Police Recorded Crime Statistics

Debate between Lindsay Roy and Norman Baker

Thursday 16th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Norman Baker]

It is certainly right for PCCs to—how can I put it?—set the background music for their area. For example, in my area, the PCC has made it very plain that she thinks that tackling domestic violence and domestic abuse is an important issue, and I think that she is both within her rights to do so and, indeed, right to have made that a priority. However, giving a clear steer that she expects the police in Sussex to make tackling domestic violence a priority is quite different from saying, “You must have a certain number of convictions or prosecutions.” That approach would lead to perverse behaviour. Giving a steer without setting a target is probably what I would expect PCCs to do, and my local PCC does that in Sussex on that issue.

The difficulty with targets is that, if we put down the track, that is the way the train goes—if I can revert to a previous ministerial role in saying that—and the train does not always end up at the terminus where we would want it to end up. So we have given chief constables genuine operational independence by scrapping national targets. Of course, chief constables have a responsibility to ensure that crime recording in their force is accurate, whether or not their PCC has set local targets. Accuracy is vital, both to ensure that data are robust and—more importantly—to ensure that victims of crime are getting the service they deserve.

Although HMIC’s interim report did not find written evidence of performance pressures leading to failures in crime recording, it did not rule that out. The final report will include the results of a survey of police officers and it may reveal that officers sometimes feel under performance pressure to misreport crimes. Obviously, if that is what HMIC concludes, we will pay close attention; clearly, it cannot be right if such behaviour does exist. The only pressure that officers should feel is to perform for the public and to do their jobs well and with integrity.

Of course, there may also be some genuine human errors and cases where the police are legitimately exercising their discretion, but we have been clear that any officers who deliberately mis-record a crime are crossing a thick red line. Any officer suspected of falsifying crime figures should be investigated and, if it turns out to be the appropriate way forward, prosecuted.

Strong safeguards are in place to ensure that police recording of crime is accurate. Clear rules govern crime recording, and each force has a crime registrar who will arbitrate on crime recording decisions. The code of ethics is now established as a code of practice, and it has been distributed to all officers and to staff of all ranks. It sets out a clear declaration of the principles and standards of behaviour that are expected. It actively promotes ethical reasoning, which encourages officers and staff to question and challenge both themselves and others, and to make ethical decisions in the policing context. Changes have been made to Home Office guidance to ensure that breaches of the code could amount to misconduct.

In drafting the code, the College of Policing was of the firm belief that the code would be counter-productive if it drew up a list defining what each officer and member of staff should and should not do. However, an exception was made in respect of compliance with the national crime recording standard, which was included as a specific example to reinforce the importance of integrity in the recording of crime. If an officer or member of police staff deliberately or negligently fails to comply with the national crime recording standard, the degree of failure will be considered and appropriate misconduct action will be taken.

Members—not least the Chairman of the Committee—referred to whistleblowing. Forces locally have their own systems in place to allow officers to blow the whistle. Officers can report a concern directly to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, as I confirmed to the Chairman in a letter in April, and they can do so under any circumstances. The IPCC has a national dedicated hotline, and as I mentioned to the Chairman when he raised these matters with me earlier in the year, officers can use it with a degree of anonymity, should they wish to do so.

On 22 July, the Home Secretary announced plans to strengthen protections for whistleblowers in the police. In the first instance, the Government will create a single national policy for police forces on whistleblowing to set out best practice and ensure consistency of approach across all forces. Forces will also be required to publish information on the number of conduct issues raised by officers and staff and on the action taken by the force as a result.

A public consultation later this year—by definition, it is not that far away—will consider a range of further proposals to protect police whistleblowers. In a letter to the Chairman of the Committee, I set out—as the Home Secretary did in a letter of 7 April—some of the options being considered as part of that work.

[Lindsay Roy]

Will the Minister explain what steps have been taken to minimise the need for whistleblowing?

[Norman Baker]

That is a very wide question, which goes beyond the reporting of crime statistics, but, as we have made plain through the College of Policing—my colleague the Policing Minister has taken a clear lead on this—we are looking at police integrity. The Home Secretary has not been backward in coming forward in addressing the issue in her speeches. We are determined to drive up performance in the police and to eliminate bad practice. I hope that will reduce the need for whistleblowing, but it does not reduce the need for a proper channel for whistleblowing, as and when it is deemed appropriate by an individual officer exercising his or her conscience genuinely about an issue in the police force.