Agenda item

The Chair introduced Adam Pemberton from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). HMIC had been leading a debate in policing circles about how the service should address further budget reductions, and had also introduced a new assessment process for police forces entitled ‘police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy programme’ or ‘PEEL’.

Adam Pemberton explained that following the publication of HMIC’s ‘Policing in Austerity: Meeting the Challenge’, a National Debate Advisory Group had been formed to lead the debate. The Group were looking at how forces had dealt with 4/5 years of austerity and the necessity to rethink how services were delivered if austerity continued for a further period. Police and Crime Commissioners, unions, the private sector and staff associations had been involved in the debate, with two large scale events having taken place to consider the issues. There was a consensus that the police needed to build capability, have an increased focus on online and digital crime, and work more on a cross-force basis. Preventative and reactive neighbourhood policing should be preserved, as should the requirement to work closely with local partners. The Group’s work would be passed on to Home Office Ministers and civil servants to continue the dialogue with government.

Regarding the programme of PEEL inspections, the aim was to draw together a rounded assessment of the breadth of policing. Work was ongoing to develop a full PEEL inspection to publish in 2016, with a focus on efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy. The efficiency strand of work was almost complete. The legitimacy strand would focus on the consent of the public, and the question of whether forces worked in a fair way.  Work on effectiveness was the largest piece of work, as it related to how forces dealt with victims, vulnerable people, serious organised crime, and how effective the police were in investigating crime. The full assessment should be complete by February 2016.

In the discussion on the report, the following issues were raised:

• The LGA had been represented as part of the debate on policing in austerity, and HMIC would continue to work with local government as the debate continued.
• Members raised concern that the final report on PEEL would be published only a few months before the Police and Crime Commissioner elections in 2016. Adam Pemberton explained that the report could not be published any later for that reason.
• Members wondered how the inspections would drive more integrated working between the police and local government given there was a question about the role of HMIC in looking at the relationship the police have with partners. They also expressed a wish for local authorities to be involved in the stakeholder group looking at the legitimacy strand of the PEEL framework.
• The Policing in Austerity report did not set out all the answers to how the police service could be funded going forward as it was aimed as a discussion paper. The next stage of the work would then look at what the local integration should look like.
• Local authorities would not want more inspections, so it was important for HMIC to help partners work more effectively. Local authorities were already working well with the police on tackling anti-social behaviour and the night-time economy.
• Consideration should be given to areas where, as a result of a contracting public sector, police first responders were dealing with emergency medical care as ambulances took longer to respond.
• The police could not deliver value for money until it addressed the issue of the number of forces and force mergers. Consideration should be given to how the boundaries of Police and Crime Commissioner areas would work if forces were to merge.
• Counter terrorism should be moved to a national level to achieve more savings at a local level.
• The idea of providing forces with greater financial flexibility should be explored, including the possibility of local sponsorship for particular programmes of work. Forces were in different positons in respect of funding, through precept or other local sources, but all fundraising methods should be considered and the Home Office were looking at this nationally.
• There was a need for more blue light collaboration, but the idea of having fire and rescue services under Police and Crime Commissioners was unhelpful for local government.
• When the report from the National Debate Advisory Group on policing in austerity was published there would be a requirement for the Board to consider what devolution would look like in the context of community safety.
• Inspections were time consuming for police forces, but HMIC was continuing to work to ensure that they were as effective as possible.

The Chair thanked Adam Pemberton for attending the meeting and commented that local government would continue to pay its part in working with the police at local and national level.

Decisions

·         The Board noted HMIC’s work on policing in austerity and the inspection of police forces.

·         The Board agreed that the new Board should consider the report from HMIC’s National Debate Advisory Group when it was published.

Action

·         Officers to update the Board on HMIC’s work on the national debate and PEEL when the current work was complete.