Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 219)
TUESDAY 12 OCTOBER 2004
SIR KEITH
POVEY AND
MR PAUL
EVANS
Q200 Mr Taylor: I believe they were.
I have one final question. What is your opinion on the proposed
creation of a National Improvement Agency? Could such an agency
do anything that the Police Standards Unit, the National Centre
for Policing Excellence and HM Inspectorate cannot already do?
So, can the National Improvement Agency move in and cover ground
that is not being covered at the moment?
Sir Keith Povey: It can if it
is structured in the right way. I am not quite sure just what
a National Police Improvement Agency will look like. There is
some confusion within ACPO and within the Home Office around it.
If it is going to be another bureaucratic layer then I do not
think it will achieve anything. If it is going to bring some rationalisation
to PITO, to Centrex, to some aspects of PSU, to NCPE and then
act as an agent for change and driving improvement forward within
ACPO, then I think that will fill a gap and will bring some rationalisation
to the bodies that play there at the moment.
Q201 Mrs Dean: Sir Keith, what is
the state of progress with introducing a baseline assessment system
at the moment?
Sir Keith Povey: Baseline assessment
has been a success story for HMIC. Interestingly, I have had a
number of letters from chief constables actually emphasising that,
yes, this is the way forward and how pleased they are to see it.
In fact, I mentioned Norman Bettison earlier and he sent for my
eyes a draft statement to appear in the Police Review Magazine
singing the praises of baseline assessment. The object of the
exercise was to bring some cohesion to inspectorate activity in
forces, to recognise those forces that are performing well and
to identify those forces that are under-performing. We look across
26 performance indicators at forces, grade them on a four point
scale of excellent, good, fair or bad, and come to a judgment
about the performance of that force. Ultimately the object of
the exercise, and we are not there yet, will be to identify the
better performing forces and reduce dramatically the burden of
inspection, so that where you have a force that is performing
well, they have got good systems there, they have got good internal
inspections and quality assurance departments then we would not
inspect them for 12 months, maybe two years, and concentrate resources
on those forces that we have identified as under-performing and
the ones in the centre, to concentrate resources on those areas
of the 26 where they need additional support.
Q202 Mrs Dean: What is your timetable
for introducing self-assessment of those forces?
Sir Keith Povey: The first baseline
assessment took place during the spring of this year and was published
in June of this year. We have just gone through a technical exercise
to update those because they were based on data that ended December
2003. That exercise will bring us into line with PPAF, so the
next full scale exercise will take place next year and then it
will be a rolling programme and we will be able to marry the baseline
assessment into PPAF, the Police Performance Assessment Framework
indicators, and measure a force improvement or otherwise against
that original baseline assessment.
Q203 Mrs Dean: Could you tell us
how many forces do you think will be involved in that self-assessment
and what criteria will you use to choose them?
Sir Keith Povey: There are 43
forces in England and Wales and those are the 43 forces that we
inspect and those are the 43 forces that will be subject to baseline
assessment. Out of those 43 forces I would hazard a guess that
six or seven would be so good that we could withdraw inspection
activity from them in recognition of that, and at the bottom end
of the scale there would be perhaps three, four or five that are
so poor that they would be subject to substantial Inspectorate
activity and then you have got the raft in the middle.
Q204 Mrs Dean: Does it not create
a risk of having a two-tier inspection regime?
Sir Keith Povey: Not a two-tier
inspection region because within each of the regional offices
there is one staff officer of chief superintendent rank who has
responsibility for two or three forces and liaises with those
forces on a quarterly basis. Every force is subject to the same
activity to that extent, to a greater or lesser activity in relation
to the outcomes of the baseline assessment but the activity is
the same. If you are saying two-tier is no inspection for the
better forces and strong inspection for the weaker forces, then,
yes, it is, but the inspection activity in those forces is the
same in relation to each of the performance areas.
Q205 Mrs Dean: Will there be a mechanism
to introduce full external assessment if a "trusted"
force proves to be unworthy of that trust?
Sir Keith Povey: Yes, there would
have to be. The beauty about it is, and this is a real benefit
of the reform programme, when I first started inspecting forces
I was working on data that was 12 months out of date whereas now
I have got almost real-time data that is only a month out of date,
so you can quickly identify where a force is slipping or improving
and it is something that would have to be monitored fairly carefully.
Q206 Mrs Dean: Can I turn to Mr Evans.
How great is the variation in performance between police forces across
England and Wales? What gives you particular cause for concern?
Could you also tell us what progress is being made in reducing
unacceptable variations?
Mr Evans: Initially when they
began the measurement process, I believe it was in March 2003,
there was established at one point a goal that no force would
be more than 10% below the most similar forces with the commitment
that all citizens are entitled to a certain standard of policing.
At that time I believe there may have been as many as 11 forces
that did not meet that standard and at this time I believe five
of the forces have met and surpassed that standard, another five
are on trajectory to meet the standard and one force we have recently
become engaged with we are working with and I am pretty confident
that they will be on target to meet the standard. I guess the
short answer is the variation is getting lower and lower, if you
will. At our peak we were working with eight forces, we are currently
working with seven forces and three of those forces we may be
disengaging from because they will have met the criteria for disengagement
within the next few months.
Q207 Mrs Dean: Could you talk us
through a typical example of specific action that you take to
improve a police force's performance?
Mr Evans: PSU being in its third
year, how we operate has evolved over time. I think when PSU first
came into existence we would go into a force and throw grants
and money at a number of different initiatives, some of them may
be thematic. If they had a burglary problem we would give them
money to address that. What has changed over time, and it is part
of our learning process, is we still do that, we go in and say,
"You have got a drug problem, here is some money for drugs
and burglary and what have you", but we go in and look first
and foremost at a comprehensive diagnostic of the force, what
kinds of structures do they have in place, do they have real-time
data, do they have accountability structures. We are looking at
the management process, if you will, to make sure that there is
accountability that all the people in the department at various
ranks know what the expectations are, that there is an alignment
between the goals and objectives, the priorities of the organisation
in the planning, in the budget, in the cadres and what have you.
A lot of what we do now is try to do a symptomatic comprehensive
diagnostic of do the systems work and when we find problems then
we try to work with the chief constable in his ACPO command to
make sure that we are putting in place structures that are conducive
to good performance.
Q208 Mrs Dean: The Police Superintendents'
Association stated that though the PSU has helped spread good
practice, its role is not understood by many senior officers who
are fearful of its "invasive nature . . . in the day to day
running of their commands". Is this a widespread view among
senior officers? What are you doing to reassure such officers?
Mr Evans: The fact that PSU has
only been in existence for three years probably contributes to
that. We have only been engaged with a limited number of forces,
so not the entire service has experienced PSU. I think that is
beginning to change. I think the word of our engagement and how
we have engaged with forces and their perception of how we have
engaged will change that. We have worked on an alcohol campaign
and a violent crime campaign. Recently we have issued guidance
on issues like burglary, robbery and vehicle theft. PSU recently
issued a performance management guide that has been very well
received. We are holding a conference next month on the alcohol
misuse campaign and putting out alcohol guidance. I think as we
get more and more into areas that a force that has not engaged
with us is also involved with, particularly in alcohol and violent
crime, I think perceptions may change in that area.
Sir Keith Povey: Could I add to
that. You are right, there is that perception there and intervention
is a massive nuclear tool, if you like, if you have the Home Secretary
formally intervene in a force. When the PSU first came into existence
there was this fear. When the Reform Act went through Parliament
that was addressed by making HMIC the gatekeeper to that intervention
because there was a perception, rightly or wrongly, that PSU were
the Home Secretary's arm of enforcement, if you wish. To bring
some professional judgment before the Home Secretary can use that
intervention, HMIC have to certify that that force is inefficient
or ineffective, or likely to become so, wholly or in part, and
it is only then that intervention can take place. There is that
safeguard, and I think it is a necessary safeguard, particularly
given the length of time the PSU has been in existence. It is
a necessary safeguard and one from which the service draws some
comfort.
Q209 David Winnick: Mr Evans, as
a senior Home Office official you come with a great deal of experience.
You were a former Police Commissioner in Boston. How long were
you the Police Commissioner there?
Mr Evans: Ten years, sir, just
about 10 years.
Q210 David Winnick: I see that the
Home Secretary has stated that your track record in reducing crime
in Boston was extremely impressive and you are the best person
for heading this unit and driving up performance standards in
the Police Service. That is quite good for your CV apart from
anything else, is it not?
Mr Evans: Yes, sir.
Q211 David Winnick: Tell me, Mr Evans,
at the moment we are plagued, as you know, by what may be described
as youth gun crime, an increasing number of young people who carry
a knife almost as part of their clothing but, unfortunately, also
guns and are using guns. With your experience as a Police Commissioner
in Boston with its crime record, how far do you feel that your
experience can help in assisting the police in dealing with this
problem here?
Mr Evans: I think there are strategies
that we utilise over there that can be transferred. One of the
things that is absolutely critical when you are dealing with gun
violence is identifying the sources of the firearms, the guns
that are coming into play, and to make sure there is a heavy price
to pay for those individuals who supply firearms, weapons, to
young people. That is absolutely critical. We used to have special
statutes for trafficking in firearms for individuals who would
supply firearms to juveniles and what have you. Making sure you
are getting the people who are supplying the firearms is absolutely
critical. My sense is then you have to have a very, very good
handle on intelligence on your drugs situation. What I have found
is that drugs and handguns go hand-in-hand. Many people in the
drugs business will use firearms to help them conduct their business.
It becomes absolutely critical to have a national intelligence
model, if you will, that does a real good job identifying those
individuals who you believe are carrying firearms. I think one
of the lessons learned that I can probably bring is that sometimes
we would have gun violence and then every young person in the
neighbourhood would be subject to police stops, police searches
and what have you. It is absolutely critical that the police have
a pretty good idea of who is engaged in carrying guns, dealing
drugs, and that we target those people and, in fact, in some ways,
go to the point of marrying those people, focusing our attention
on the, call them what you will, impact players. Usually what
you will find is that these individuals are no strangers to the
criminal justice system, they will probably have been through
the system multiple times, so making sure that we bring to bear
the system on them of police, probation, looking at their behaviour,
is critical. Again, you have got a very, very small gun problem
here compared to what I have experienced, but I think the one
thing you want to make sure is that it does not snowball out of
control.
Q212 David Winnick: It is nothing
comparable to what you experienced as Police Commissioner in Boston?
Mr Evans: Exactly, but clearly
you want to nip it in the bud and make sure that there are consequences
for individuals who carry firearms. There was a minimum mandatory
sentence, anybody caught with a firearm automatically did a year,
and that even went to juveniles. It was pretty tough but it was
absolutely necessary.
Q213 David Winnick: You had a system
in Boston where there was a broad alliance including the police,
churches and other community organisations. Do you feel there
is any way in which that could be undertaken in Britain involving
the churches or is the situation here in the UK so different?
Mr Evans: The short answer is
yes. I think what we did in Boston was we reached out to people
who we felt were leaders in the community and could have a major
impact, who we could share our strategies with, ask for their
advice and in the end get almost their imprimatur, their stamp
of approval, as to how the police were operating. At the time
those were the clergy. They were the most visible, powerful
individuals, particularly in the black community and that was
the community most impacted by violent crime. The one thing we
did was work very, very closely with that community and the leaders
of the community and in many ways what we said was, "Here
is our strategy, it is a comprehensive strategy. We are here to
help young people who need our help. We will get them services
and what have you, but clearly if they are engaging in violent
behaviour there will be consequences". There was a comprehensive
approach. There was prevention, intervention and enforcement.
Very clearly what we tried to do was speak as one. There would
be police, prosecutors, probation officers, street workers, clergy,
and community health workers, all saying, "We will get you
assistance but we are not going to let you kill each other".
So, in essence that is something that certainly is transferable.
What there has to be is buy-in from community leaders and those
leaders are going to be whoever the leaders of the community are.
Q214 David Winnick: Can I ask you
briefly, Sir Keith, because I want to turn to race, listening
to Mr Evans and knowing his views and experience, do you feel
that what was done in Boston relates to the United Kingdom and
can in some way help in reducing gun crime here?
Sir Keith Povey: Yes, I suspect
that it can. The HMIC undertook a thematic on the criminal use
of firearms at the beginning of this year and there was great
emphasis in there on (a) having a national intelligence database
of firearms that have been used in crime, and (b) having the database
in NCS of tracing firearms and the two complement each other.
The real impact can only be made by involvement of the communities
and that was clearly identified in the thematic. Paul is right
that gun crime in this country, firearms, accounts for less than
0.02% of all crime, the trouble is that disproportionately it
has a massive impact on the fear of crime and public fear of crime.
Q215 David Winnick: Rightly so, surely.
Look at what happened in Nottingham.
Sir Keith Povey: Yes, absolutely.
41% of all gun crime is committed in the Metropolitan Police area,
the rest in the main in West Midlands, Greater Manchester and
Nottinghamshire to a lesser extent. Within these forces, within
certain areas, there is this culture, and it is drug driven, of
"it is good to carry guns at a young age". It is getting
into the community so that the community are identifying that
is not the way forward, that this is bad news, and they are working
in partnership with the police to try to bring some stability
there by (a) identifying the sources and (b) identifying the people
who are using these weapons.
Q216 David Winnick: Many of the victims
of gun crime are black and the victims have been described in
the media in broad terms as Yardie gangsters. Some of these gangsters
are illegal immigrants. Is it not surprising that there is not
much more action taken, insofar as some of these people are undoubtedly
illegal immigrants, to get them out of the country?
Sir Keith Povey: I have not seen
the research that would actually convince me that the proportion
of gun crime is committed by illegal immigrants.
Q217 David Winnick: I did not quite
say that.
Sir Keith Povey: I think anecdotally
there is a major problem in some of the Jamaican gangs in relation
to carrying guns. You have only got to look at the operations
in West Midlands and Greater Manchester and the Metropolitan Police
with Operation Trident, which is about black on black killings,
that are making substantial inroads into that culture. The success
rate of Operation Trident is substantial. Forces are aware of
the issues and are desperately trying to involve communities in
some resolution of that, but there is some way to go. As I said
earlier, although in statistical terms it is a small problem,
in perception and public fear and public outreach terms it is
a big problem.
David Winnick: What we saw in Nottingham
last week.
Q218 Mr Clappison: Just on this point
about the extent of the problem, it does look very much to be
the case that although you have talked about the scale of the
problem, in particular forces and in particular localities the
problem seems to be concentrated, it seems to be localised in
certain areas. The question that I would like to put to both of
you is that given what Mr Evans has said about what needs to be
done at a community level and enforcement level and the transferability
of the experience from some parts of the United States, how can
we get this process started in the areas where it needs to start
before it spreads elsewhere?
Sir Keith Povey: I think substantial
work is already being done in those areas. In 2001-02 the number
of people killed in this country by firearms was 93, in 2002-03
it was 81, so a fairly substantial reduction. Who is to say how
that came about? It is very difficult to measure intervention
by police, involvement by the community and the outcome. Certainly
the forces that I have mentioned, the four in particular, are
well aware of that issue, well aware of the areas in which this
takes place, but it is very, very difficult to overcome the random
shootings, such as took place in the last couple of days in Nottingham.
If it is going to be sustainable, if it is going to be long-term,
then the only way forward is to get into those communities
so that the communities are accepting that this is not appropriate
behaviour.
Q219 Mr Clappison: How do we get
into those? Who is going to start this off? Where is the impetus
going to come from?
Sir Keith Povey: The impetus has
got to come from the Police Service initially because it is going
to be seen as a police problem, but it is a case of involving
the Drug Action Teams, the Crime Reduction Partnerships, the local
clergy, the local stakeholders, and it is only by that sort of
partnership approach that we will get the results we want. I think
what Paul was saying reflects what is happening, in actual fact,
in the Metropolitan, West Midlands and Greater Manchester areas.
Mr Evans: I have sat through presentations
of the Met's gun project, if you will, and many of the things
that I touched upon as ways to success are things that they are
implementing and have implemented: the idea of a close working
relationship with the community, community engagement, also the
education piece of trying to make sure that young people know
that that type of life is a dead end and the whole intelligence
piece of focusing on that small number of people who may be involved
in drug trade or who your intelligence tell you have to be monitored
very closely. I think that the reduction in gun crime and gun
homicides in the Met will point to some of the successes they
have had in recent years.
|
