Speeches and Statements

Speech by the Home Secretary on policing issues at the Association of Chief Police Officers' conference

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith delivered this speech about the policing green paper in June 2008.

As I thought about what I wanted to say today, I must confess to having to resist the temptation to start every section with the phrase, 'As the green paper will say…'

As work on the green paper nears completion, I can assure you that nothing better focuses the mind on your submissions of evidence than a speech at a major conference like this. 

So today I’d like to give you a clear sense of the principles which inform the green paper, and a broad steer on the issues it will cover – without, I hope, giving the game away on each and every issue.

My starting point is the expectations that people have of modern policing – and what more we can do together to equip you and your forces so that these expectations can be better and better met.

This is the relationship that will form the basis for next month’s Green Paper – an enhanced role for the public’s voice in policing, greater freedom and discretion for the police, and a more strategic role for government. 

It’s how we strengthen the links between each partner in the relationship that I’d like to explore in a little more detail today. 

Achievements in the last year

But first I’d like to reflect on how we’ve got to where we are today – and congratulate police forces and police authorities on your achievements in adding real value to this historic relationship between citizen, police and government.

In the last decade, you have made huge progress: 

• you have reduced crime by a third, with the chances of being a victim of crime now at their lowest for more than 25 years
• you have made impressive improvements in force efficiency, not just exceeding the targets set in the last Spending Review, but doing so a year early
• you have been willing and able to increase productivity by modernising the workforce and working practices, including through the introduction of PCSOs and the better use of civilian staff
• you have responded with resolve and professionalism to the new challenges that have emerged, in particular the threat we face from international terrorism
• and you are taking an impressive lead in delivering fundamental change in the ways our communities can engage with an accessible, open and responsive police force – by helping to make neighbourhood policing a living, breathing everyday reality across England and Wales in all of our communities.

Can't do it alone

As we look to build on these achievements, there is, I think, a common thread that we need to consider.  While you are still expected to ‘do it all’ – from street-level to the strategic level, from crime prevention to response policing to protective services – you need to have strong partners at your side.

You can’t succeed in the fight against crime alone – you shouldn’t be expected to.

And foremost among your partners – central to your future success – have to be members of the general public themselves.

That, for me, is the story of policing over the past year. Genuine, consistent and meaningful engagement with the public, giving them the information and the access they need to be able to be confident in policing – this is now a basic requirement if you are to get the full credit for everything you’re doing to cut crime, to protect communities, and to safeguard our national security.

It’s the message of Louise Casey’s Crime and Communities Review, published only last week. People, working in partnership with the police, can be one of our best weapons in the fight against crime.  And it’s only through improving public confidence that we can close the gap between public perceptions on crime and the reality of your achievements.

It’s the theme that Sir Ronnie Flanagan addressed with his customary authority in the Review of Policing, where he challenged us all – police leaders and government – to return discretion to the frontline, and where he laid down the gauntlet for us all to ensure we focus on matching our resources to areas of threat, harm and risk.

Finding ways to free up the police – allowing you and your officers to trust your judgement on what the public wants and expects – are key to this equation.

And I believe there is now a compelling sense of direction – shared by many in this room. A clear view of the next steps we need to take to empower citizens, drive professionalism in policing, and ensure a more strategic and less intrusive role for central government. 

Empowering citizens

The onus of responsibility for leading that change lies squarely on us all. That’s why I’m pleased we have worked together so closely to develop neighbourhood policing.  Because if we are to move from a top-down measurement model that makes you account at every point for your performance, it’s your accountability to local communities that really starts to matter.

Local people now have the chance to help shape the issues they want you to focus on.

And we will help to embed this further with you, through the policing pledge, which will give people a clear idea on the services – and the standards of service – that they can expect.

As most of you recognise, and as most of you are working hard to deliver, fundamental to your relationship with communities is the need to ensure that people have access to information about your performance at a local level.

The publication of monthly crime statistics; the use of crime mapping; and the regular communication of policing achievements locally – these will give the public a clearer picture of performance, and a clear idea of where they want to see more being done.

But we need to go further, and that’s why the Green Paper – and the Policing and Crime Reduction Bill which follows it – will set out our definitive view on the future of local police accountability.  Alongside giving the public greater sight of crime information and a greater say in local priorities, we need to have new accountability structures that reflect and complement these developments.

Some have argued that we should do away with police authorities altogether, and subsume them in local government. Some want to see you replaced by a single commissioner, who could hold sway over local policing decisions.

But I recognise the value that police authorities deliver. I want to improve your ability to perform your role – by linking you more clearly to the people you serve, through direct election, while retaining the best of what independents and councillors bring.  And, having listened to Sir Ronnie and Louise Casey, I want to see you rooted even more closely in the communities you serve.   

Professionalism in policing

Whether it is through informal measures or formal mechanisms, I want you to understand where I am coming from on public accountability. It’s not some cunning wheeze to apply pressure on you from the bottom as well as from the top. It is not to interfere with your operational priorities or the professional judgements you make.

It is to strengthen and deepen the connections that already exist between you and your public. To free up you and your officers so that you can get on with meeting those requirements – in the ways that you determine best for your force, and best for the people you serve locally.

As Sir Ronnie has shown, that’s partly about reducing unnecessary bureaucracy. But it’s also about freeing officers, PCSOs and staff within their jobs so that they can take a lead in designing improvements in productivity and service standards.

I know that ACPO has been developing a model to improve responsiveness, built on what the public think good policing looks and feels like – so that you can then position yourselves better to meet those expectations.

Operation Quest

And as we have seen with initiatives like Operation Quest, forces can make real improvements – particularly in customer service – when they give frontline officers and staff the chance to rethink and rework the nuts-and-bolts of their everyday activities.

The results in some Quest forces speak for themselves: 

• In Bristol West, Avon and Somerset increased the average speed of victim contact from 13.5 days to 1.5 days for common assault, and from 8.5 days to half a day for victims of actual bodily harm.
•  In Slough, Thames Valley Police halved the number of pending ‘open’ incidents and achieved 99% on-time attendance with members of the public. 
• In Liverpool, Merseyside Police achieved more than 95% urgent, non-emergency call response within one hour by February 2007 – up from 66% on the year before. 

Quest provides ample proof that where forces are ready and able to make the change, and where there is an environment in which continuous performance improvement is welcomed, then police forces and police officers themselves can be the most effective champions of better working practices and better customer service.

It underlines for us that the importance of leadership in policing – a clear area of focus for the green paper – lies not just in operational skills, but in the suite of business and executive skills you need to succeed in a complex modern organisation. Not just at the top, but throughout the ranks.

And let me say this: to show leadership and improve performance, you don’t need to rebel against the Home Office, as some newspaper reports would have it.

On closer inspection, there’s quite often something missing from these stories. The bit that says that the Whitehall targets being rebelled against had already been scrapped, or were never there in the first place. The bit that says the pilot schemes to reduce bureaucracy were actually part of our joint efforts.

We've taken action

In case there’s any cause for doubt, we’ve listened to you on targets, and we’ve acted: 

• We used to set targets for every crime for every area of the country – but now we are only seeking to agree targets on serious crimes, and only then in those areas that face the biggest challenges.
• We used to ask forces to supply more than 80 pieces of information to the Home Office. We are committed to cutting that, and over the summer we are consulting on 11 initial candidates that you have proposed should be deleted.
• While offences brought to justice targets meant that more victims received the justice they deserved, we listened when you said that it also meant the theft of a milk bottle counted as much as a serious crime – and that target is no more.
• And following your feedback, gone are the days when the Home Office monitored the rates of bicycle theft in forces.
• We are helping forces to cut the length of their forms, and getting rid of stop and account forms altogether, ensuring you can use Airwave instead.
• And we are paying for a further 10,000 hand-held computers, letting officers check a person’s identity on the PNC and force systems, and meaning that they can complete crime reports during the shift, so that they don’t have to double-key information.    

As Sir Ronnie made clear with two words – 'risk aversion' – government is not the only source of bureaucracy.  If that sets out a challenge for us all to respond to, you will find me a supportive partner. Where I can help, I will.

But I don’t, for example, specify the length of stop and search forms. Those of you who do need to decide whether they are appropriate, and defend them – or decide that they’re not, and cut them. 

Strategic role for government

And so I agree with Ken Jones when he said last week that there is clear evidence that police forces can more widely be the architects of their own improvement. But as you all know, that’s a responsibility that can cut both ways – and requires a watchful eye on your own processes and those of other forces.

As you said last week, Ken, you want forces to 'fly'. I will say more about this in the green paper, but I welcome the challenge in ACPO’s submission that we should consider what we can learn from the lessons of foundation status in other parts of the public sector, where it has freed leaders to focus on driving up standards in the ways they judge most effective.

Last week, I was also struck by the parallels Sir Ian Blair drew between policing and health and education in his Colin Cramphorn Lecture, when he described 'the impulse of the last decade towards close, centrally managed delivery of targets'. 

Each sector has been on a journey ever since. To deliver improved performance that relies less on centralised targets, and more on professionalism of service – and more, importantly, on the internalisation into working practices of what it means to be professional.

While policing may be different to health and education – particularly in terms of arrangements to determine choice and contestability – it is certainly not immune to these pressures.

The role of the tripartite also sets us apart. And if there is to be a more strategic role for government, we also need to think more courageously about which elements of policing should be carried out at the national level.

As we have seen through national co-operation on counter terrorism, there are some things which the tripartite will always need a strategic overview on. 

Almost a year ago to the day, one of my first impressions of the police as Home Secretary was of your courage and professionalism in the face of the attempted terrorist attacks in Haymarket and Glasgow.

By the way, I’m pleased to say that, in this case at least, first impressions do last. Since then I have continued to admire the work you are doing in this area, and the progress we are making to enhance CT policing – increasing your capacity by a third and turning this new capability into a true Counter Terrorism Network.

There are clearly other areas where in capacity terms it makes sense to look much more closely at the case for mandating nationally – such as the potential for a national IT Strategy, as the National Policing Board discussed recently. Does it really make sense to have 43 different procurement strategies for 43 different systems?

There will always be a balance to strike between national, regional and local priorities.

Where we need to recalibrate that balance to meet new demands, we should review our legal and governance frameworks appropriately. And where there is an operational and business case for mandated collaboration, that should be considered.  

Conclusion

As we prepare the green paper, I believe we are now at a unique moment – at the beginning of an important new phase in how the government supports you and your forces in the service of the public.

Our crime strategy is now a year old, and from that has flowed a series of important and necessary actions – including measures to tackle violent crime, guns and gangs, drugs, youth alcohol, and – shortly – youth crime.

Underpinned by our new public service agreements, with a much reduced set of targets and a much greater focus on local concerns and seriousness, these actions depend on the key principle of letting local people set priorities, because we acknowledge that a top-down approach cannot take us the whole way from good performance to excellence.

The role for government now – as the green paper will make clear – is to take a more strategic role, with each of us focusing on the value we can best add and the most effective role we can each play.

Sometimes that may mean we disagree – I am clear, for example, that the public want to see us cutting crime not arguing about the basis of crime statistics – but the discussions we will have on the green paper over the summer will give us a clear focus on delivering ambitions that I believe we can all agree on, and that I believe we can all sign up to.

We all have a very strong sense of what the public want to see in policing.  Meeting those expectations are a shared challenge that as forces, authorities and government we must face together.

Continuing to improve our performance – by building public confidence, increasing local accountability, and delivering greater freedom at every level of every force – presents each of us with major opportunities.

Opportunities that I am confident we can deliver, and convinced that we can make the most of.