Update on our activism and impartiality in policing inspection

Letter information

From
Andy Cooke QPM DL
His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary
His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Fire & Rescue Services

To
The Rt Hon James Cleverly MP
Home Secretary

Sent on
10 January 2024

Background

As you are aware, in September 2023 the Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP commissioned us to carry out several inspections. These inspections are underway. I write now in connection with our inspection into activism and impartiality in policing.

Terms of reference

Following the commissioning letter from the Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP dated 1 September 2023, we have examined the following matters:

• how effectively police policies and processes comply with the obligations set out in the Equality Act 2010 and other related legislation and guidance;
• how such policies affect the police’s decision-making and subsequent outcomes;
• the suitability of training provided to staff to implement these policies and processes, as well as the suitability of the organisation(s) that provide this training;
• whether the recording of non-crime hate incidents since changes to police authorised professional practice, following the 2021 Miller case, has adversely affected operational decision-making;
• the value to the police of recording non-crime hate incidents;
• how effectively forces select and use advisory groups that influence force policies and processes;
• how effectively forces ensure impartiality when using advisory groups; how effectively they seek to obtain a range of views from groups (including those that may hold opposing views); and how effectively they take account of the views of those unrepresented in advisory groups;
• how effectively forces communicate with the public on matters such as police participation in political or social activities or campaigns, and how this affects public perceptions of the police; and
• whether there are systemic problems that prevent the police from being, or being seen to be, impartial – especially in contentious matters.

Our full terms of reference can be found at Annex A.

Your predecessor asked us to provide an update on our initial findings by the end of December 2023. The terms of reference include a wide range of complex themes, which we will explore in more detail in our final report. This letter sets out our initial findings.

So far, we have reviewed relevant documents from all 43 Home Office police forces. We have also carried out fieldwork in 12 police forces and interviewed national police leaders and representatives from a broad range of other organisations.

There is still a considerable amount of work to do. This includes further interviews, social media research, and surveys of the police and the public. This may mean that evidence may emerge that conflicts with the findings we offer in this letter; our findings will be set out in full in our report. Further details of our methodology for carrying out this inspection are found at Annex B.

Policies and processes relating to the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty

The Equality Act 2010 obliges the police not to do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation, both as an employer and in the exercise of public functions. In addition, by virtue of the Public Sector Equality Duty, forces must have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equal opportunity between those who share a protected characteristic and those who don’t; and
• foster good community relations.

All forces recognise their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. This is evident in the force policy documents and operational orders we have reviewed. Forces regularly use equality impact assessments to help them comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty, although forces don’t always complete equality impact assessments consistently or thoroughly enough.

The importance of the police engaging with communities to serve them effectively shouldn’t be underestimated; it is the bedrock of policing by consent. All the forces we inspected showed they had a good understanding of the diverse nature of their communities. Generally, they tailored their services, support, engagement and recruitment accordingly. But we did find examples of forces placing particular emphasis on those with certain protected characteristics (usually in respect of race, sex and sexual orientation). In so doing, forces risk discriminating against those with other protected characteristics, such as disability, age or some faiths.

As you will be aware, police forces often struggle to recruit and retain candidates from certain minority groups. For employment purposes, the Equality Act 2010 permits positive action, provided it is justified and proportionate. All the inspected forces use positive action, to differing degrees, to encourage and support recruitment and progression of those from under-represented groups. Some forces told us that they had dedicated positive action teams.

We have seen no evidence to suggest that current recruitment practice goes beyond what the legislation permits. Some officers and staff understood and welcomed their force using positive action. Others stated they did not. In forces where the workforce didn’t fully understand the principles of positive action, and sometimes confused it with positive discrimination, we found officers and staff who felt frustrated, resentful and disadvantaged.

Training

The Equality Act 2010 and its related guidance is a significant piece of legislation. Some of the topics it covers, such as gender and sex, are complicated — and how they apply in individual circumstances is contested. Much of this is the subject of emerging case law, which police forces and the College of Policing need to interpret and respond to swiftly.

There is a lack of clarity in how police forces understand and interpret this evolving legal framework. In particular, this is seen in the contested areas of: sex and gender reassignment; what constitutes a genuinely held belief; and when such beliefs are themselves protected under the Act. Without greater clarity, there is a risk that officers and staff may make the wrong decisions and, in so doing, undermine public trust and confidence.

Most forces provide the College of Policing’s hate crime and equality, diversity and inclusion training to their workforce. Forces usually do this using an online digital platform. Most of the officers, staff and staff associations we have spoken to were critical of the quality and effectiveness of this training method. Some forces have developed their own training to complement that provided by the College of Policing. Officers and staff told us they found this additional training beneficial. We will give our findings on the content and effectiveness of this training in our final report.

Some forces have used external organisations and community representatives to help in developing their officers and staff. Many of the chief officers we interviewed told us that working with external groups or organisations (some of which hold views that others could find challenging) is important. Working with these groups gives officers and staff the opportunity to understand the diverse needs of all communities, and means they are able to police and serve them effectively. Where forces did work with these organisations and community representatives, there were processes to identify training needs and to consider the quality and accuracy of the training material and the credibility of those providing it. We have seen evidence of forces continuously reviewing the appropriateness of this type of relationship. Where it has become apparent that continuing to work with — or being seen to work with — an individual or group puts the force’s reputation at risk, they have ended the relationship.

Non-crime hate incident recording

In response to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in 2021 in the Miller v College of Policing case, on 3 June 2023 the Secretary of State published the Non-Crime Hate Incidents: Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data (the Code). The Code is intended to make sure police officers and staff make the right decisions when recording and retaining personal data about non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). All police officers and staff must have regard to the Code. On the same date, the College of Policing updated its hate crime authorised professional practice (APP). This contains guidance for police officers and staff on how to comply with the Code.

We have found wide-ranging inconsistencies in forces’ approaches to NCHIs. Nine of the twelve forces we inspected had introduced or are introducing processes in accordance with the Code and APP. We are concerned that in the three remaining forces, there had been no discernible response to the Code and APP.

In these three forces, officers and staff recorded reports as hate incidents or hate crimes, with police resources routinely allocated to provide a response. There was no assessment to determine if the circumstances should have been recorded as a NCHI or whether the incident required any police response. This means that police resources may be responding to incidents and recording personal data unnecessarily.

In most of the forces we inspected, we found a culture of risk aversion in relation to the recording of NCHIs. In too many cases, and even in the forces that had adopted the new processes, officers and staff recorded reports as hate incidents or hate crimes, without carrying out an appropriate NCHI assessment. These were then subject to potentially lengthy reviews to check they had been recorded correctly.

We found that overall, where forces had introduced appropriate processes to respond to NCHIs, they gathered valuable information that gave them a greater understanding of potential hate-related issues. Most of the chief officers we interviewed highlighted the value of this data in assessing local community tension and informing strategic decision-making.

Advisory groups

All the forces we inspected use advisory groups, but they use them in many different ways. These include:

• scrutiny of the use of police powers;
• policy design and review;
• review of training;
• advising on the response to some incidents; and
• involvement in recruitment and promotion processes.

However, there is no consistency in what forces call these groups or how they recruit members. Some forces hold selection processes, others accept volunteers. In some forces, the police and crime commissioner (PCC) or mayor oversees community advisory forums. In others, there are multiple advisory groups, often at both a local and strategic level. Most of these groups do not accurately represent the range of diversity seen in the corresponding communities.

While some forces have clear terms of reference for their groups, other forces have arrangements that are less structured. Some forces have decided against any formal vetting of members of advisory groups, as they feel it would be a barrier to this important engagement. Instead, most of these forces carry out sensible background checks and ask members to sign a confidentiality agreement. We agree with this approach.

The current College of Policing guidance to forces on the use of advisory groups was issued in 2015. We are aware that the College of Policing is due to publish new guidance in spring 2024.

We have seen very little evidence that these advisory groups have significant influence on police decisions. Many advisory group members told us that they felt forces were just ticking boxes, and that forces could, and should, use them much more effectively. For example in one force, members of an independent advisory group told us they would like to monitor the training provided to officers and staff. Most of the forces we inspected have recognised that they need to use advisory groups more effectively and are in the process of reviewing and refreshing these arrangements.

Communication with the public

We have reviewed the communication and social media policies from all 43 forces. Most forces have reduced or are reducing the number of social media accounts they use. We have seen good examples of robust oversight and governance arrangements. Many of the officers and staff we have spoken to recognise the difficult balance between engaging with all sections of the community and yet being seen to be impartial.

We have commissioned work to analyse police social media use. This work will assess the proportion of social media posts that relate to ongoing operational matters, such as missing people and witness appeals, and the proportion of those that don’t. It will also consider the public response to all these messages and attempt to establish the extent to which automated applications and algorithms may be influencing public perception.

Many of the chief constables we interviewed stated that they have started to communicate less on social media. They cited two reasons for this. The first was the risk of other social media users misrepresenting or distorting police communications to serve their own agenda. The second was automated bots. These computer-generated accounts, many of which are run by hard-to-identify individuals or organisations from outside the UK, post large volumes of content very rapidly and may have undue influence on public opinion towards the police.

We also heard from officers and staff who were frustrated at how media stories about policing developed, sometimes involving political commentary, while the force remained silent. Often, forces did so to avoid prejudicing ongoing investigations or judicial processes, despite having evidence that could have corrected reported inaccuracies. Officers and staff were also critical of the lack of police communications about the good work forces do to keep people safe. This creates a vacuum, which media outlets and commentators may fill with speculation and information that isn’t always accurate. The recent inquiry into the police response to missing person Nicola Bulley highlights this risk.

Systemic issues

Since the 1999 Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, the number of police staff networks has increased and their roles have evolved. Initially, police forces intended these networks to support officers and staff from under-represented groups and encourage recruitment and retention, particularly in terms of ethnicity and gender. More recently, as forces strive to create a more inclusive workplace, the number of staff networks has grown. In addition to those networks supporting a wide range of protected characteristics, there are many others, such as those for ex-military staff. Their purpose is no longer purely to support those from under-represented groups. The presence of networks that hold views and actively campaign on contested matters makes it harder for forces to be, and appear to be, impartial in the view of the workforce and the public.

On occasions, when it hasn’t been possible to get advice from external groups, forces have asked their internal staff networks for advice. We saw evidence where this has helped forces to respond to incidents. For example, one force had used a network to provide advice and facilitate communication with a section of their community during a high-profile serious crime investigation.

We have found a lack of consistency in the accountability and governance arrangements of networks at a force and national level. The absence of any clear direction on what a staff network is, how they should operate or whether they should be reserved just for under-represented groups, is unhelpful.

At the time of our inspection, the Home Affairs Select Committee was conducting an inquiry into the role of PCCs. One of the aims of the inquiry is to examine the relationship between PCCs and chief officers. Most chief constables told us their PCC hadn’t inappropriately interfered or attempted to interfere with their operational independence. However, most senior officers told us that they regularly receive contact from local MPs who ask them to take some sort of action. MPs are perfectly entitled to make representations about issues affecting their constituents. But MPs shouldn’t seek to interfere with the operational independence of the police. In one example, we were told of an MP implying that a more senior political figure would become involved if a particular action was not taken.

Many officers and staff told us that they thought operational activities on matters such as protest policing, or stop and search operations, are directly or indirectly influenced by the views of the PCC or mayor, or senior figures in Government. Officers and staff in some forces told us that they had been asked by members of the public whether their force was a Conservative or Labour force, based on the political party of the PCC or mayor.

One of the most consistent themes in the evidence we have obtained so far is the extent to which senior national political figures directly or indirectly influence, or attempt to influence, police operations. Senior police leaders told us that when this takes place in public, it makes it harder to maintain an appearance of impartiality. Most senior officers told us that they experience what they believe to be improper pressure or interference from significant political figures, whether through direct contact or through the media. Many cited this commission and the associated correspondence as one example of this.

The Policing Protocol Order 2023, replacing one initially issued in 2011 on the introduction of PCCs, states that chief constables and their officers and staff remain “operationally independent”. Recent events concerning the policing of protests have highlighted the need for greater understanding as to what is meant by the term “operational independence”.

In her commissioning letter, the Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP welcomed the publication of our inspection report by the end of March 2024. However, the publication of this report may need to be delayed by the planned PCC pre-election period. I will keep you informed of our planned publication date.

I hope that you will find this letter helpful and informative. If you would like me to elaborate on any of the points raised, I will be very happy to do so.

Annex A: Terms of reference

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services will carry out a thematic inspection of activism and impartiality in policing.

In our inspection, we will examine whether police involvement and support for causes or ideologies that are either contested or have become politicised may be damaging public trust and confidence.

We will also assess the effect such involvement and support has on the effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy of the police.

In our inspection, we will assess:

• how effectively police policies and processes comply with the obligations set out in the Equality Act 2010 and other related legislation and guidance;
• how such policies affect the police’s decision-making and subsequent outcomes;
• the suitability of training provided to staff to implement these policies and processes, as well as the suitability of the organisation(s) that provide this training;
• whether the recording of non-crime hate incidents since changes to police authorised professional practice, following the 2021 Miller case, has adversely affected operational decision-making;
• the value to the police of recording non-crime hate incidents;
• how effectively forces select and use advisory groups that influence force policies and processes;
• how effectively forces ensure impartiality when using advisory groups; how effectively they seek to obtain a range of views from groups (including those that may hold opposing views); and how effectively they take account of the views of those unrepresented in advisory groups;
• how effectively forces communicate with the public on matters such as police participation in political or social activities or campaigns, and how this affects public perceptions of the police; and
• whether there are systemic problems that prevent the police from being, or being seen to be, impartial – especially in contentious matters.

Annex B: Methodology

Our fieldwork started on 9 October 2023 and finished on 1 December 2023. We carried out fieldwork in 12 forces in England and Wales. We did:

• a total of 123 interviews and 90 focus groups with police officers and staff;
• reality testing in each force by speaking with police officers and staff; and
• a case review, in which we examined 120 records relating to reports of non-crime hate incidents.

In addition to the fieldwork, we carried out:

• a document review, in which we examined more than 4,000 documents, which included policies, procedures and other material;
• a total of 54 interviews with national police leads and external organisations;
• a public opinion poll;
• a survey of police officers and staff; and
• social media research into 907,000 force posts on X (formerly known as Twitter), posted between 1 August 2017 and 28 November 2023.

Back to publication

Update on our activism and impartiality in policing inspection