking in the membership in the twenties and
early thirties. So I would not want to be complacent in any way
whatsoever, but I do think there is a solid record of achievement
amongst police authorities and I would not want that to be jeopardised.
Lord Harris of Haringey: Where
there is certainly support amongst police authorities for development
of the role is what happens at BCU or CDRP level and, indeed,
at neighbourhood level, and that may involve a different role
for individual police authority members, it may involve the use
of locally elected councillors for that area, it certainly involves
the communities in that area and it comes back to a point I think
we touched on earlier about training: because I have been in local
neighbourhood meetings in the Met's area and it is often quite
junior officers who are relating to a community meeting and it
is important that they have the training and support to enable
them to both give the right messages and to understand the messages
that are coming back; but that is something where I think we would
all recognise there are huge advantages in improving the relationship
between the communities and the police authorities and the police
services.
Q133 Bob Russell: Lord Harris, are
you suggesting then that the police authority should evolve, should
expand, should alter its responsibility to bringing in community
safety, have a wider remit than just police, as we have got at
the moment?
Lord Harris of Haringey: I think
you would have to recognise that at local level and at borough
level in London and district level elsewhere the critical decisions
are about community safety. It is a wider remit, but there is
local government involvement in that level and it would be silly
if, if you like, the different agencies were operating on different
sets of targets. It is about working together.
Q134 Bob Russell: "Joined up
Government", I believe it is called?
Lord Harris of Haringey: I believe
that is the phrase that is used, and I think we are all for it,
are we not?
Q135 Bob Russell: I am tempted to
put this question to Sir Ian Blair, but I will put it to Baroness
Henig. What is your view of the Mayor of London's proposals that
the Metropolitan Police Authority should be replaced by a London
police board, chaired by the Mayor—Livingstone, I presume—that
the Mayor should appoint the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner
and the City of London Police, Royal Parks Police, should be subsumed
in the Metropolitan Police?
Baroness Henig of Lancaster: I
am going to pass to my colleague Lord Harris, I think.
Lord Harris of Haringey: The Mayor
of London has taken that position. I suspect any elected mayor
would say that they wanted to have control. Indeed, I think it
was in the manifesto of the other candidates for mayor in the
recent elections. The point is that there is an advantage in the
tripartite structure. The police authority structure in London
is one which is designed to try and ensure that the oversight
of London's policing is done in a way which brings together all
the different aspects. I rather doubt whether the mayor or his
office would have been able to bring about some of the changes
and improvements in policing that the police authority in the
last four years has managed to bring about, but certainly there
would be—the Met is already taking over the responsibility
for policing in the Royal parks and there is a great deal of co-working
with the City of London Police and with the British Transport
Police. It is a question of what priority you give to organisational
changes when there are so many other big issues in terms of London's
policing.
Q136 Bob Russell: As we are against
the clock, Chairman, I will conclude with my final question. This
is to whoever wishes to come in. What are your views on the future
of the 43 force structure? Does this cause particular—
David Winnick (in the Chair): Did you
want to come in?
Q137 Mr Denham: Yes. Reading the
press, though not the press releases, the Home Secretary seems
to be encouraging the idea that local communities should be able
to trigger certain types of police action if they are dissatisfied.
Some of us as constituency MPs probably tend to find that what
our constituents mainly want is for people to turn up immediately
in a police car, and we are rarely faced with demands: "Could
we have some more problem solving policing, please?" Is there
a danger of having too much local democracy that the police will
come under heightened pressure to have everyone haring around
in police cars responding to 999 calls and divert attention from
the sort of more problem-orientated problems, problem-solving
approach that perhaps we as MPs have been educated to want by
the police over the last 10 years?
Sir Ian Blair: I would think that
the answer is a long-term process here. I am particularly, and
have been for the last five or six years, struck by the Chicago
police system in which they have invested massively in just what
we have been talking about earlier on, around neighbourhood panels
and working with local communities so that each month that local
community has a meeting with the police and the other agencies
of the city and takes choices about what they want the local police
to do in the next month within the constraints of some of the
wider city events; and—an astonishing figure—one in
six adult members of Chicago's population attended one of those
meetings last year, and that is very significant, but that is
a long, long-term process. So my sense is that, if we are going
to go that way, we have to expect that it will take a while. I
think it is a marvellous system. It has not diminished from their
top-level crime fighting. It has said, "We are going to take
things very slowly with the public." The police officers
are enabled to say, "These are the expectations you can have
of me", not, "You can have anything you like",
because that is not possible.
Lord Harris of Haringey: There
is some initial evidence that says neighbourhood teams have begun
to have that local effect, because people are talking about very
localised problems and getting behind it as to how those problems
can be dealt, with rather than just saying, "Whiz a police
car down and stop those young people doing what it is." It
is about how you make sure the young people do not congregate
there in the first place, what are the things that can be done
to give them something else to do. Those are the sort of dialogues
that need to take place in neighbourhood meetings where there
are those Safer Neighbourhood Teams in place.
Q138 Bob Russell: Briefly, what are
your views on the future of the 43 force structure, coupled with
the comment, "Please do not mess with those in East Anglia"?
Sir Ian Blair: I think the Met's
view is very limited. The Met is both a national organisation
in some of its responsibility and is effectively a regional police
force, and we would be putting forward as a view that the advantages
of that regional process whereby we can deliver serious amounts
of assets to deal with serious crime is very helpful. I think
that the Government will wait for the review by HMIC of force
structure, but I think inevitably some of this must evolve into
change because the ability to deliver Level 2 criminality, or
countering Level 2 criminality concerning organised gangs, and
so on, is going to have to be stepped up and it is very difficult
for small forces to do that in relation to relatively rare events.
If I can give you an example of that, if there is a shooting in
a night-club where we get a warning that somebody is going to
be wiped-out in such and such a night club, we have the ability
to put armed surveillance behind people, we have the ability to
undertake a whole series of operations. If that night-club is
outside London, and it easily can be, it becomes a much more difficult
activity with which people are much less familiar. So there is
some advantage, but I do not think anybody is going to rush into
it.
Q139 David Winnick (in the Chair):
It is suggested that individual forces could play a lead role
in particular specialities in the same way that the Metropolitan
Police currently does with counter-terrorism. Do you think there
is much scope for the development of such elite forces?
Sir Ian Blair: I would say that
that is the only other option than some form of amalgamation,
or whatever, because we have to go down that route. It is a slow
process. It has taken a lot of work over the last decade to establish
the position that a national coordinator of counter-terrorism
has been one of the Met's Deputy Assistant Commissioners, and
I know that DAC Peter Clarke has spent a great deal of his time
outside London in recent months, and that is just one aspect,
and the Met is separately funded for that process. So I think
there will be some issues around elite forces, but I think that
is the way to follow before you start jumping into amalgamations
as just a straightforward answer, because we all know that changes
structures. Everybody loves to change structures, and we can do
all that and we have not improved the service, but there is a
key problem around coordinating police action against rare but
significant events.
| 
