Inspectorate relationship with College standards – letter

Published on: 10 February 2022

Contents

Print this document

From:
Sir Thomas Winsor WS
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary

To:
The Rt Hon the Lord Herbert of South Downs CBE PC, Chairman

Andrew Marsh Esq QPM,
Chief Executive
College of Policing

Sent on:
10 February 2022

Inspectorate relationship with College standards

In Fundamental review of the College of Policing, published today, you say: “HMICFRS must be clearer that the College sets standards against which it inspects, rather than seeking to develop standards through inspection, or to undermine the standards that have been set.”

2. I regret these terms.

3. The notion that the inspectorate is required to inspect against College standards, and that it is not entitled to establish its own view of police efficiency and effectiveness is, with great respect, fundamentally wrong both in law and in policy. It is misleading and needs to be corrected.

4. Section 54 of the Police Act 1996 requires the inspectors of constabulary to “inspect and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of every police force maintained for a police area”. It is therefore a matter for the judgment of the inspectors of constabulary what constitutes police efficiency and effectiveness. That has been the case since the enactment of section 15 of the County and Borough Police Act 1856, which created the offices of the inspectors of constabulary. Our remit, in this respect, has not changed since then.

5. In no part of police legislation, including the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 which makes extensive and exhaustive provision for the considerable powers and privileges of the College, is it provided that the jurisdiction of the inspectors of constabulary is limited in the way you have described. If Parliament had intended to curtail us, it would have made specific provision to that effect. It chose not to.

6. In our annual inspection programme and framework, we deal specifically with the relationship between College standards and the inspections we do. The programme says:

College of Policing standards are of very great importance to the improvement of policing and the achievement of consistency in practice. HMICFRS always takes the College of Policing standards, where they exist, into account in its design of inspections and its assessments of forces.”

7. In Inspection of the performance of Home Office police forces (published in October 2019), at paragraph 152 we say:

“There are few national standards for the measurement and assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces. Some practices are established by the College of Policing, and where they exist they are taken into consideration in the design of an inspection. However, whilst of course persuasive and deserving of considerable weight, College of Policing standards are not determinative of the standards of efficiency and effectiveness by which the inspectorate assesses forces.”

8. As you of course know, in many respects, the College has no standards. From time to time, the inspectors of constabulary make recommendations for the amendment of College standards, where we think they do not meet a particular problem. We also recommend the establishment of new ones. The inspectors of constabulary are not regulators. It is up to those to whom we make recommendations to act on them or not, as they see fit. In some cases, they are statutorily required to publish their reasons for not doing so, although the College is not so required.

9. Whilst I realise that the College may wish the jurisdiction of the inspectors of constabulary to be cut down as you have stated on page 19 of today’s document, I respectfully suggest that you need to persuade Parliament to do this.

10. So, in short, we do make judgments about what we believe are the relevant standards of police efficiency and effectiveness, taking full account of College standards. But until Parliament changes the law, the College is not the final arbiter of these things.

11. The notion that we seek to undermine standards which the College has set is simply not true. If you have any instance of the inspectorate undermining anything the College has done, please let me know. Saying a particular standard needs improvement is not undermining.

12. On this letter, the inspectors of constabulary are unanimous.

13. In the light of these explanations, I invite you to amend your document to correct what has been said about the inspectorate.

14. I am copying this letter to Martin Hewitt of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and to the Home Office, and placing a copy on the inspectorate website.

Back to publication

Inspectorate relationship with College standards – letter