UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT of ORAL EVIDENCE to Be Published As HC 659-I
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 659-i HOUSE OF COMMONS ORAL EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE THE WORK OF THE NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY TUESDAY 15 OCTOBER 2013 KEITH BRISTOW QPM Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 66 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. 3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant. 4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. 1 Oral Evidence Taken before the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday 15 October 2013 Members present: Keith Vaz (Chair) Mr James Clappison Michael Ellis Dr Julian Huppert Steve McCabe Mark Reckless Mr David Winnick ________________ Examination of Witness Witness: Keith Bristow QPM, Head, National Crime Agency, gave evidence. Q1 Chair: Could I ask everyone present to note the Register of Members’ Interests where the interests of members of this Committee are noted? Is there any other interest that any other member wishes to declare in respect of the witnesses today? Good. This is a one-off session with the Head of the NCA. Could I welcome Keith Bristow? This is your third appearance before the Select Committee, Mr Bristow. You have now been vested. Every time you have been before us, on 17 January and exactly a year ago on 16 October 2012, you said you had been waiting for vesting day. So you have been vested. Keith Bristow: We have, Chairman. I am very pleased that we are up and running. Q2 Chair: Excellent. By way of how this Committee wishes to monitor and scrutinise your work and the work of the NCA—because obviously this is the relevant committee of Parliament—in August this year I wrote to you with a number of questions concerning the way in which the NCA operates and which are the missing parts of the old landscape of policing. You wrote back to me last week with a number of paragraphs with some of the information. I spoke to you at the end of last week to ask you to reformat your reply. In future, when the Committee writes to you with a list of questions, it would be very helpful if you would answer the questions that have been sent to you because we wish to monitor this organisation from the start. Do you understand that? Keith Bristow: The intention was to be helpful, Chairman. If it was not helpful we have corrected our response and hopefully you will find that more helpful. Q3 Chair: Excellent. When do you think I can expect the response? Keith Bristow: My understanding is you have had that, Chairman. Q4 Chair: As of today we have not. It would be very helpful if you could do that for the future. This is something we did not do with SOCA and it is a regret of the Committee that we did not follow things through. So that would be very helpful. Thank you very much for that response. Let us turn to what you said to us on the last occasion. You told us that there were no benchmarks given to you by the Home Secretary and no targets as to how you were to do your 2 job. When you came before us on 17 January you said, “The Home Secretary has not given me any benchmarks or targets at the moment, apart from to say, ‘You will absolutely protect the public’”. That is probably the wish of every politician to every police officer, that they protect the public. Have you now had any more detail from the Home Secretary as to how you are to do your job or what the benchmarks are going to be? Keith Bristow: The Home Secretary has now set out strategic priorities, as set out in the Crime and Courts Act. I have set some operational priorities in response to those, and I am now clear about the four key performance questions that will be used to test that performance. Q5 Chair: Which are? Keith Bristow: Key performance questions are about our understanding of threats from serious organised crime, the effect that the NCA is having on the threats, how well the partnership with police and law enforcement is working and how well we are using public resources. Q6 Chair: All those are very useful but they are not specific targets, they are general aspirations. One of the reasons why SOCA was not as successful as people would have liked, is the fact that, when reporting back to Parliament and to the public, there was no recognition of meeting certain criteria. You told the public on 8 October that the estimated amount of social and economic crime is £24 billion a year, that there are 37,000 criminals linked to 5,500 gangs and that your job is to disrupt the way in which these gangs and criminals operate. That is right, is it? Keith Bristow: Our job is to ensure that, with the whole of law enforcement, we understand the nature of the threat from individuals and groups and that they receive the right prioritised law enforcement response. Our response will be to continuously disrupt those people, including taking their assets off them and including bringing them to justice wherever that is possible. Q7 Chair: In respect of the numbers of criminals, when we come back in a year’s time, because we are not going to see you every week, and we say to you, Mr Bristow, “Have you done better than SOCA who did not manage to ever seize as much assets as is their budget?”—I think they had £500,000 in their budget, you have about £428 million in yours— what are you going to say to us? Keith Bristow: I think there are some dangers in starting to focus on the organised crime group map. I am not absolutely clear about whether having fewer criminals on the map equals success or more criminals on the map, because it is a function of our understanding of the threat. What I am clear about is I need to improve the alignment of the law enforcement response, so the most dangerous, the most capable, the most intent groups are the subject of the most comprehensive law enforcement response. Q8 Chair: Surely every other chief officer, including Bernard Hogan-Howe, would say the same thing to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. These are wonderful aspirations, but what we are looking for is something more than aspirations. How will we judge the results? Of course the assessment of a threat is something that every professional can do, but at the end of the day how do we know? Is it the amount of assets you have seized? Is it the number of gangs in existence? Is it the number of people you have arrested? How are we to know what the NCA is going to be doing? Keith Bristow: There is a very real risk that we focus on what is measurable, rather than measure what is important to try to identify whether we are having the effect that we have been set up to have. So I would have thought that I would want to respond to you in the 3 four areas I have said, around the key performance questions. Some of the issues that you have just mentioned are absolutely a part of understanding whether we are delivering an effect or not. I do not believe there is one single metric that is automatically a binary judgment of whether we are being successful or not. I think our performance needs to be judged in the round, and that is the work that we are doing with the Home Office at the moment to develop a very rigorous framework. The Home Secretary has been very clear with me, this is about delivering results and results is about reducing the effect of serious and organised crime. Q9 Chair: Again that sounds a little vague but we will put it to the Home Secretary as to what she wants. Our worry last time was, if you had a choice between Sir Humphrey or J Edgar Hoover, that you would become a civil servant rather than someone operational. You came back to us very firmly and you said you intended to be an operational crime fighter. You wanted to go out there and you wanted to apprehend criminals. That is right, is it not? Keith Bristow: I am the leader of a crime fighting organisation. I am a law enforcement officer. I have done that all of my working life. That is the job that I have come to do. The organisation that I am going to build, develop and lead is a crime fighting organisation that will be feared by criminals. Q10 Chair: You have had two very big raids. The day you opened there were a lot of NCA people in flak jackets, with “NCA” written on them, surrounding houses in Manchester.