Home Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Viv Nicholas [LSP 31]

International Conference on Leadership and Standards in the Police

Seven observations having attended the whole of today’s excellent session:

(1)Expectations of the public. Keith Vaz’s introduction from the chair was very well crafted but I would like to develop the theme regarding public expectations. Mr Vaz identified that the public will have expectations of the police and also a concern on how much they are paying for the police. My own experience over the last 20 years is that we are seeking to move to higher ground than ‘policing by consent of the public’ to ‘policing with the cooperation of the public’ and if that is a realistic and appropriate expectation—then we should also be aiming to articulate some thoughts on what the police can expect of the public.

(2)Whilst it is appropriate to question and challenge the leadership and standards in the police—my personal view is that there is much to commend within the current policing culture. Over the past few years—I had the opportunity to train as an external, independent assessor and then serve on two senior management assessment courses at Bramshill Police College and was very impressed with both the process and standards of the police staff both organising and participating in the exercise.

(3)I would urge some caution in seeking to devolve the current research and training tasks undertaken by the police and associated agencies to academe. My personal experience is that academics have an especially heightened sense of their own culture and interests and often have difficulty in undertaking genuinely collaborative work with other organisations.

(4)Procurement. I served as an independent member of Thames Valley Police Authority from 2005–9 and took a particular interest in the transfer of custody management to the private sector. This facet of policing is both critical and has a high reputational risk and I remain doubtful as to whether there were any benefits associated with this—and most other—aspects of policing that have been transferred to private providers. The number of providers is small and whilst a saving might be apparent in the short term—I have yet to see any evidence that savings and/or efficiencies are gained in the mid- and long-term. Clearly such policies should be evidence driven as opposed to being dogma driven.

(5)The evidence from Singapore included a very signicant observation—some criminals are always operating at the leading edge and are ahead of most legitimate businesses and the police. It is therefore imperative that the police have the preparedness and ability to attract the very best talent in order to successfully combat new criminal practices.

(6)The audience today made several strong contributions challenging the progress being made to ensure the optimum representation within police staff in terms of gender and race. Whilst the capacity to make progress is limited at the present time due to a slow down in recruitment—I would suggest that additional effort is expended in the areas of police cadets and specials—which need not always be undertaken with a view to future employment—but can help to develop the understanding as to the challenges associated with policing within the wider community.

(7)I have not been an advocate of the appointment of Police and Crime Commissioners but today started to develop the view that we should perhaps be prepared to allow the initiative to run for three to four election cycles. I suspect that a quick observation can be made to as to the paucity of genuinely independent candidates in this first round which was dominated by elected politicians or past police staff. The importance of induction training was stressed throughout the day—should we be prepared to offer appropriate training to prospective PCC candidates?

Viv Nicholas

January 2013