House of Commons - New Landscape of Policing

New Landscape of Policing - Home Affairs Committee Contents

6 Collaboration

191. In this chapter we consider collaboration between police forces, and then collaboration with other partners, in both the private and the public sectors. We discuss the progress that has been made so far, the benefits and challenges involved, and the future for collaboration in the new landscape.[254]

Collaboration between police forces

PROGRESS SO FAR

192. We were interested in the potential for collaboration between police forces to offer the chance for those forces not only to operate more cost-effectively, but also to become more effective in their basic mission of preventing crime and disorder. We were also interested in the future of collaboration in the new landscape. Several police forces in England and Wales have collaborative agreements in place, but Kent and Essex Police have proceeded the furthest with collaboration. The arrangements for collaborative agreements between police forces are set out in section 23 of the Police Act 1996, hence they are often known as section 23 agreements. In addition to the joint agreements between Kent and Essex, which we discuss below, we were told by the two forces that section 23 agreements are currently in the process of being drafted for:

Kent, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk: for IT services;
Kent, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, City of London, and British Transport Police: for Project Athena (a crime/custody and intelligence IT system; see chapter 5 for more details); and
Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and Thames Valley: for a regional intelligence unit and regional asset recovery team.[255]

193. Kent and Essex Police began collaborating in 2007. At a joint meeting of the police authorities on 18 April 2007, a decision was taken to pursue "full collaboration on operational functions and support services, while maintaining operational independence."[256] Governance for the collaboration programme is provided by a Joint Statutory Committee, which comprises the Chairs, Vice-Chairs, and Performance Committee Chairs of both Police Authorities, supported by the Chief Executives and Treasurers of both Police Authorities, and both Chief Constables.

194. The collaboration encompasses a joint air support service, a joint IT directorate, a joint procurement unit, a joint serious and organised crime directorate, and internal audit.[257] The areas covered by the joint procurement unit are Project Athena, scenes of crime consumables, some police shirts, insurance, fleet, and landscaping services.[258] The collaborative working between Kent and Essex began informally, but later Kent and Essex signed a series of section 23 agreements. Air support services were the first aspect of joint working to be formalised: a section 23 agreement covering the provision by Essex police of air support services to Kent Police was signed on 1 April 2008. Section 23 agreements relating to serious crime, IT and procurement were signed on 30 September 2010.

195. Ann Barnes, the Chair of Kent Police Authority, said that the collaboration between the two forces "all dated back to the merger debate". At the time, Kent was in discussions about merging with the south east region forces, and Essex was in discussions about merging with the eastern region forces. Ann Barnes commented that she had observed to the then Chair of Essex Police Authority that the force profiles of Kent and Essex were "like for like" and that it would make more sense for them to collaborate. She said that they had "virtually the same population, the same demographics, the same coastline, the same criminality links".[259] Her initial conversation with the Chair of Essex Police Authority led to a scoping exercise in January 2007 to investigate the possibility of collaborating on operational functions and support services. This in turn led to the agreement in April 2007 to proceed with the collaboration programme. Ann Barnes commented:

both authorities and forces are equal sizes so there was no one force taking over another. It was a meeting of equals with a genuine desire, not just to save money but to be more resilient and to provide a better service for both our communities.[260]

196. When we asked whether Kent and Essex Police had received any assistance from the Home Office or the National Policing Improvement Agency in the initial stages of their collaboration, Ann Barnes replied: "No."[261] We then asked whether either the Home Office or the National Policing Improvement Agency checked how the collaboration was progressing. Ann Barnes replied: "I do not remember it."[262] Anthony Jackson, the Chair of Essex Police Authority, commented: "We did have some financial assistance running it as, if you like, a pilot of £500,000, but little else."[263] We commend Kent and Essex Police Forces and Authorities for their work in setting up collaborative agreements. We find it curious that there was not more interest in the project from the Home Office and the National Policing Improvement Agency, although the Agency itself was not formally established until April 2007 so was not in a position to provide assistance or advice in the early stages of the collaboration. At the very least we would have expected the Home Office to check regularly on how the project was progressing to ascertain whether there were lessons that could be learned for future collaborative projects between other forces.

THE BENEFITS OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN FORCES

197. Kent and Essex Police could point to clear financial and operational benefits from their collaboration. The collaboration programme aims to deliver £9 million of savings across the two forces by 2012. To put this in context, Kent Police Authority's net expenditure for 2009-10 was £274.5 million and Essex's was £260.343 million. Anthony Jackson, Chair of Essex Police Authority, confirmed that the forces were on track to achieve the £9 million savings target. He explained that this target was net of costs. He stated that the total savings so far were £6.3 million, but there were costs of £1.3 million, so the banked savings to date were about £5 million.[264] He commented that the savings were helping Essex "to close the funding gap". However, he also stated that less than 25% of the total savings that Essex would have to find as a result of the Spending Review would come from collaboration and said "the rest of it will come from work that we are doing ourselves."[265] The example of Kent and Essex provides some evidence that collaboration between forces offers scope for modest, but clear, financial savings. As we have commented before, modest savings are better than none. Collaboration by itself will not enable forces to make all the savings being required of them, but it could contribute towards them.

198. When we asked Assistant Chief Constable Gary Beautridge, who is Head of the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate, about the non-financial benefits of the collaboration, he replied:

I think they go across a very broad spectrum of operational activity, whether it is now having a 24 hours a day, seven days a week intelligence capability that sits across both forces; increased capability in terms of surveillance; having a critical mass in terms of major investigation teams so that I can move staff around two forces...[266]

He commented that despite a reduced number of staff in the major investigation teams and a number of very serious offences taking place, the two forces had been able to deal with the situations "very effectively indeed". He also stated that "there is a convergence in terms of both forces dealing with the upper end of criminality in terms of identifying and promulgating best practice."[267] He said that the journey came with some difficulties—we discuss these in the section on challenges below—but commented that "we are making rapid progress and things are going from strength to strength."[268]

199. Asked whether the close involvement of the two Police Authorities in driving the collaboration had challenged traditional notions of operational independence, Anthony Jackson, the Chair of Essex Police Authority, replied:

The answer must be yes, that is has made a difference...but it is very much...about the character and the personality of the people as to whether they are open to change and suggestions from the Chief Constable, through the Assistant Chiefs..down the ranks.[269]

Assistant Chief Constable Beautridge said that he chaired a management board on a monthly basis "where there are representatives of both Kent and Essex Police Authorities sitting on it and I welcome their input." However, he stated:

In terms of operational independence, the operational decisions sit with the Chief Constables of both forces. I brief the Chief Constables of both forces regularly and I have operational control of my staff, over 1,100 of them, to deliver against the targets and the plans that the police authority have played a vital role in setting, but operational independence sits with the Chief Constables.[270]

200. The operational benefits of collaboration, such as a greater critical mass and the sharing of best practice, are an equally powerful reason for encouraging collaboration between forces as the need to make savings. The example of Kent and Essex suggests that there is no cause for undue alarm about collaboration inappropriately undermining operational independence, although we note that this is just one example and the need to safeguard operational independence is certainly an important consideration to be borne in mind by other forces considering collaborative agreements.

THE CHALLENGES

201. Norfolk and Suffolk Police Forces and Authorities, who are also involved in collaborative work although they have not proceeded as far as Kent and Essex, wrote to us to emphasise that "collaboration is not an easy panacea."[271] Collaboration offers benefits, but it also poses challenges. One of the principal challenges was also touched upon by Kent and Essex: the reaction to the collaboration from police officers and staff, and from the public.

202. Speaking of the former two categories, Assistant Chief Constable Beautridge, Head of the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate, said: "initially there were a number of cultural differences that were identified and when different terms and conditions are applied to a new organisation it does not come without its own difficulties." He commented that "those difficulties are easier to manage from a police officer perspective than from a police staff perspective," and added: "the reality is that a number of police staff jobs were cut as we moved into this collaborative venture because with a critical mass we could do things in a different way."[272] He did state, however, that things had become "easier and easier" as the project went on, as a result of "an awful lot of necessary communication from senior management to staff to identify what the hurdles are and to try to deal with them in the most effective way".[273] Norfolk and Suffolk Police commented:

There is a need to challenge staff at all levels to develop a collaborative culture that is neither the Norfolk way nor the Suffolk way, and to show that collaboration is not a threat or a takeover, nor requires one force to simply adopt the other's way of doing things.[274]

The need to win the hearts and minds of police officers and staff is likely to be all the more acute when the forces involved are not the same size, because in those cases there is a danger that the collaboration could be regarded as a takeover.

203. Speaking about the public's reaction to the collaboration, Assistant Chief Constable Beautridge said that, from his own perspective, dealing with "the upper end of criminality", what the public wanted was "for the matter to be dealt with expeditiously, professionally, to a very high standard and for perpetrators to be brought to justice." He added: "They are not particularly bothered about whether someone is warranted in Essex or Kent. It is the level of service they get."[275] However, this may be less true of neighbourhood policing. When we asked Kent and Essex why they did not take their collaboration further and merge the two forces, Ann Barnes, Chair of Kent Police Authority, said: "Because our communities want their own police force on neighbourhood policing....People want their own Chief Constable, they want their own force, they want their own badge".[276] Norfolk and Suffolk Police commented:

How do we describe the service delivery to the public when it is delivered by collaborative units? Will the public understand joint branding? Who should they hold to account for the delivery when ultimately it is the responsibility of Norfolk or Suffolk Constabulary/Police Authority (soon to be Police and Crime Commissioner) depending upon which police area the activity falls within?[277]

204. For collaboration between police forces to succeed, it must have the backing of police officers and staff, and of the public the forces serve. The key to addressing this challenge is communication. The senior officers and staff who are involved in setting up the collaboration must focus from the outset on communicating, both to more junior officers and staff and to people in the local community, the benefits that collaboration offers. The public must also be told with clarity where ultimate accountability lies. Some initial wariness is to be expected, but the example of Kent and Essex suggests this can be overcome. We would expect Police and Crime Commissioners to have a central role in ensuring this.

205. Both Kent and Essex Police and Norfolk and Suffolk Police commented that there were some legislative constraints on collaboration. Andy Barker, Director of Information and Communications Technology for Kent and Essex Police, pointed to a difficulty with the joint procurement undertaken by the two forces. He said: "At the moment we are still separate legal entities, so when we are placing contracts we have to place separate contracts or at least have a framework agreement where we use call-off contracts from that framework agreement." He stated that this created both unnecessary bureaucracy and uncertainty among suppliers, who were not sure with whom exactly they were contracting. He commented: "it would be helpful to explore the options for creating a legal framework within which we can make procurement on behalf of multiple forces more efficient than it is today."[278]

206. Norfolk and Suffolk Police drew attention to a wider aspect of the legislative framework within which collaboration has to take place. It commented:

Powers granted by statute often refer to these being related to the relevant police area. It is not always straightforward for these to be discharged by staff or officers operating in a collaborative role, often requiring the relevant legislation to be checked carefully. For example, the power does not currently exist for Chief Officers to designate additional powers to police staff working outside of their force area (Police Reform Act 2002).[279]

207. We recommend that the Home Office review the legislative framework in which collaboration between police forces takes place with a view to ascertaining whether it could remove any obstacles that are making collaboration more difficult. In particular, we recommend that it consider whether legislation could be changed to make procurement on behalf of multiple forces more efficient.

208. The financial aspects of collaboration were also mentioned as a challenge by Norfolk and Suffolk Police. They commented: "Investment histories are different, for example Norfolk has invested substantially in the police estate in recent years, Suffolk less so but [it] is now in the advanced stages of an estates modernisation programme." They noted that, in their own case, "Police Council Tax levels are approximately 20% different ... This is historic and gives a perspective of 'unequals' to the public and acts as a localism barrier to the altruistic approach required (and legislated for) for true collaboration."[280] Police forces entering into collaborative agreements should be aware that differences in the financial histories and circumstances of both forces will need to be taken into consideration. The Home Office should explore whether it can offer any advice to forces on how to deal with this area, but ultimately, collaboration depends on a coalition of the willing and forces will have to be prepared to put these differences aside, as far as is possible, to achieve the benefits that collaboration offers.

THE FUTURE FOR COLLABORATION BETWEEN FORCES

209. Kent and Essex told us that they were planning additional section 23 agreements in the following areas: support services, marine services, and transport services. They also explained that they had run a National Collaboration Conference to share best practice and also ran taster days. Ann Barnes, Chair of Kent Police Authority, commented: "We have people beating a path to the door to find out what is going on in Kent and Essex."[281] As we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, several other forces are also involved in drafting section 23 agreements, mainly relating to IT. It would be fair to say, however, that overall collaboration between police forces in England and Wales is not progressing rapidly.

210. The future of collaboration between police forces will be directly affected by the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners, which is scheduled to take place in May 2012. Successful collaboration depends on individuals and the relationships between them. Norfolk and Suffolk Police agreed with Kent and Essex Police on this point:

In line with what the Chairs of Essex and Kent said, on a regional (and possibly national) basis collaboration has been shaped by relationships between Chief Officers and Authority members. This has influenced who business can be done with and the progress made.[282]

In one sense, the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners will make no difference to this situation: successful collaboration will still depend on people, albeit that in the place of the 17 members of a Police Authority there will in future be one Police and Crime Commissioner.

211. We are not convinced that having individual Police and Crime Commissioners will lead to reckless decision-making about collaboration, any more than having individual Chief Constables does at present. In practice, we anticipate that no Police and Crime Commissioner would decide to proceed with a collaborative agreement without considerable thought and advice. We would also point out that no single Police and Crime Commissioner could embark on a collaborative project on their own. By definition, the decision would have to involve at least one other Police and Crime Commissioner and two Chief Constables. In addition, each force will have a Police and Crime Panel, consisting of representatives of the local councils, and we believe they should have a strong role to play in developing and managing collaborations.

212. There is, however, a different way in which the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners may have an impact on collaboration. Police and Crime Commissioners will be locally elected by people in the force area. Norfolk and Suffolk Police commented: "The PCCs [Police and Crime Commissioners] are being given a 'localism' agenda, with local decision making, which could conflict substantially with the simultaneously promoted collaborative agenda".[283] They stated that collaboration involved the need to align performance frameworks and reporting arrangements as much as possible to reduce bureaucracy and provide clarity for staff and added:

Localism may, however, continue to require and drive differences, complicating the performance landscape for collaborative units. The performance of Norfolk and Suffolk is becoming inextricably linked to the performance of the collaborative units...How does this play out against the localism agenda of the soon to be directly-elected Police and Crime Commissioners?

213. The fact that Police and Crime Commissioners will be directly elected by people in their local police force area does not necessarily mean that they will be any less willing to enter into collaborative agreements than Police Authorities. Indeed, it almost certainly means that any Police and Crime Commissioners who do enter into collaborative agreements will be particularly keen on conveying the benefits of the agreement to the public, which could be an advantage, and Police and Crime Commissioners may also have a greater incentive to make savings since the level of the police precept will be one of the most visible indicators of their performance to their electorate. However, it does change the landscape in which future collaborative agreements will take place. We welcome the fact that the draft Protocol specifies that Commissioners have a wider duty to enter into collaboration agreements that benefit their force area and deliver better value for money and enhanced policing capabilities.

214. Collaboration between forces offers clear benefits, both financial and operational. The Home Office should be more active in encouraging and supporting forces to collaborate with one another—for example, by bringing Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Officers together to discuss collaboration. Certainly without such intervention collaboration between police authorities and forces outside Kent and Essex has taken place in a piecemeal fashion and at a slow pace.

Collaboration with other partners

COLLABORATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR: PROGRESS SO FAR

215. We were interested in collaboration between police forces and the private sector not only because we wanted to know whether it offered forces the opportunity to make financial savings, but also because we wanted to ascertain whether it would free-up officer time, enabling officers to focus on their basic mission of preventing crime and disorder. There is a distinction to be drawn between police forces engaging with the private sector to procure particular goods or individual services, which we discussed in our chapters on procurement, and the wholesale provision of entire categories of services by the private sector. The latter form of collaboration is our main focus in this section. Many of the existing examples of such collaboration relate to so-called back-office functions. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary defines back office functions as encompassing "support services (such as finance, information technology, human resources)". It describes middle-office functions as "managing or supporting those in visible and specialist roles, running police-specific processes (such as answering emergency calls from the public, holding prisoners in custody, processing intelligence.)"[284]

216. One of the largest-scale examples of collaboration is the 10-year shared services partnership contract between Steria and Cleveland Police Authority. The contract involves Steria providing support for Cleveland Police's control room and community justice functions, as well as back office functions. It is the scale of the contract and its extension beyond the back office into criminal justice that make it particularly interesting. Tracey Lee, Head of Emergency Services at Steria, described the distinction between back and middle office functions as follows:

a back office is a commodity area, so it is easy to apply best practice from other areas from day one. So that is available from a number of other companies as well as Steria. I think then as you move forward, HR, I think in policing is slightly different because it is a police-based organisation, it drives deployments, so that kind of straddles the line, if you like. Then in the middle office area some look at criminal justice processes, which is case management.[285]

217. Steria, which already provides services, on a less extensive scale, to nearly 60% of UK police forces, and works with other public sector organisations such as the NHS, commented that it believes that "partnering with the private sector is an invaluable tool in helping the Police address the challenge of the Comprehensive Spending Review, whilst improving Police capability and strength." It added: "It is therefore our view that a 20% overall saving is achievable without detriment to the Police's operational effectiveness." It commented: "The savings are delivered through a combination of IT enablement, process improvement and staff training and development."[286] Steria's view that collaboration between police forces and the private sector could achieve savings was shared by some other witnesses. For example, LGC Forensics, the largest independent provider of forensic science services to police forces and other law enforcement agencies in England and Wales, stated: "Given the straitened public finances, we believe that greater collaboration between the private sector and the police forces of England and Wales will be the key to achieving more for less."[287]

218. Steria's partnership with Cleveland is in its early stages: the contract was signed on 1 July 2010. However, Steria stated that the contract would deliver "a minimum of £50m saving." It included a table in its evidence showing the savings:

Table 5: Savings in £'000s per annum from Seria's shared services partnership contract with Cleveland Police Authority

Function Pre-contract cost (in £'000s per annum) Percentage of total budget Savings against pre-contract cost (in £'000s per annum) Savings as percentage of pre-contract cost Saving as a percentage of Total Budget

Control Room £5,800 4.1% £1,750 30.2% 1.3%

Criminal Justice £3,200 2.3% £800 25.0% 0.6%

ICT £3,300 2.4% £800 24.0% 0.6%

Business Support £9,550 6.8% £1,650 17.3% 1.2%

Total £21,880 15.6% £5,000 22.9% 3.6%

Source: Steria's written evidence, Ev120

219. Steria commented: "The savings represent a reduction in the direct cost of delivering these services and include the release of 115 officers from back and middle office functions." It stated that, in addition, a "substantial amount of police officer time is being freed up, through improving processes and reducing the burden of bureaucracy by transforming the use of ICT by Cleveland Police." It stated: "This benefit is estimated as an increase of 10% in the efficiency of the police officers—the equivalent of 170 full time roles which in turn equates to 6.1% of the overall police budget."[288]

220. The Police Federation gave a different perspective on Steria's partnership with Cleveland Police Authority. The Police Federation's written evidence acknowledged that "savings can be made in the provision of 'back office' function by private sector organisations." However, it added: "We have seen examples where forces bring in private companies to provide a service only for them to subsequently put extra pressure on and increase the workload of, the officers they were supposed to assist."[289] When we asked for specific examples, the Police Federation replied: "An example of particular concern to the Federation is that taking place Cleveland." It commented:

In theory this partnership could see the lives of officers made easier as systems are streamlined and the burden of their workload shared with support staff. However, the reports we are receiving about the reality of the situation paint a very different picture. What appears to be happening is that far from making officers' lives easier, their burden has apparently increased.[290]

221. The Police Federation's evidence includes several, anonymised comments from officers in Cleveland Police. One officer commented on the amount of HR information that they are required to input into the IT system, stating: "It could be argued that we did these things on paper however it was a case of initial form filling then passing to admin, we are now fulfilling the admin role." An acting Detective Inspector is quoted as stating: "Collecting evidence from doctors (copies of medical records) etc—this was done by clerks at [Criminal Justice Unit] originally now it's back on [Detective Constables] as Steria will not get involved in the evidence chain." The local Police Federation representative is quoted as saying: "We have little or no resilience, morale is rock bottom, and performance is dipping..."[291]

222. The comments reported to the Police Federation do not represent a scientific assessment of how the contract with Steria is affecting officer time in Cleveland Police. They are anecdotal evidence, on a small scale, but they do cause us some concern. At the very least, they suggest that the picture Steria presents of saving substantial sums of money without having any impact on operational effectiveness might not be quite as straightforward as it seems.

223. The picture we were given of another collaborative project with the private sector was equally mixed. Avon and Somerset Police Authority told us that it was a founder member of "a Joint Venture Partnership (SouthWest One Ltd) with two local authorities and IBM, designed to provide modern, co-ordinated and flexible back office services." The Authority stated that the arrangement was entered into in 2008 and that it was "contracted to receive £15 million in procurement savings over the 10 year life." It stated: "SouthWest One are now predicting that they will exceed this target by at least 33%. Bringing private sector procurement expertise, economies of scale and utilising categories management plans have been the key to achieving these improvements."[292]

224. However, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset, contacted us to say that parts of the evidence we received from Avon and Somerset Police Authority were "misleading". He stated: "The Authority suggests that South West One is 'contracted' to receive £15m in procurement savings over a ten-year period. The contract makes no such promises." He also commented: "Current actual savings (£5m) to Avon and Somerset Police in South West One are...more than wiped out [by] £8.3m transformation costs."[293] The response from Avon and Somerset Police Authority stated: "The relevant part of the South West One Transformation Contract refers to £15m assured procurement savings." It commented:

Mr Liddell Grainger refers to start up costs. Our submission referred specifically to procurement savings rather than an overall net saving position for the project as a whole and we stand by the figures presented. There are a number of costs involved in the project as well as additional savings such as the savings predicted on delivery of the core service. These savings necessarily involve estimates and assumptions as it compares costs with the level services would have cost if the project had not been carried out however this analysis predicted that savings in excess of the original investments would be made on the core services (excluding procurement savings) and the service charge is still being reduced in accordance with this profile.[294]

225. Collaboration between police forces and the private sector was one element of our much larger inquiry into the new landscape of policing and we do not feel that we received enough evidence to comment in detail on the potential it offers. However, the evidence that we did receive convinces us that there needs to be further research in this area. We recommend that the Home Office either carries out this research itself, or commissions another body, such as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, to carry it out, to assess whether large-scale collaboration with the private sector offers forces the scope to make savings, whilst maintaining or enhancing operational effectiveness. The picture is far from clear at present. This is an emerging area and some research about the benefits and disadvantages would be helpful to forces who might be considering following Cleveland's example. The research should include consideration of the evidence from other countries.

COLLABORATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR: THE FUTURE

226. Some of our witnesses portrayed a future in which the private sector played a role in an increasing number of functions currently performed by police officers and staff. Terry Skinner, from Intellect, the UK trade association for the IT, telecoms and electronics industries, stated: "Our view is that unless you need a warranted officer to do a function, you could have public and private partnership to do every other role...".[295]

227. Lord Blair, the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, is now Non-Executive Chairman of BlueLight Global Solutions, which describes itself on its website as "an independent UK Limited Company providing a 'portal' to world class policing, criminal justice and national security expertise including counter-terrorism."[296] He described to us a future in which the Chief Constable is "a commissioner of policing services, some of which are direct—i.e. they are warranted officers working direct to him or her—and some of which are supplied by the private sector."[297] He commented that the Home Secretary had asked the wrong question when she asked Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to define back office, middle office and front line. He said:

The right question is this one: what policing functions are so critical to the relationship between the citizen and the state or so sensitive or so concerned with risk that they must be under the direct employment of the Chief Constable? As soon as you ask that question you remove all the issues about officer numbers and you start to say how policing could be best delivered.[298]

228. Steria had ambitious plans for the future. It commented that it was already in discussions to extend its partnership with Cleveland "to deliver even greater savings." It stated that it could extend the use of outsourced civilian staff to a number of other areas:

Crime Management - recording, categorisation, validation and analysis of reported crime;
Intelligence - analysis of crime patterns and nominals (known suspects, offenders, or persons of interest);
Support for Major Investigations - administrative support, taking voluntary statements, data and information analysis;
Event and Emergency Planning;
Prisoner Handling, processing of arrested persons following low level volume crime (interviews, statements, and processing up to charging);
Support for Economic Crime Investigations, computer forensics and on-line analysis;
Neighbourhood Safety, partnerships, schools liaison, mental health, and truancy;
Professional Standards, vetting and CRB checking;
Evidence Retrieval, scientific support, crime scene assessors and crime prevention.[299]

229. However, Steria also commented that there were a number of constraints that affected how it, and the market as a whole, could deliver outsourced services. It stated: "Such constraints include geographic constraints on delivering services, no-redundancy agreements, and local policies and procedures." It suggested that if such constraints were to be relaxed, greater efficiencies could be achieved:

For example, if Steria was able to deliver services using a truly shared, shared service centre, either specifically focused on the needs of police forces, or shared with other organisations much greater economies of scale could be achieved. This approach could be extended to the use of offshore services for some back-office and support functions such as transactional HR functions, finance and administration and IT service desk.[300]

230. When we asked Tracey Lee, Head of Emergency Services at Steria, whether she foresaw any risks in outsourcing services, she replied:

I think the risks in terms of practical delivery are marginal...We outsource financial information, personal information, which is equally sensitive to some of the police material. I think it is more a matter of policy and confidence that restricts the ability to look at offshore, and some of the discussions around local employment.[301]

She said that Steria did not actively advocate offshore solutions to police forces but had included it in its submission "to show the art of the possible".[302]

231. There were also two pieces of legislation that Steria commented "limit the extent to which partnering can deliver benefits": section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Steria stated:

Though intended as legislation to enable workforce modernisation, the Acts restrict a chief officer's ability to designate suitably skilled and experienced employees. The intent of the Act was to free up police officer time for core functions by making more effective use of support staff. A chief officer may designate a person who is employed by the police authority and under the direction and control of that chief officer. Clarifying this legislation to include those engaged through partner organizations would enable greater flexibility, creativity, service improvements and cost savings.[303]

232. We do not rule out the possibility that in the future an increasing number of functions performed within a police force might be provided by the private sector, leaving warranted officers to focus on the functions which they alone can provide. However, we remain cautious about advocating such an approach, given the lack of evidence about the advantages and disadvantages of even the current level of collaboration with the private sector. We cannot therefore currently recommend the relaxing of the constraints on collaboration, although we certainly recommend that the Home Office should consider these constraints, including legislative constraints, as part of its research.

233. BT Global Services commented: "The Government has exhorted police forces to collaborate and to work with other partners, but so far has not taken much positive action to ensure it happens."[304] It stated:

The Government could give more assistance to those forces which wish to collaborate. Most forces and police authorities enter collaborative ventures in a very cautious and risk adverse way. As a result they are progressing very tentatively down the route to collaborative working and will be slow to benefit from the service benefits and cash savings. The Home Office has a "Toolkit", but its content is in the form of very wide advice rather than the more precise procedural guidance that forces need as they travel down this route. BT is aware of how a number of forces are approaching collaboration; no two groups are trying to do the same thing in the same way. This is very wasteful both for the police service and the private sector.[305]

234. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice was initially fairly vague on the subject of the future of collaboration with the private sector. He noted that "a significant number of forces have outsourced their custody suites very successfully" and that Cleveland had gone still further in its partnership with Steria. He then said:

The question that I have asked is, are there greater opportunities to look at how savings can be driven beyond the traditional areas that we have looked at in the past, beyond just the back office, into these middle-office functions and even into the very broadly defined frontline functions.[306]

He did not, however, tell us the answer to this question. We would suggest that one of the reasons why the Government has not been more proactive in encouraging collaboration with the private sector could be that it is not yet sure how far this collaboration should extend.

235. The Minister later returned to the subject of collaboration with the private sector and gave us a slightly fuller sense of his views. He stated:

There should not be an ideological barrier to engaging with the private sector in the delivery of these functions. I think the test should be, will this make police forces more operationally effective? Will it deliver better value for money for the public? These decisions will be taken by chief constables and their police authorities at the local level. In the end, they will be local decisions about how resources are allocated, but it is something that we want to encourage a proper look at.[307]

236. Ultimately, decisions about whether to embark on large-scale collaboration projects with the private sector will, and should, be taken locally. However, Government has a role to play too, in providing some initial research that enables forces to take informed decisions. Questions such as "will it make the force more operationally effective" and "will it deliver better value for money for the public" are the right ones to ask, but it should not be left to individual forces to provide all the answers. Both police forces and the private sector need more clarity about how this aspect of the landscape of policing is likely to develop in the future and it is for the Home Office to provide this clarity.

COLLABORATION WITH THE PUBLIC SECTOR

237. The Local Government Association commented: "Collaboration is vital if crime is to be reduced...The LGA believes that the police cannot combat crime by themselves, and we are not alone in taking this view."[308] The Local Government Association is certainly not alone in taking that view. The evidence from our policing poll suggests that the public want the police to collaborate with other agencies in tackling a number of areas of crime, including alcohol-related crime, anti-social behaviour, criminal damage, environmental crime and road traffic offences.

238. The Local Government Association gives a number of examples of how collaboration between the police and other public sector authorities is already working well. These examples fall into two main categories. First, there is the work currently being carried out by Community Safety Partnerships, which involve the police and local councils working together with other key partners such as voluntary organisations, the NHS and the local fire and rescue service, to reduce crime and disorder in their areas. Secondly, there are specific individual projects involving the police and other public sector organisations, such as Lancashire Constabulary's partnership with Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service and the North West Lancashire Ambulance NHS trust to introduce emergency services community support officers, who operate in rural areas of the county and allocate 60% of their time to the police and 40% of their time to the fire and rescue service.

239. On Community Safety Partnerships, the Local Government Association said that it welcomed "the Home Office's commitment to partnership-based approaches, and the freeing of partnerships from bureaucracy." However, it stated that it was concerned that "the introduction of police and crime commissioners will undermine partnership working." In particular, it was concerned that Police and Crime Commissioners would not be a part of Community Safety Partnerships, although they would have a duty to co-operate with them. It also commented that the funding "previously available to councils from the Home Office through the Area Based Grant has now been brought together into the Community Safety Fund." It stated: "The amount available to councils has been reduced by 20% in 2011/12 and will be reduced by a further 40% the following financial year, before then being handed over to Police and Crime Commissioners from 2013." It added:

Due to the scale of the cuts and the fact there is no guarantee of any funding being available from Police and Crime Commissioners once they are in place, many councils are looking to fund their community safety activity directly. The likelihood is that this will create a degree of separation between the activities of councils and Police and Crime Commissioners in the future, as councils concentrate on addressing their own local priorities and Police and Crime Commissioners directly commission the services they believe are needed in their force area. [309]

240. We reiterate the point that we made in our report on Police and Crime Commissioners. Our sister Committee, the Justice Committee, found that authorities and agencies other than the police, and indeed outside the criminal justice system altogether, have the ability to reduce both the number of people entering the criminal justice system in the first place and the likelihood of reoffending. We therefore consider that it will be vital for each Police and Crime Commissioner to support and drive the work of Community Safety Partnerships. We are encouraged by the Government's inclusion in the draft Protocol of a reference to Commissioner's responsibility to bring together Community Safety Partnerships at the force level.

241. Of the larger-scale specific projects that the Local Government Association discussed, it commented: "Back office, data management and business support functions could be taken up in partnership with other organisations, including...councils, fire and rescue services, and the ambulance service." It added: "collaborative working can go further than this, including merging of community safety units covering both staff and functions with the co-location of these teams being a key feature".[310]

242. The Local Government Association stated:

It is clear that there are already many examples of collaboration taking place. It is also clear that the diverse nature of these collaborative schemes means that police and their partners need to look at all possible methods and partners to bring about co-operation that will improve policing and save money.[311]

This is an appropriate quotation on which to end our chapter on collaboration, because it draws attention to the many different types of partnership working that the terms encompasses.

243. Collaboration is a generic term for a wide variety of different partnerships. To take just one example, a police force looking to form a partnership to deliver back office functions such as finance could collaborate with another police force, with a local council or another public sector body, or with a private sector organisation. Different types of collaboration are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it would be possible, for example, for the same police force to collaborate with a neighbouring force on IT provision, and the local fire and rescue service on community safety. However, there does come a point when one type of collaboration makes another type more difficult. For example, Cleveland's partnership with Steria would make it hard for Cleveland to collaborate with another force on, say, the provision of a joint serious and organised crime directorate. Decisions about which approach to adopt should be taken locally, but they are strategic decisions, with long-term impacts and the Government should provide assistance in the form of research and advice to enable forces to assess the various merits of the different approaches.

254 It should be noted by way of declaration of interest that Mark Reckless, MP for Rochester and Strood and a member of the Committee, was a member of Kent Police Authority from June 2007 - May 2011. Back

255 Ev188 Back

256 www.essex.police.uk/about/kent_and_essex_collaboration.aspx Back

257 Ev187 Back

258 Ev188 Back

259 Q 515 Back

260 Ibid. Back

261 Q 518 Back

262 Q 519 Back

263 Ibid. Back

264 Q 522 Back

265 Q 523 Back