Issues

In spite of record spending on law and order, crime remains far too high.  A more effective criminal justice system and social action will be important components of a new approach to fighting crime.  But the police are a vital link in the chain of justice, consuming two-thirds of law and order spending.  Their performance over the next decade will be essential in improving the quality of life of millions of citizens.

The Government’s approach to the police has been a familiar one: higher public spending combined with an ever tighter central grip.  Like other public services, the police are bedeviled with national targets, interference and the bureaucracy created by central intervention.  The result has been that even as resources for the police have reached record levels, officers feel unable to deliver the service they and the public want – and the gulf between the police and public is growing.

The hundreds of meetings we have had with police officers over the past months have reinforced our belief that the service is full of officers with a real commitment to delivering effective policing for the public.  Nevertheless, neither politicians nor the police can afford to ignore an undercurrent of public dissatisfaction about the level of policing which they are receiving.  Focus groups which we conducted for the Taskforce indicated sympathy for the difficulty of the task which the police face.  A general feeling, expressed by one participant, was that “their hands are totally tied – by red tape and political correctness”.  But there were also harsh words, reflecting an alienation from the service: “Your local bobby used to be known by everyone. He was an authority on the area and a friend. They are now obsolete”.  A familiar grievance was that the police appeared to pursue motorists with particular zeal: “You get pulled over for a driving offence and get treated like a complete criminal”.

This qualitative research is supported by quantitative evidence that trust in the police has declined and attitudes towards them are negatively related to personal experiences of the service.  The most recent survey, conducted by ICM for the TaxPayers’ Alliance, found that while the overwhelming majority of the public respects the police, less than a quarter think that policing in their area has improved, and less than half think that increases in council tax to pay for improvements to local policing in the last ten years have been good value for money.  Large majorities of the public agree that the police spend too much time in police stations and not enough time on the beat; their hands are tied by red tape and political correctness, and they prefer to focus on easy targets like speeding motorists rather than deal with antisocial behaviour and local crime.

The closure of police stations is emblematic of the withdrawal of the police from the public.  On paper, police officer numbers have increased – the police workforce has grown by almost 25 per cent in the last five years.  In practice, the public simply do not see it.  ICM’s survey found that most people think that there are fewer police on the beat than there used to be, and that nearly three quarters of the public know none of the police officers in their neighbourhood.  As we demonstrate, vast amounts of police time are spent tied up in stations; the police spend more time on paperwork than on patrol, and less than a tenth of England and Wales’ police officers are dedicated to neighbourhood policing.  If the amount of time a police officer spends on the beat could be increased from one fifth to two fifths, this would effectively double the police presence on the streets of England and Wales without recruiting a single additional officer.

For decades, an expert wisdom prevailed that high crime was inevitable and that policing could do little to prevent it.  There was no point in putting police officers on the streets, the argument ran, because it would do little to reduce crime.  Today such fatalism, which was never accepted by the public, has been debunked.  When more police were put on the streets of central London after 7/7, crime fell.  The success of New York City’s reductions in crime in the 1990s – recently described by one leading academic as “by far the biggest crime prevention achievement in the recorded history of metropolitan policing” (Franklin E. Zimring, The Great American Crime Decline, 2007) – demonstrates that good policing, which accounted for half of the 75 per cent reduction in crime in a decade, can make our streets safer.

The lessons of New York are important ones.  Better police performance was achieved by a combination of factors: a significant increase in police numbers on the streets, robust community policing, and powerful reforms which enhanced the accountability of managers.  The changes were driven by an elected Mayor who was accountable to the people, and an inspirational police chief who innovated and led his force.

Today the British police face the twin challenges of rebuilding community policing to tackle low level crime and antisocial behaviour, while at the same time strengthening the fight against serious crime and terrorism.  To meet these challenges it will be vital to ensure that the police are properly resourced in the future.  But they have never had so much money, so many officers or such access to technology.  Furthermore, the growth of spending on public services is now slowing; indeed the Home Office budget is to be frozen from next year.  The police face a new imperative to deliver value for money.

The Government seems incapable of providing the strategic leadership which is needed to ensure that the police can meet today’s challenges.  Since the collapse of its ill-judged proposal to merge forces, the Home Office has been at sea on police reform, promising a new vision of policing but instead delivering a weak and banal two-page statement of ‘values’.  It has cut back initiatives which would have had the most direct impact on providing a better service to the public, such as neighbourhood policing and the promised 101 non-emergency number.  It has provided little impetus on programmes such as sharing services, the development of police information technology or workforce modernisation – all crucial to delivering value for money in policing.  Its taskforce to reduce police bureaucracy has no director.

While in these critical areas the Home Office delivers too little, it interferes excessively in local management of the police, its central targets distorting professional priorities and damaging morale.  Crude targets to drive up detection rates have resulted in a leap in Penalty Notices for Disorder, which allow offenders, including serial shoplifters, to escape without a criminal record, yet which are recorded as offences brought to ‘justice’.  Ironically, the year which has seen the establishment of a new National Policing Board with the Home Secretary at its helm has also seen an increasingly incoherent strategy.  A new approach to redefine central government’s role in policing is essential.

We conclude that four key reforms are needed:

• The structure of the police must enable them to fight serious crime while enhancing and sustaining community policing.  This means either the existing 43 forces co-operating much more effectively, or a new national force taking responsibility for serious crime while much more localised forces focus on volume crime in their areas.

• The complexity and demands of modern policing mean that the workforce must be reformed to ensure that it is flexible, well trained and highly motivated, with a diverse range of skills and expertise.  A key goal should be to enhance the ability of police chiefs to manage their workforces.

• The police’s hands must be untied to give them the discretion they need and to release officers for front-line duties.  Forms and processes which do not help the police to deliver a better service to the public should be eliminated.  Central direction and targets should be replaced by locally accountable leadership and priority setting.  Civilian staff or the private sector should be employed to do jobs which sworn officers do not need to do, and the police ‘family’ should be extended.

• The police must be made properly accountable for their performance as well as their conduct, and their performance management framework must only reward activity that delivers a better service, not activity which keeps officers busy and ticks boxes.  The quid pro quo for reducing central intervention is strongly enhanced local accountability, with a new emphasis on more effective partnerships and the empowerment of communities to ensure their own safety.

Many of the proposals we set out are challenging. But we are convinced that they offer a better future for both police officers and the public:

• The police will be released to do the job they want to do, consistent with the Conservative Party’s key theme of trusting professionals.  Central interference will be minimised, professional discretion will be restored, and committed officers will be rewarded for their success.

• The public will benefit from localised policing which is more responsive to their concerns, giving them a real voice and control to ensure the safety of their communities.  Police officers will be returned to the streets where the public want to see them.

The founder of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel, famously said: “The police are the public and the public are the police”. Police forces grew out of the localities.  Restoring the accountability of the police to local communities will not only improve the fight against volume crime; it will be an important counterbalance to the areas where more effective national co-ordination of policing will be required, notably in relation to the development of technology and the fight against serious crime.  The empowerment of local communities in the fight against crime will be a substantial element of the renewal of civic life and the democratic process.  Above all, it will be an essential step towards rebuilding the bridge between the police and the public – and delivering lasting reductions in crime.