Being a Few Comments By A Lay Person on the Government Response to the Recommendations on Police Productivity

The government has responded to the recommendations of the Policing Productivity Review.? Productivity in policing is a difficult concept and there do not seem to be productivity indicators that are accepted by all interested parties.? We are therefore left with a collection of ‘good ideas’ and new initiatives.? I recall Baroness Casey’s warning about initiative overload but hopefully there is no shortage of good intent in the government’s proposals.

Like all of these things there is no substitute for reading the core documents but for the convenience of both of my readers I make the following observations.? These are personal and do not represent the views of anybody else.? There are better informed observers out there for anybody who is interested:

?

1.????? I do wish that the government’s responses to reports weren’t written as one long press release.? They often look, and this is a prime example, as if they have been crafted by an advertising agency or an estate agent.? The positives are emphasised and the problems are ignored or downplayed.? This is a serious subject and the police service is largely composed of adults.? Most lay observers are capable of digesting things other than soundbites.?

2.????? The response (and indeed the recommendations) are aimed only at the Police Act forces.? An easy target for improved productivity would be to acknowledge the existence of several thousand officers in Non Home Department Forces and to bring those officers into closer alignment with geographic forces.

3.????? Scotland is ignored.? Policing is a devolved matter of course but the opportunities for learning, sharing and procuring are simply ignored.? Ditto Northern Ireland.

4.????? It is not very clear how the Centre for Policing Productivity will differ from previous attempts to create centres of best practice etc in the College of Policing’s predecessors.? Best practice, value for money etc are not new.? However the new Centre may be a very useful addition.? The coming of a Policing Data Hub is to be welcomed, although its value will depend on the detail of its role and remit.? Good data is key to resource allocation and developing an improved strategic approach.

5.????? I have read the section on ‘enhancing the strategic approach to policing’ but I am not sure that it says anything that is likely to make a difference.?

6.????? The confirmation that the ‘New Burdens Doctrine’ applies to police forces as local authorities is significant.? This doctrine does not apply to existing burdens (including, for example, increases in crime) but only to those imposed by central government.? This is something to be closely watched by NPCC and CoP.? Governments have a habit of increasing the burdens on police forces – sometimes just via their legislative programme.? However the argument is that new laws fall to be enforced by the police service in the same way as old ones, they are never seen as falling under the doctrine.

7.????? There is a lot in the response about the better use of science and technology.? The basic idea is a welcome one.? Of course achieving consistency across forces is something that is in the gift of the Home Secretary but he has not chosen to exercise powers in this regard.? There is mention of the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics group.? There is no mention of the abolition of the Biometrics Commissioner.?

8.????? The section on ‘Police Officer Deployment and Welfare’ says very little and, apart from the section title, doesn’t address welfare at all.? One would have expected the much trumpeted police covenant to have an airing but it seems that for the purpose of this document ‘welfare’ equals ‘being at work’.??? Hopefully the Federations and the Superintendents’ Association will have something to say on this.

9.????? The ‘Investing in Training and People’ section says nothing at all.? Unusual in a response about productivity.?

10.? The work on aspects of the wider Criminal Justice System (ie the redaction burden etc) is a positive step.

11.? The mental health abstraction debate is a complex one.? The work that has been done by police forces has been largely positive.? I am not convinced that the ‘Dial 111 and select the mental health option’ is going to have much effect.? Nationally we remain in the middle of a crisis in mental health care and resourcing.? It is possible that the government actions described in the response will improve matters in the medium term.

?

I know that my comments are superficial and, reading through them, they are more critical (and cynical) than I intended.? The police service has been told for years that it should do more with less, that it should be more efficient, that it should seek best value.? Is improving productivity just another version of the same?? Freeing up police officers to carry out core duties (whatever they are) is important, but simple statements like ‘police forces should have a ‘robust workforce plan’ do not contribute a great deal.? Issues of culture, wastage, welfare and injury are just a few of the components not mentioned. Like everything that has gone before there are good things in these proposals that will outlive the current fashion.? This is how things progress of course. ??As always I would suggest that people should review the documents themselves and come to their own conclusions.? ?

?

Philip Trendall