Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220
- 239)
TUESDAY 12 OCTOBER 2004
SIR KEITH
POVEY AND
MR PAUL
EVANS
Q220 David Winnick: We have had evidence
on a number of occasions from senior police officers, chief constables,
telling us that combating racism in their own police force is
a priority, they are trying to deal with what is described as
the "canteen culture", or whatever it is called, but
then we see a programme on television called The Secret Policeman,
which presumably both of you have seen. How far can we take it
that the Police Service and the Home Office are able to deal with
the sickening racism that we saw featured in that programme by
certain police officers? Mr Evans?
Mr Evans: Racism is a problem
in society, period, and certainly—
Q221 David Winnick: That is a pretty
complacent attitude.
Mr Evans: Let me say that there
is probably no bigger issue right now in policing in the United
States than the whole issue of racial profiling and it is something
that we are all dealing with. In many ways it is an issue that
all police forces around the country must deal with. Unfortunately,
when we hire brand new recruits we cannot mould them, they come
with their biases and their prejudices, that is the reality. What
we have to clearly state is that absolutely will not be tolerated
within any police force and make sure that where it is experienced
there are consequences to be played. Again, it is the training
that is absolutely critical in that area on the consequences of
racism and the damaging impact it has on the police. The communities
that need us most have to trust us and basically that trust has
to be a real trust and if there is any hint of racism that trust
will never embed itself.
Q222 David Winnick: The Home Office
have a national target of 7% minority ethnic staff by 2009 and
the present percentage is about 2%. As I understand it, and you
will correct me if I am wrong, in the United States in virtually
all of the police forces, including in the south where white racism
existed in such a powerful form for some 100 years, there are
now police officers who are black of every rank from the most
junior to the most senior and it is a feature of life, totally
unlike the United Kingdom.
Mr Evans: Your assessment is probably
correct but in many instances that came about as a result of departments
being sued for hiring practices that violated civil rights. In
many ways it came about as a result of consent decrees being imposed
upon many big city departments because they failed to hire sufficient
minorities. What I have found to be the key is good recruiting,
aggressive recruiting, of qualified minorities is the way to address
that issue. That is not going to happen overnight but aggressively
recruiting is a way to deal with that issue.
Q223 David Winnick: What is your
assessment of reaching anywhere near the target of 7% if we cannot
reach it as matters now stand? Are there any other steps that
should be taken?
Sir Keith Povey: If we carry on
the way we are then we will not reach that target, of that I have
no doubt, and the Metropolitan Police will not reach their target,
and if they do not reach their target then nationally the target
will not be met. It is a case of how far do we want to go down
the road of different action that would actually encourage—
Q224 David Winnick: Positive action.
Sir Keith Povey: Positive action.
Paul might be better qualified to speak on this than I am because
I know that many, many years ago New York went down that path
and it ended up as a very divisive force. They went down the path
of positive action not only in recruiting but also in promotion.
Without going directly to positive action, there are still things
that can be done, and I read Ian Blair's evidence to this Committee
and the points that he was making were very valid on bringing
on people who would add value in relation to language, in relation
to contact with the community and yet still treat people equally
at the recruiting stage. On The Secret Policeman issue,
that was another wake-up call for the service. I think anyone
who watched that programme must have been embarrassed and excruciatingly
frustrated.
Q225 David Winnick: And ashamed,
I would think.
Sir Keith Povey: Absolutely. Significantly,
three days later most of the officers involved had been sacked
or had left the service. ACPO came out with a 10 point plan immediately.
Indeed, a week on Friday I have the pleasure of giving evidence
to the Commission for Racial Equality on this very issue of racism
within the service, recruiting and the rest of it. I do take heart
from what is now the National Assessment Recruiting Centre which
is trying to identify right at the recruitment stage those inappropriate
behaviours, unacceptable behaviours, and if there is an element
of doubt about that person in relation to diversity then that
acts as a total barrier to proceeding any further within the National
Assessment Centre.
Q226 David Winnick: One final question.
Mr Evans, positive action in the United Kingdom to try and rectify
this problem?
Mr Evans: I come with a history.
The department I just left was under a consent decree for 26 years
and it was under a consent decree when I left. When I joined the
department in 1970 I think we had 1% or 2% of the department that
was black or Hispanic, but when I left it was closer to 38% but,
again, it fell under the auspices of the equal protection clause
of the Constitution. It was a painful process. It impacted on
our hiring practices and promotional practices. In the long run
I would say to you that we were a better department when I left
because we represented the community we served and as I was leaving
we were putting in place a number of schemes, for instance, looking
at skills, hiring officers with specific skills. If they could
speak specific languages—Cape Verde Creole, Spanish, French
Creole for Haitian—we did not particularly care what colour
they were, but we were looking at specific skills that could
help us in those communities. We also had what we called at the
time a cadet programme where we would hire young people who would
do probationary services, helping in police stations, and then
they would get preference to become police officers. So there
was a number of things that we tried to do to increase outside
the consent decree, but the consent decree was a very painful
process that the city went through and the department went through
but in the long run I think I can say 25 or 26 years later we
were a better department for it.
Q227 Bob Russell: Gentlemen, as you
know, we are doing an inquiry into police reform, and one of the
11 principal areas we are looking at is that of police training.
Were you aware that five years ago the Home Affairs Select Committee
conducted an inquiry into police training and recruitment? Indeed,
we made 49 recommendations—I have the report here. Can I
just ask, gentlemen, whether as part of your remit this tome is
ever looked at?
Sir Keith Povey: I actually gave
evidence to that Home Affairs Committee so yes, I am aware of
that, and in fact, some of the recommendations that came out of
that also coincided with a thematic inspection, Managing Training,
which was undertaken by myself. One of the recommendations that
came out of that was the appointment of a lay HMI with no police
background to major in training and recruitment. It is five years
ago now and we did in fact appoint Mr Robin Field-Smith as an
HMI with responsibility for the inspection of training and recruitment,
and he has now taken on the human resources side.
Q228 Bob Russell: As a result of
that and our recommendations, has there been an improvement in
police training five years on?
Sir Keith Povey: Yes, I think
substantially, and certainly the framework, in that now there
is a national strategy for police training, there is a Skills
for Justice body looking at development needs, there is a more
effective PADR system, identifying training needs, and there are
costed training plans within each force. I think there has been
substantial progress made within the whole arena of training as
a result of those things.
Q229 Bob Russell: It has been put
to me that the 43 chief constables are doing their own thing when
it comes to training, both in new recruits and in-service training,
that they are picking and mixing as to what part of the training
they take on board. It has been suggested to me that in one county
police force none of its new recruits are trained in riot control.
Sir Keith Povey: There is a national
curriculum in relation to probationer training. That is going
through a metamorphosis at the moment in that there have been
recommendations that instead of taking these people and training
them centrally at district training centres, they are trained
in forces, within the community, not taking them away from their
homes. There are a number of forces piloting that at the moment,
of which one is Lancashire, who are speaking very highly of that
type of training. But there is a national training strategy, and
within each force there is a force training strategy so that the
training should match the performance indicators and desired outcomes
of the annual policing plan within that force. So I think the
point that you make about mixing and matching and picking is perhaps
not as bad as you were portraying.
Q230 Bob Russell: This Committee
may need to revisit that on another occasion, because all members
of this Committee have been told that the Police Superintendents'
Association, the Police Federation and the Association of Police
Authorities all express concern about the cuts in the funding
of the police training body, Centrex. The Police Federation makes
a series of criticisms about training, alleging that training
is disproportionately targeted at the higher ranks, that there
is a paucity of refresher training for custody officers, and that
other European countries give a higher priority to police training.
Is that a correct commentary?
Sir Keith Povey: In the main,
yes. There are a number of issues there. Certainly, the budget
of Centrex was cut this year, and the budget of a number of departments
was cut, but Centrex produced a plan that shows that they will
still be able to deliver the bulk of their training. Those cuts
have resulted, for example, in a reduction of the probationer
training programme from 15 weeks to 12 weeks, so some things have
had to go.
Chairman: Can you just confirm, Sir Keith,
that that reduction of 15 to 12 weeks was as a result of the budget
cuts, not as a result of your report or anybody else's reports
concluding that 15 weeks was a waste of time and all the work
could be done in 12 weeks?
Q231 Bob Russell: I am grateful,
Chairman, because I was actually going to ask who was driving
the cuts.
Sir Keith Povey: My perception
is that the reduction from 15 weeks to 12 weeks was as a result
of the budget cuts, but the reduction was justifiable when you
looked at some of the dross that was taken out of the curriculum,
so with the actual core subjects, I do not think the probation
training has suffered as a result of that cut. It has just taken
out some of the extra-curricular stuff. Coming back to the points
the Federation were making—and I think 12 months ago they
would have been absolutely right—there has been a preponderance
of training at senior level, and what has happened at senior PC,
sergeant and inspector level is that there has been a dearth of
training. I chair the Police Leadership Development Board, and
that was identified by a working group of that Board over 12 months
ago, and as a result of that, there is a programme—Core
Leadership Development Training, it is called—that is directed
purely at PCs, sergeants and inspectors, to bring them on.
Q232 Bob Russell: Who has actually
driven the cuts in the training budget?
Sir Keith Povey: I think that
came from the Home Office.
Q233 Bob Russell: We have the Home
Office telling us about all the additional police officers that
have been brought into service, coupled with a cut in the training
budget. Does that not indicate that perhaps the modern police
officers joining the police service are not as well trained as
those who went before?
Sir Keith Povey: No, I do not
think you can make that assumption.
Q234 Bob Russell: Lower costs, greater
numbers. I used to be the publicity officer at university and
I know exactly what happened there: greater numbers at a lower
cost.
Sir Keith Povey: I am not here
to defend Centrex or the budget cuts or anything else. My perception
is that the reduction in training from 15 weeks to 12 weeks has
not been detrimental to the outcome of probationer training. It
may well be—and perhaps I am unsighted on that, Chairman—that
there was running parallel to that a review of probationers' training
that might have resulted in that, but I still think—perhaps
the sceptic in me—that the reduction was in fact budget-driven.
Q235 Bob Russell: Sir Keith, I must
pursue this point, because the Association of Chief Police Officers
also criticises a lack of adequate funding for the National Centre
for Policing Excellence and a lack of separation between the training
function of Centrex and the policy-making function of the NCPE.
Then we are told that Her Majesty's Inspectorate carrying out
an inspection of Centrex earlier this year found the organisation
to be "inconsistently effective." I understand that
Centrex has responded with an action plan which is currently being
considered by the Home Office. Bearing in mind that these respectable
organisations within the police service are all being critical,
how much progress has been made in modernising police training
and are sufficient resources being devoted to this?
Sir Keith Povey: Going back to
the point in relation to training, resources in training are about
6-7% of total budget and a case can always be made, I think, for
more resources to be put into training. But Robin Field-Smith,
the HMI that I spoke about earlier, did undertake that inspection
of Centrex and did find it lacking in certain areas. Bearing in
mind that Centrex covers a lot more than probationer training—it
covers leadership training and many other aspects of training—it
was not just focused on that sort of training.
Q236 Bob Russell: So presumably the
main problems have been identified?
Sir Keith Povey: Yes, indeed they
have, and as I say, there is a framework now of the National Policing
Training Strategy, the Skills for Justice, that is identifying
in a much more sophisticated and scientific manner what training
needs there are and how they can be satisfied. Can I just agree
with you on your earlier point as well, and that is NCPE and Centrex,
and I think, as I said in my submission and earlier today, that
NCPE has been under-funded. I actually think NCPE should be quite
distinct from Centrex. NCPE is about standards, about improvement
of performance; Centrex is about training. Yes, there are overlaps,
but I think they are sufficiently distinct to be treated as two
separate entities.
Q237 Bob Russell: I am grateful for
that observation. Finally, you are confirming then that the problems
that were identified with Centrex have been identified, follow-up
action is taking place, so in a year's time all those issues will
have been tackled and resolved?
Sir Keith Povey: They should be,
because there is an action plan that Centrex are working to, and
that is overseen by the HMI on training.
Q238 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: I have two
questions. If I look at the number of cases which are successfully
prosecuted by the police through the courts, it is a tiny minority
in comparison to the number of cases that files have been developed
for. When I spoke to the Crown Prosecution Service about this,
they said one of the primary problems centred on the ability of
low-ranking police officers to adequately collect evidence and
to make good statements. My question to you is, are you happy
that junior police officers, who are placed in a significant position
when it comes to detection of crime and reporting of crime, are
adequately trained in the production of statements and the taking
of evidence at those initial interviews, and secondly, are you
also convinced that, by allowing police authorities to adopt their
own training programmes, you have a consistent standard throughout
the police authorities? Certainly we have taken evidence here
which would suggest that the plethora of training initiatives
at this time is leading to multiple standards, and what we need
to be seeing is a far more consistent standard across the whole
of the forces within the UK.
Sir Keith Povey: As regards the
first part of that question, in relation to the investigative
skills of police officers, I think they are not as good as they
should be. You have to go back a little in time. In training,
the service lost its way a number of years ago, and we came to
this what I call this "love me, hug me, kiss me, sit on my
knee, cry on my shoulder" type of training where it was not
actually teaching what the ingredients of the evidence were to
ensure a conviction. It was much more concerned with the softer
aspects of policing rather than the enforcement aspects of policing.
I think the service has recognised that. The NCPE are in fact
looking at a programme called Professionalising the Investigation
Function, which is designed just to achieve that. Another downside
to that was there was something called "tenure" in the
police service about five years ago, where you actually took skilled
investigators who had done five years in CID and put them back
into uniform. Although it was designed to encourage movement,
to give people opportunities to go into departments that they
would not have had, it actually had the effect of de-skilling
the organisation in certain areas, and so the service over the
last few years has not been as good at that level on the investigation
process as they should have been. However, again, that has been
identified and is being addressed by what the NCPE are doing and
by a programme of investigative interviewing technique training
that was started a number of years ago and should actually address
that. In relation to the second point about a difference in standards,
something like 90% plus of all training takes place in forces.
It is only a very small proportion of training that is actually
undertaken centrally by Centrex or at a district level, and so
you would expect some differences but they still should operate
to a standard, to a national curriculum and to a national policing
standard. The trainers are actually trained centrally by Centrex
and then they cascade that training down, so that is another way
of trying to achieve that standard in training and standard in
trainers.
Q239 Mr Green: Can I move the discussion
on to the National Policing Plan. What do you see as its main
strengths and weaknesses and in particular, what practical, day-to-day
usefulness does it have on the ground?
Sir Keith Povey: Practical, day-to-day
usefulness at PC level I would think is negligible, but practical
usefulness at a strategic level and at force level, the strength
of the National Policing Plan is that it has given greater
clarity to forces about what government expectations are and what
government priorities are. It also highlights greater accountability
for delivery of those priorities. The first National Policing
Plan, as with firsts in many things, left room for substantial
improvement. Here we had the first National Policing Plan and
everyone wanted something in it about their particular area of
expertise or concern, and even now that we are on the third one,
I know that government ministers have had to enter into negotiations
with other departments who are saying things like "Why isn't
there anything in about roads policing? Why isn't there anything
in it about this?" There were so many priorities that what
was a priority? There was also a major concern about whether that
was skewing activity at a local level, where local communities
were identifying priorities that were not articulated within the
National Policing Plan, and I think that was the case. I think
what is happening as we go to the second and then to the third
National Policing Plan is that there is a reduction, a contraction,
in the number of priorities and I think there is a genuine endeavour
to give local communities the ability and room to actually identify
their own priorities and encapsulate those within their own policing
plans.
|
