Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
60-79)
MR MIKE
FULLER
12 JANUARY 2010
Q60 Mr Hogg: I understand that.
Mr Fuller: In my current role
if there are areas that I need to examine or inspect I would call
in specialists. I do that and I know the Inspectorate do that,
and the Police Inspectorate do that. I do not see that as a big
problem. Whilst I would not have knowledge of the day-to-day workings
of being a crown prosecutor, albeit an induction process has been
offered, I still bring a lot of knowledge of the system, the rubbing
points in the system, and the experience of being a stakeholder
of the CPS.
Q61 Mr Hogg: I understand that, Chief
Constable. The point I am really making to you is this, and then
I am going to move on to the second point because we must not
take too long because my colleagues want to ask questions as well:
one of the anxieties which people have is as to the quality of
the way that the CPS is operating in court, particularly the quality
of the lawyers engaged in prosecution.
Mr Fuller: Yes.
Q62 Mr Hogg: There are many anxieties
expressed about that. I am wondering whether, with such limited
experience of that aspect of the work, you are particularly well-qualified
to make those judgments.
Mr Fuller: Those judgements would
not necessarily be made by me as an individual. I have got a wealth
of experience on which to call where I can get other people, as
the Chief Inspector, to make judgments. Some of these assessments
would be delegated to people who I would want to have specialist
knowledge and be highly competent and credible with the people
they are inspecting. That is what we do now. If I am looking at
terrorism and I want to inspect how our terrorism function operations
I would call a specialist in, or I would expect the Inspectorate
to do that, and not just a generalist.
Q63 Mr Hogg: So you do not think
it would be better done by a former judge or a former lawyer or
something of that kind?
Mr Fuller: I think the other thing
I bring is experience of managing and running organisations. I
have got an MBA and have had extensive experience of managing
police departments, a police force, and successfully delivering
performance. The issues are wider than just the quality of the
advocacy.
Q64 Mr Hogg: I am grateful to you.
Can I move to the second point because I know my colleagues want
to ask other questions. You have made it quite plain, and been
very candid about this, that you have been very close to the CPS
over many years in your investigative role.
Mr Fuller: Yes.
Q65 Mr Hogg: And you said, quite
correctly, that when you were a young copper you would have identified
your principal function as—I wrote down your phrase—"getting
people convicted". I accept that is not the only view which
you have of the matter, but you are, are you not, exposed to this
criticism: that historically and necessarily the police and the
CPS are very closely linked at all times and in a sense this is
a rather incestuous appointment in that somebody very close to
the CPS in terms of their operations is now being appointed to
monitor them. How do you deal with that?
Mr Fuller: I do not think this
is as incestuous as you suggest. I would reject that. The point
I was making was close working has led to greater efficiency.
The decision-making has always been independent and that has been
clear on both sides in terms of the investigator deciding the
course of the investigation and succeeding or failing in doing
that.
Q66 Mr Hogg: Do you think the public
might be uneasy about this, or not?
Mr Fuller: I think that the public
would see me as somebody who would bring independence and objective
scrutiny where it is needed and I think that is important. The
public would be looking for quality assurance. I am somebody who
has clearly got the professional knowledge and I think you need
a certain degree of knowledge of the CPS and how they work and,
more important, the rubbing points. I think I would be better
placed having worked closely with them and seen those rubbing
points firsthand to be able to make recommendations that are credible.
Mr Hogg: That is probably all I want
to ask on those points. Thank you very much.
Q67 Mrs James: Hello, Mr Fuller.
What would you say are the key challenges and/or the priorities
for the future operation of HMCPSI? What will, or should, be at
the top of your in-tray and how do you intend to address them?
Mr Fuller: In terms of challenges,
the obvious one at the top of the in-tray is the financial challenge.
I realise there are big financial threats and potential shortage
of finances. I have that in my day job and that is not going to
go away. I would be looking to ensure value for money in the way
the Inspectorate operates and I see that as an enormous financial
challenge. A potential change of government might involve policy
changes, so that is something I would need to have an eye to.
I would have to wait and see if there are policy changes. One
of the difficulties the Inspectorate has is ensuring consistency
of performance, and ensuring consistency of performance within
the CPS is quite a big challenge, which is why I would look to
take a more risk-based approach in focusing on under-performers
rather than a routine general inspection of all CPS areas. There
is the issue of value for money, which I think should be a bigger
part of the inspection. That is something I bring because I have
been running an organisation where I have managed to make savings
and grow the organisation. I have got 170 extra police officers
as a result of savings that I have made. The same principles that
have brought about the savings and some of the management techniques
could easily be applied to the CPS and I look to bring that with
me in terms of experience and learning.
Q68 Mrs James: Change management
is a challenging thing and is very disrupting for those you will
be working with. What is your take on that? How do you intend
to take people through what could be a very difficult and destabilising
process?
Mr Fuller: You can imagine I have
had lots of experience of change management both within the Met
and the big organisation I am currently running now where it was
40,000 staff at the time and I was involved in the restructuring
project, working closely with the unions but also the people,
and making it clear as to why change was needed was all important.
I probably ought to expand on the fact that it would be very much
part of the plan in terms of my starting in the Inspectorate in
the things I would look at that I would be looking to share and
consult on what I plan to do as part of my starting within the
Inspectorate.
Q69 Mr Heath: Mr Fuller, before I
ask the question I intended to ask, something you said slightly
concerned me. I understand what you were saying about targeting
those areas of the CPS which are under-performing but I just wonder
whether you feel that the CPS, which has undergone considerable
changes of its own recently, has got to the stage of maturity
yet where the more routine and thematic inspection is no longer
required as a key part of the operation.
Mr Fuller: What I would see happening
is that you would develop performance measures. At the moment
the key measures the Director of Public Prosecutions wants to
introduce are the Core Quality Standards. I would see the focus
on those standards and some of that measurement could be done
remotely. This is a discussion I have been having. Inspection
itself is very expensive to have to do and very resource intensive.
What you want to do is to focus on the perceived under-performers
and doing more thorough inspections of those looking to diagnose
what the problems and issues are and giving the line managers
the best chance of putting the under-performance right. I do not
think you would do away completely with routine inspection. There
would be performance monitoring and analysis, but the actual inspection
activity and task would be more intensive if it was focused on
those who are under-performing.
Q70 Mr Heath: I understand that.
There is one particular resource issue which may need to be addressed
shortly and that is the fact that the Government, almost out of
the blue, declared they were going to abolish Her Majesty's Inspectorate
of Courts Administration which may or may not have a knock-on
effect on this organisation. Mr Wooler, when he was before us,
said he was absolutely confident that the Inspectorate could take
on more work if required. Do you share that optimism from what
you already see? Do you think that there are going to be any resource
issues or capacity issues if the work of the Inspectorate is extended
in that way?
Mr Fuller: I think it is probably
a bit premature for me to answer on the issue of resources. I
do not know what the Government intend to do and what their plans
are around resources, which is why it would be premature to say
we have got plenty of resources and are able to take on extra
work. I have discussed this with Mr Wooler and I would want to
build on what he has done. Whilst I share his enthusiasm, I would
add a note of caution waiting for the outcome of the various financial
reviews that will and have taken place. I think it would be too
premature for me to answer that at this stage.
Q71 Mr Heath: There is already a
degree of extension of the work in that the inspection is encompassing
other prosecuting authorities.
Mr Fuller: Yes.
Q72 Mr Heath: When we have talked
about this with the Attorney General there has been a marked reluctance
to change the statutory basis of the Inspectorate to actually
encompass that change. Does that worry you? Do you think there
should be a change of statute, a change of official remit in order
to take in other authorities?
Mr Fuller: I would want to be
confident, first of all, about the level of resources to do the
things that the CPS heads expect in terms of the thoroughness
of the inspections and taking a risk-based approach but also ensuring
that the routine quality assurance can also be given. There is
quite a hard balance to strike. I would want to be confident that
we could do that competently and give the necessary assurance
to the Director of Public Prosecutions that these areas are running
efficiently and effectively before saying to you that we can take
on inspections of lots of other prosecution services. Certainly
if we are looking to the future I do not know the extent of any
financial cuts that we might suffer.
Q73 Mr Heath: This is hardly the
most original question in the world, but people have long suggested
that there may be a case for a joint criminal justice inspectorate.
What do you think of that?
Mr Fuller: I can see certain advantages
in that in streamlined inspection. Ten years ago I was involved
in one of the first joint criminal justice inspections. I was
a lead staff officer. It was a scrutiny carried out by Robin Masefield,
who is a civil servant. With the other inspectorates, the Police
Inspectorate but also the CPS Inspectorate, I did a follow-up
to the work done by Robin Masefield. It was not really a happy
picture that came out of it. In summary, the findings were that
there were conflicting performance indicators between the agencies,
there were separate and independent IT systems, there was not
a sense of common purpose which all those people within the relevant
agencies felt was needed. It has been quite a task for the Home
Office and other government departments to address those issues.
I do not think they have all gone away completely.
Q74 Mr Heath: I am glad you think
that.
Mr Fuller: I think the ultimate
thing was recognising, and I recognised quite graphically, that
these agencies were interdependent. They might have been independent
in terms of decision-making but they needed to work together if
they were going to deliver an efficient and effective criminal
justice system.
Q75 Mr Turner: In the next year,
starting in April, there will be substantial reductions in expenditure,
let us say 10%, and perhaps in the event of the Government remaining
they would be slow in introducing these reductions but then it
would have to be even faster. What would you regard as practical
in reducing expenditure by 10%?
Mr Fuller: It is early days yet
but I have talked to the current postholder about that and he
has outlined his plans to me in terms of what that means. I would
want to bring my knowledge of my current work where I believe
protecting frontline resources is very important, but there is
a lot that can be done within the back office in terms of financial
savings. Most of the financial savings, the money for the 170
officers I have been able to bring about in my current role, has
been through back office savings, collaborating with back office
functions, and we have secured some £5 million worth of savings.
I think it is too early for me to say I could do the same within
the CPS Inspectorate, but I would like to bring some of the same
principles to this role in terms of making savings so I can carry
out the core functions of the Inspectorate, which is carrying
out inspections, looking at where I can streamline things within
the back office and back office functions.
Q76 Mrs Riordan: Do you agree with
the view of the outgoing Inspector that the Inspectorate must
continue to be independent?
Mr Fuller: Yes, I do. I think
that is essential. That is something certainly I would want, the
Attorney General has said that she wants, and the DPP. Parliament,
I assume, would want independent and objective scrutiny and clearly
you cannot be objective if you are not independent. The other
benefit for the Director of Public Prosecutions is that in making
assessments he would get an independent view of the performance
of his areas and also an independent view of his initiatives.
There is a tendency, as I know, having managed lots of organisations,
for new initiatives that are doomed to succeed. What is needed
is integrity and honesty if they are not working, or they are
not working as you intended, and somebody will tell you that.
It is very hard when you are head of an organisation to get that
objective and independent advice and scrutiny. That is the added
value that the Inspectorate would bring and that is why it should
be independent.
Q77 Alun Michael: You have talked
quite a bit about joint working in terms of both service improvement
and inspection, and I find that encouraging, but I just wanted
to ask you about the other side of the coin, which is complaints.
Very often if a member of the public is complaining, and I certainly
find this with cases that I have dealt with as a constituency
MP and I am sure for colleagues it is the same, from the point
of view of the individual, the complainant, they have not a clue
whether it is a failing in the police or in the court or in the
Crown Prosecution Service. How would you see the Crown Prosecution
Service moving and would you encourage the development across
those services of a greater coherence in terms of how people's
complaints about the system are dealt with?
Mr Fuller: I think having a sound
complaints system and one, as you are suggesting, that is joined
up would be really important. Having spent many years dealing
with all sorts of complaints, you get complaints about individual
conduct and competence of staff but there are also complaints
that relate more to the system and the way that the system works
which may mean that victims of crime are unjustly treated as a
result of the system and the way it works and the conflicts within
the system. There is a difference between the two. There is often
a danger that organisations deal with the conduct-type issues,
and somebody is or is not disciplined, but they do not deal with
the systemic issues. That is what I would want to look at. I have
got a particular interest in this and I know certainly the head
of one of the other inspectorates has got a particular interest
in looking at some of these systemic issues with a view to resolving
them. It brings about greater efficiency. What we do not want
is people dissatisfied, particularly victims of crime who have
suffered already. The last thing you would want is for them to
suffer as a result of the system. It may be the victims do not
get the end result that they are looking for because the end result
or desired result is about justice, but what you would want is
to ensure that those people are properly treated and have not
got any cause for complaint and feel the system has treated them
properly and professionally. That is how I would see it. The complaints
system is important. You would make this separation and ensure
that you confront both those issues. Of course, other things spiral
from complaints. If there are competence issues that come out
on a regular basis you would then look at training and the training
of staff.
Q78 Alun Michael: Indeed. In the
Police Service there have been some suggestions that very often
people complain so it ends up as a complaint against an individual
and follows through to disciplinary action, whereas what people
are asking for is to be treated properly and to obtain a decent
service.
Mr Fuller: Yes, that is right.
Q79 Alun Michael: When issues of
that sort fall between different services it seems to me that
we have got a problem. Is that something that you would be interested
in contributing to the solutions on through the Inspectorate role?
Mr Fuller: It would. Chairman,
if I may, in terms of evidence of that, and I am talking about
my current role, I had an increase in complaints and in terms
of the scale of complaints they were relatively low level about
officers being abrupt, sometimes not even rude, but it was about
the treatment of people. One of the things we introduced which
was seen as quite draconian was quality of service questionnaires
where officers in Kent—it is called Operation Doorstep—give
the people who have called the police these quality of service
questionnaires. You can imagine it was not very popular with the
officers, but they do give them out and we measure whether they
are giving them out. Interestingly, some officers perform really
well and are very highly graded on a consistent basis and other
officers are not. The point is, it feeds into their appraisal.
What we are looking to do is improve the overall quality of service
of those officers, not deal with the individual conduct of one
officer but looking to improve how people are treated generally.
There is a difference between individual conduct and competence
and more general quality of service. They are different issues.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed,
Mr Fuller. We are very grateful to you.
| 
