Find out more
Neyroud report - Review of Police Leadership and Training
The Neyroud review into Police Leadership and Training was commissioned by the Home Secretary in August 2010. His report was made public in March 2011, the Home Secretary offering a 3 month consultation period to the 28th June 2011 for responses. (Peter Neyroud QPM is ex CC Thames Valley and latterly before his retirement in December 2010 was as a Chief Constable the CEO of the NPIA).
This report must not be regarded in isolation to either Hutton or Winsor’s reviews. The links are quite complex and not easy to follow without delving into a broad appreciation of how the strands might be blended together. It’s also important not to dismiss the impact of local Police and Crime Commissioners, the relevance of which is a key issue, but the interaction and engagement , or rules for their input and influence is most certainly unclear.
The difficulty in gaining a good appreciation and sound knowledge of what all this means for the future of policing and answering the many questions are that these reports are a piecemeal approach. Although they are inevitably connected, it’s challenging to work through the myriad of issues without reaching a satisfactory conclusion. There is so much detail missing or not clear, such is the fact that we are trying to deal with a blurred picture of the overall landscape, which is seriously unhelpful for such a critical area of proposed reform, especially as the second Winsor part two report (not due to be published until January 2012) we expect to be hugely relevant. Put simply we are trying to piece together a jigsaw with many pieces missing and short of some pictorial guidance.
Neyroud’s report focuses on two volumes, one covering the review, the second containing appendixes etc. Both of which need time to read and digest. It is a conceptual theoretical aspiration to create a Professional body for Policing, which would be the first of any Police force in the World.
There are perhaps three basic issues in coming to terms with this report – quite simply the overarching structure and strategic imperatives regarding organisational reform and how the Police service might look like in a few year’s time is one critical area. The second is the detailed bits – in simple terms – how will it all work or operate as a unit, who does what, where and when, and of course importantly, what do these things mean for you as an individual? The third and final issue is the Governments need to deal with the current economic situation, which has an impact on Police budgets as we all know.
The driving force for change seems to be the Governments desire to reform and abolish ACPO as a body. Lets not forget that in their 2010 response to the Coalition government’s White Paper – “Policing In The 21st Century” –North Yorkshire Police Authority made the following comment “ACPO needs to move on reputationally from its existing status. Perceived as an unaccountable, vested interest pressure group, concerned more with income generation and protecting the interests of its members than on improving policing.”
Whilst in their submission the Association of Police Authorities went ever further when they said:
“The public are confused about the purpose, role, and functions of ACPO. ACPO has had a multitude of responsibilities handed to it over the years by successive Home Office ministers and it has developed into a functional hybrid. It seems wholly inappropriate to extend the power, role and influence of what is currently a private company over all aspects of policing. As an operational entity, a private company and a staff association, which represents in the region of only 300 out of a total of over 100,000 police officers we have concerns about ACPO’s stated purpose that it ‘ leads and coordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland’.”
The second big driver is to abolish the NPIA.
Then of course, the consequences of Neyroud link directly to both Winsor and Hutton. Neyroud might be regarded as the methodology and substantial structural building blocks for institutionalised change. Again binding all this together is the push for fiscal tightening.
However, the speed at which the Government want to see reform of ACPO the NPIA and consequently policing seems to be the haste by which a Professional body is to be introduced. This does not make for good logic, without a well thought through and fully engaged and meaningful process of considering the wider proposals and outcomes.
The initial structure of the Professional body will therefore blend both ACPO as a body and the NPIA under one area of governance and control that is the Police Professional Institute. The proposal is that the President of such a body will be a Chief Constable. Who that might be is not stated, but perhaps we could see it being the President of ACPO?
Given the mechanics of how the body will work, it’s purpose, structure and overall control in terms of governance and general management, whilst setting the standards, and in light of historical failings by ACPO to get a grip of governance and control, should we not question whether it is appropriate or desirable that the head of this organisation should be a Chief Constable?
The premise of enhancing and developing leadership and development training is certainly very laudable and needs every piece of support if managers and supervisors of the future of all ranks have a chance of meeting policing demands and expectations. The Police Federation has long been critical of the disinvestment and general disregard over far too many years in this area of necessary professional requirements. But is a professional body is the right approach and solution?
The report considers the need for reform and change, but are we sure whether with all that’s going on we need this review now?. There is much change happening through Winsor and Hutton, Police Crime Commissioners as well as massive changes due to tighter fiscal demands and legislative changes through the Crime and Social responsibility bill, currently winding its way through Parliament, all add to potential chaos and unprecedented risks.
Are we ready for or do we need a Professional body to regulate what we are all supposed to be - professional Police Officers doing a highly regulated and disciplined job? And can we be sure of the general approval of the way this new body is likely to work, without having reasonable and sensibly argued concerns or considerations of the cause/effect relationship.
There are expectations that this professional body will be up and running fully structured by 2013/14 with a membership base approaching up to 200,000 in due course. It appears obvious that operating costs will be borne by the membership, which will comprise all serving Police Officers and seemingly a sundry of many others, who will be other than warranted Police Officers, details of which are not clear.
Annual membership, at various grades, is proposed at £50 for Constables, £75 for Sgt’s and Inspectors and £100 for Ch Insp’s and Superintendents. ACPO members would pay £250 per annum.
It will be a requirement for all Police Officers to be a member of the Professional body, seemingly the Government will legislate to make this happen!!. How comfortable should we be with this, because the detail of how it will be regulated or how specialist skills etc will be managed and what requirements are necessary is unclear. Furthermore, why legislate?
Inevitably this Institute would present an opportunity to save significantly on Police Officer training costs, such that who delivers what, to whom, at what cost and by whom, is critically short on detail, other than an emphasis on greater engagement with Higher and Further education establishments. This in itself raises a host of many unanswered questions, least of which is a person’s ability to pay or find the funding. The Student Officer training programme will be re-structured so that potential applicants for a Police Officer will have to pay to pre qualify. This is predicated on substantial savings, but the devil is always in the detail. What is not clear is the impact this will have on the recruitment programme and who might wish to join and what reasons prevent others from participating?
The report quite rightly mentions Police Officer promotion needs and there are proposals to change from the current OSPRE system to reconnect professional development with promotion through professional management qualifications. Hence there will need to be a transitional period of change from what we have today, to tomorrow’s expectations. There may be merit in this proposal and opportunities may well be a right move for the benefit of the service and individual, but the key is about managing expectation and delivering something better which reaches national and consistent standards. It is critical to ensure national standards are coherent, structured and properly accredited and managed, especially for the key roles in policing. The Federation have been long critical that both ACPO and the NPIA have consistently failed in this relatively simple task, because of no clear governance structure, working through 43 fiefdoms of control. The risk is – how can we be sure that the professional body will not in itself become a huge bureaucratic monster, with the greater share and cost of fees paid for by the membership, that simply fails to address the issues, whilst ever it is headed by Chief Officers?
The question as to whether the notion of a Professional Policing body is a good idea or not depends on which viewpoint is considered. However what is clear is that if we agree to the concept on the basis of many unknowns, then what the future and end product might look like is rather a challenging unknown – it’s a bit like driving in fog at the moment. Why you may well ask are the Government rushing headstrong into this without a proper assessment or allowing meaningful evaluation and discussion of the issues. Has the Chief Constable producing the report, been sufficiently independent and impartial enough, and without a proper engagement seen the bigger picture?
Does this concept take fully into account the necessity to consider the role and function of a warranted Constable?.
Are Federated ranks sufficiently prepared or aware of the implications, and how best can the Federation represent views from all ranks? Are Neyroud’s proposals the way forward?
The Federation are working their way through the issues, but it’s quite clear joined up thinking is not at the heart of reform. Neyroud presents many challenges, some very positive, some risky, some lacking substance or detail.
