Home Affairs Committee

Oral evidence: Pre-appointment hearing, HC 514

Tuesday 14 July 2026

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 14 July 2026.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Dame Karen Bradley (Chair); Lewis Atkinson; Mr Paul Kohler; Robbie Moore; Chris Murray; Dr Peter Prinsley; Bell Ribeiro-Addy.

Questions 1-61

Witnesses

I: Sir Andy Marsh QPM, Government’s preferred candidate for the role of His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Authorities.

Examination of witnesses

Witnesses: Sir Andy Marsh.

Chair: Welcome, Sir Andy Marsh, to the grilling we are about to give you in your pre-appointment hearing for the post of His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Authorities. It is a mouthful, but it is a very good mouthful to have. Would you like to introduce yourself, and then we will get into questions?

Sir Andy Marsh: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Andy Marsh. I am chief executive of the College of Policing. I am still a serving chief constable and am grateful to be here today. I am happy to answer any of your questions.

Chair: Thank you. We will start with Robbie Moore.

Q1             Robbie Moore: It is good to see you, Sir Andy. Can you start by telling us why you want this role, and also bit about your background?

Sir Andy Marsh: I have been a police officer for approaching 39 years. I joined straight from university and found a vocation. I truly loved serving the public doing something that brought meaning to my life and doing something to make a difference to the society I lived in. That gave me a significant work ethic to do better and do more. I was fortunate enough to be chief of two forces. First was Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary, where I set out a track record of being innovative and progressive, particularly around technology. We were the first big force globally to introduce personal issue body-worn video, which spread across England and Wales very quickly. We were also the first force to mobilise using digital data.

I became the chief of Avon and Somerset, which was the first force I joined, which was a great honour. I was the sixth chief in four turbulent years, which gave me some explicit challenges to address that I may well get around to talking about. Notably, the force improved under HMIC from being pretty distressed in what it was offering the public to securing gradings of good, good and outstanding, which was pretty much at the top of the pile in 2020. One of the things I am most proud of is reconnecting the workforce to the communities, and also becoming particularly progressive and using data insight to help everyone decide what we should do differently or better, or even stop doing.

I have been in the College of Policing for five years now, heading it up, responding to a fundamental review that looked at the purpose of the college. There were some critical observations in that fundamental review, which I am happy to answer questions on. But my vision for it was to make it relevant to what matters most to our communities and policing, making it dynamic enough to keep up with the sector and sometimes lead the sector, and then critically for an institution that needs to be a professional body for policing, to connect it to the sector. I would say we have done some really helpful stuff. We have taken policing on occasions to places that it needed to go, but certainly did not want to.

Why do I want the job? I think that experience gives me a unique insight into both leading from within the sector and in partnership with it. I understand where it needs to go and the need for aspects of performance, leadership and reform to deliver better for the public. I think I can bring that experience and objectivity in line with my passion for public service. I still feel as enthusiastic about policing as I did when I joined the police in 1987, and I believe I can help make a real difference for our communities.

Q2                Robbie Moore: Thank you for that. One thing that you did not reference there is a background in fire and rescue. Given that that has not been your job to date, how do you think you will gain that level of experience or understanding so that you are able to bring that in as part of the role?

Sir Andy Marsh: It is a sector that I am not nearly so aware of as policing. But in preparing for this job, I have spoken to a good number of people involved in fire. Through that experience, in Hampshire I moved my headquarters into the fire and rescue headquarters and worked very closely with two fire chiefs. That gave me some insight. In Avon and Somerset I welcomed Avon fire and rescue, which has been on an improvement journey of its own, with I think more to do. I have always worked in partnership with fire, and at the College of Policing we oversee training for police officers, and also joint emergency services training—JESIP as it is known. So I have some familiarity with fire. I would embark on—forgive the comparison—drinking from the fire hose of knowledge to make sure that I was properly equipped to lead inspections in fire and rescue. I also have within the inspectorate some very notable subject-matter experts and people who are very knowledgeable on fire.

Q3             Robbie Moore: As you outlined, you are joining the role from outside the inspectorate. You have touched on this a little bit. What experience would you like to discuss that gives you and us the confidence that you will be as rigorous as you can in carrying out the inspection role that you will be fulfilling?

Sir Andy Marsh: One of the roles of the College of Policing is to gather the evidence base and set the standards. We may talk later about the balance of standard setting between the college and fire later in the session. In setting the standard, I clearly have to have a very broad understanding of what the profession says and what the evidence base is, and reach a balance.

I have brought that to bear in a quasi-inspection role. For example, I led a review of the tragic circumstances surrounding the missing person Nicola Bulley. As a result of the, in fairness, objectively very critical observations that I made, policing has moved substantially in the way that it responds to the media—substantially at my hand.

In fulfilling my role at the College of Policing, I have also been trusted and privileged with other areas that are highly contentious. For instance, we are currently conducting a review of aspects of the murder investigation into Stephen Lawrence. Because we are trusted—the inspectorate needs to be trusted, and I believe that I am trusted as an experienced, objective police leader—we are also about to start reviewing a two-year-old investigation into a missing person in Avon and Somerset. So I have got some quasi-inspection experience in looking at things.              

Q4             Robbie Moore: What has been the greatest challenge that you feel you have faced in the various roles that you have had so far, which has really pushed you beyond your own expectations?

Sir Andy Marsh: It was a huge challenge moving into Avon and Somerset, where the two of the former chiefs, my predecessors, had left not of their own choosing. To reset the culture of a force where that had happened was incredibly challenging but was something that I think went very well.

The challenge at the College of Policing is that it has been an institution that was heavily criticised before the fundamental review. I am not suggesting that we have not been criticised on occasions right up to the current date, but you know that policing is a contested space.

My track record is, I would say, one of transformation in each of three forces. Under my leadership as deputy and chief, Hampshire moved to be high-performing and low-cost. Avon and Somerset became data-driven and rebuilt trust. The college has become relevant, dynamic and connected. There are really serious challenges that face policing today and the inspectorate looking forward.

Q5             Robbie Moore: During your time as chief executive of the College of Policing, it received a disclaimed audit opinion for two consecutive annual accounts. Are you happy with the steps that you took in relation to those, as the leader of the organisation?

Sir Andy Marsh: I can begin to describe, but perhaps not fully, how disappointed I was that our accounts were disclaimed. As the chief exec, I made it clear to both the board of the College of Policing and the Comptroller and Auditor General that I was accountable and responsible for what had happened.

If you permit me to explain what happened, we sought to drive efficiency out of the College of Policing and in so doing, we moved to a new financial system of control, which used a system that the Home Office use, called Metis. We implemented it in October. Obviously, I did ask lots of questions pre implementation, but implementing it in October was not a good thing. I would now advise anyone in that position not to implement a new financial management system mid-financial year.

What happened was that for a period of approximately three months, we lost sight of our financial reporting systems, which meant that the audit could not be completed in 2023-24.

In the second year—the year that has just completed—it would have been impossible for the audit to be completed, because our start and finish position could not be verified, so it was disclaimed for a second year, which was, unfortunately, inevitable, but caused me as much dissatisfaction and humility on my part.

In the most recent closing of the audit, Gareth Davies, the Comptroller and Auditor General, said that significant achievement had been made from a difficult starting position and we are well on track to not having an audit disclaimed this year. A significant part of that recovery I think stands me in good stead, to make sure that those lessons are taken into a new organisation.

Q6             Chair: Whose decision was it to have a new financial reporting system mid-year?

Sir Andy Marsh: Ultimately, it was mine, but it was heavily sponsored as something that arm’s length bodies should be doing. There was a direction of travel, and it was a question of, “When do I do it?” I take responsibility for it. It turned out badly, but I have 100% rolled up my sleeves and made some changes at the College of Policing. For example, I have appointed an executive member with financial accounting skills, which I did not have, and we now have someone with EQA skills on the board. I have personally invested heavily in making sure that I am paying attention to our recovery plan, which is as fast as it could be given the position we got ourselves into.

Dr Prinsley: Thank you for coming. I am Peter Prinsley, the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. It is nice to see you.

Sir Andy Marsh: It is nice to meet you.

Q7             Dr Prinsley: My questions are about the impact of the inspectorate and the reports. In your experience, how effective is the inspectorate at driving improved performance in the police and the fire and rescue services?

Sir Andy Marsh: If I talk about policing, the inspectorate is incredibly influential. I am speaking as a chief constable with almost 10 years’ standing in two forces. What the inspectorate reports on really matters, and I am committed to making sure that the inspectorate is relevant to what matters most to the public. That is who I would be inspecting for if I am selected to do this job.

As fire enter their fourth round of inspections—11 of those have been completed—I have spoken to almost 10 fire chiefs about what they want to see out of the next inspection regime. I am very open-minded to how the inspectorate continues to drive improvements in performance in policing and fire, but there is clearly work to be done in both sectors. A review of the outstanding recommendations from the last round of assessments in fire showed that almost half of them—there were almost 600—are still outstanding, so 300 in total are outstanding from the previous round of inspections. Also, 57% of the grades in fire and rescue are adequate or lower. That indicates that both the policing and fire sectors need to continue to make improvements.

If we could go on a little bit, one thing I am particularly proud of undertaking at the College of Policing is changing our mission to be one of leadership standards and performance. The lock on performance was a double lock with the inspectorate, and I worked with seven engaged forces to help steer them away from engagement. I had a very close partnership with Andy Cooke, the previous chief inspector. I feel that that is something the inspectorate has done effectively in the fire sector.

Q8             Dr Prinsley: I come from the world of hospitals, where there are frequent inspections. The people who run hospitals are always very interested in the inspections, but they have sometimes not found the inspections very helpful. How helpful did you find the assessments in the forces you led?

Sir Andy Marsh: Mixed. In Hampshire, I was not entirely convinced that the inspection regime allowed me to experiment. I wanted to experiment with dealing with a certain type of domestic incident on the phone, and I was threatened with an inadequate grading as a result of that experiment. We have since learnt through rapid video response that that is exactly the sort of response that many victims of domestic abuse want, because it is more appropriate than a police car turning up outside your house. I am not talking about the heat of the incident, where someone’s life or safety is in danger; I am talking about a slower incident.

If I am frank with you, there were aspects of my innovation that I was not permitted to take in Hampshire. We were under huge financial pressure as a sector, and I took £80 million off Hampshire constabulary when I was chief there. I felt that some guardrails were put on what I was allowed to do, which limited my audacity.

I felt that the relationship was much stronger with the chief inspector in Avon and Somerset. They very much helped me improve and were sometimes a sounding board for some difficult dilemmas. In the College of Policing, I found the inspectorate to be an invaluable partner in systems leadership. That said, the system is underperforming in both fire and policing, and it needs to change. That is another reason why I want the job: I want to be part of that. By the way, in parallel to the pain that you reflected to me, I am committed to making the inspection process as relevant as possible to the things that are most important and matter to the public and policing, so that we are not distracting or fettering people in their mission.

The second thing I would like to do differently is to become much more data-driven in an automated way, in the way that I was as chief of Avon and Somerset. When the test pilot Chuck Yeager—if you know him—was asked how he knew that he had broken the sound barrier, he said that he had read the dials and felt it in the seat of his pants. In inspection work, that is the data-driven bit, the triangulation and the feedback. I would like to make it as light as possible so that we do our job properly but do not distract busy people from their work.

Q9             Dr Prinsley: I think a lot of politics is seat of the pants too. The Government are going to give additional powers to the inspectorate. Do you think additional powers are needed?

Sir Andy Marsh: Yes, I do. The leadership commission has shown that we are in something of a pickle around leadership at every level, but it is problematic that there is little movement between forces—I speak as someone who has moved between three forces and one institution in my career so far. There are too few candidates for the top jobs, and there is a lack of really good advice about who the best candidates are. I support the proposal that the inspectorate reconstitutes something that looks like the senior appointments panel used to.

I spoke to you about the number of outstanding recommendations in fire. I accept that we can have a debate about whether 600 being made in a round is too many or not, but if almost 300 are still outstanding, why are the inspectorate not being listened to? If the inspectorate raises an issue that is safety-critical for the public, it not only should be listened to, but must be listened to. With appropriate safeguards, these powers are well thought through and necessary.

Q10        Lewis Atkinson: Sir Andy, to pick up on a point you made about the cost or burden of inspection for forces and services, I have heard feedback that, at a time of really constrained budgets in both policing and fire and rescue services, it does not feel like that burden is quantified, or that there is a concerted effort to reduce it where it does not add value. What is your assessment of that? How might you measure the workload of the inspectorate’s work on forces and identify potential areas where it is not adding value, to create more capacity in forces to respond to areas where you do add value?

Sir Andy Marsh: I would observe that policing, and I am sure fire, are sectors where things can go wrong, and the public would rightly be concerned if those issues were safety-critical. One of the consequences of sectors being like that is that they build up layers of safeguards like the layers of an onion. Those layers do not always work together and can rub against each other. I speak to a lot of frontline police officers—if I secure this role, I hope to speak to a lot of fire and rescue officers as well—who tell me about the bureaucracies that stop them fulfilling their vocation to protect the public, catch criminals and keep people safe.

The time spent inspecting needs to sharpen the saw on reducing and clarifying some of these layers. One of the things that excites me about the job is that, while police reform is being formulated, the inspectorate should have a key role to play in inspecting on behalf of the public to draw attention to the areas that are getting in the way of that public service. As I said already, if the inspectorate is fettering anyone within policing with issues that distract them from what matters most, we would need, under my leadership, to hold a mirror up and sort it out.

I was the chief of what I think I can say with some confidence was the most data-driven police force in England and Wales when I was in Avon and Somerset. I knew where every single investigation was. I knew every ounce of workload that officers and staff carried, and I was committed to make that manageable so that it did not distract them from doing as good a job as possible for the public. I would bring that data-driven approach, with an appetite for further innovation with the ethical use of AI.

The College of Policing is the home of PoliceAI. There are many aspects of the data gathering and assimilation, even first-edit report writing, that we could and probably should use AI ethically to do. Many of these things can be alleviated. The one that should never be alleviated is inspectors, including me, sitting in rooms, talking to fire and rescue staff, to police officers and staff, and to victims of crime and members of the public about the services they receive to triangulate that data and that experience. We can alleviate some of the burden.

Q11        Chris Murray: You mentioned increasing the ethical use of AI in policing. There are obviously a lot of examples of where that could be really powerful, but a lot of people have concerns about it, which are quite well founded and even come from the people who support the use of AI in policing. We have seen evidence from the Maccabi Tel Aviv situation of police forces using AI really poorly. Do you see this role as not just supporting the roll-out of forces’ ethical use of AI, but also making it work, resisting it where it might go wrong and kicking the tires to make sure the safeguards are in place? I am wondering from your response to that question, can you do both?

Sir Andy Marsh: No, I do not believe I would be doing both. To clarify that, my role at the moment, overseeing PoliceAI, is to create lab facilities, work with private industry and the sector to rapidly test the ethical use of AI to a dot dot dot percentage point, come to a view as to whether it is acceptable and, if it is acceptable, put it on a public register that everyone can see and say, “I know what Avon and Somerset police,” to mention one, “are doing with this.” That goes for the storage and use of data and the use of AI. The role of the inspectorate is to inspect, in the public’s interest, whether that is actually happening—whether it is revealing the efficiency and effectiveness improvements that people like me and others would claim. I am very much against the random, unmanaged, risky use of AI in the playground that is the internet, where, frankly, we do not know where we are drawing data from.

Q12        Mr Kohler: You have talked about the importance of data. Do you have any experience with, or view on, the Palantir software?

Sir Andy Marsh: I have looked at what the Metropolitan police are doing with it. Effectively—I am going to put this in layman’s terms now—they had federated or connected lots of legacy databases, largely for internal police use, which otherwise were not even accessible as a single database, never mind a connected series of databases, and discovered insight that they otherwise would have been blind to. For instance, they connected lawful business monitoring of work phones with door entry and exit, and they found a number of officers and members of staff that they ought to be talking to about what they were doing. I very much support that federation of data. That is something that I know the NHS has experimented with and probably rolled out—I am being conservative in saying “experimented”.

That is what I did in Avon and Somerset. I connected 30 different databases, and I was able to understand officer workloads, what was hurting, what was working and how I should change my processes where leadership was not working. It even went back to—I started this work in 2017—officer burnout, which can be seen in proximity to malpractice and corruption. One of the reasons people go down a corrupt route is that they start to lose their love of their vocation and think, “I can do this. Why not?” If information on recurring and repeated sick days, use of powers—something that is really important—and, critically, officers never switching their body-worn video camera on aligns to some of these other indicators, the supervisor ought to know about that and ought to do something.

So in terms of what the Met were doing with Palantir, I am entirely supportive of the federation of data and the ethical gathering of insight so that policing can do better for the public at lower cost—100%. I urged the commissioner to be as progressive with his data in protecting victims of crime as he was in assuring the integrity of his workforce. The big question is, who does it? There is a debate, and I have run some work on it myself, about other means of federating the data and gaining that insight. They should be tested through open and ethical procurement practices—I am making no comment about what the Met has or has not done there.

I will be absolutely clear with you that policing is barely in the foothills of data insight. I saw that this Committee asked the person who could be my predecessor—I am being cautious and respectful about what the Committee might recommend—what he would do if he had a magic wand. I thought that was a good question. One of the things I would love to do would be to federate the data that policing holds across England and Wales, because we could do such a better job of preventing crime, catching criminals and managing integrity within our workforce.

The vast majority of police officers and staff—not to mention fire and rescue—are hugely committed to their vocation of policing. What they dislike more than anything is someone dropping their shoulders on the public. As leaders, and HMI is a very powerful system leader here, we have a responsibility to ethically use all our ingenuity to do better and at lower cost—we are all taxpayers, and there is not extra money around. I think that data federation is such a rich vein to improve policing if managed appropriately.

Q13        Mr Kohler: This might be beyond your expertise, but you did it in 2017 without Palantir. Are you aware that Palantir offers something that others do not, or is that beyond your knowledge?

Sir Andy Marsh: I can tell you what I have been told, if that is all right. This is a question that I have asked repeatedly. Long before the Palantir question in the Metropolitan police, I asked my research people and various private sector suppliers, “Why can’t we do what I did in Avon and Somerset everywhere across the whole of England and Wales?” I appreciate that I do not know, so I retain a healthy scepticism about this, but I am told by people who do that that supplier has an edge on certain aspects of data management and handling that other suppliers—currently—do not. If that is the case, from a procurement and sovereignty point of view, it would be incredibly helpful if there was better competition in the market. However, I believe that there are aspects of data federation that can be achieved with other suppliers.

Q14        Chair: Before we move on, can I ask about the relationship between the inspectorate and a chief constable. As MPs, we often get inspectorate issues at schools and things like that. However, in the case of the force, the chief constable is ultimately responsible, and the inspectorate is there to review and inspect, but not to determine. In the example you cited earlier, on the innovations you were introducing that the inspectorate picked up on, do you feel you may have been too deferential towards them?

Sir Andy Marsh: When I was chief in Avon and Somerset?

Chair: Yes.

Sir Andy Marsh: You are a peer in those terms, and it is a regret of my term that we did not spread it further. But rest assured, I showed what I had to the Home Office, to the Policing Minister, Kit Malthouse, and to every chief constable bar none in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Sir Tom Winsor also came to my establishment and looked at it. They all said, “I want that.” It intrigues me why that didn’t happen, but I think—this is on me—that had I been more rigorous about its testing and evaluation, rather than just getting on with my job, I might have made it stick better, and that is a lesson I have taken into the College of Policing. I think one of the other reasons is that policing just did not have the technical expertise to do that, and the people in closest proximity to the chief constables advising them would say, “Well, that’s not possible.”

To indulge myself a bit, why did I do it? It is not because I am some sort of visionary genius. Everything I have done is through listening to the workforce, listening to the public and trying to do better. The reason I introduced body-worn video in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight after a trial was that the sergeant said, “We are getting recorded on cameras. I think we can do better.” I said, “Prove it,” and we worked with Portsmouth University to prove it. With all this technology, by the way, 5% or 10% of the trick or difficulty is procuring this stuff, and 90% is the leadership and culture you wrap round it. I am sure the Committee—you are very experienced—knows that.

The reason I stumbled across this data issue in Avon and Somerset is that I was vexing my mind in 2005, thinking, “I would like to become a chief officer. What do I need to be really good at?” It was close in the aftermath of the murder of Holly and Jessica in Soham, and I joined the police to stop that sort of thing—I can talk about many more issues that have struck me in my career, where I have thought, “This is just not right. What are we going to do?” I carried that through to 2016 when I started in Avon and Somerset.

The first week, I had to apologise—I didn’t have to; I chose to apologise—to the sister of a man who had been murdered because the police didn’t join the dots up. It is a matter of public record; it was Bijan Ebrahimi. One thing I always do as a leader is verbalise what I am worried about and share the mission, so that people can help me and I make myself open to ideas. A very junior analyst said, “I can do this.” I said, “I don’t believe you, because I’ve been trying to do it for the last 15 years, but I am going to give you three months to prove me wrong.” In the three months, he did work on suspects, offenders and victims where another preventable crime happened. It was so compelling that I said, “This technology will touch every corner of this organisation within 12 months,” and it did.

Sadly, a lot of that work stalled, and policing is now rediscovering, “Crikey, maybe we ought to be more cognisant of data.” I commit to this Committee that I would use the powers available to me as the inspectorate to make sure that policing was as progressive and as consistent as possible—and fire and rescue too—for the public we are here to serve and protect. That is such an important part of the role.

Now, maybe I was too respectful. I have had five years, and I can give you lots of examples of where I have stuck a big wedge under chief constables and made them do stuff they did not want to but needed to. I believe that that equips me to do be incredibly objective and independent in this role.

Q15        Dr Prinsley: We are just doing a Health Bill and we are talking about the single patient record—

Sir Andy Marsh: Yes, I am excited about that as a patient.

Dr Prinsley: Good. It sounds like what you need is a single police record.

Sir Andy Marsh: Imagine what we could do with single health and police records.

Dr Prinsley: My colleague sitting over there and I went to Wymondham police station a few weeks ago and saw how the police were using datasets to join the dots together to tackle serious organised crime. They were very upbeat about it.

Sir Andy Marsh: Soon after I got the job I am doing now—this is relevant—I was faced with something of a homicide disaster. Rates were increasing, and pretty much everyone in policing was saying there was nothing we can do about it. I said, “On the contrary, there is, and we start with a strategic assessment of who is committing the murders and who is suffering them. Then, we look at the evidence base, we call for a practice and I pull the levers and make stuff happen.” We are now three and a half years on and homicides have fallen by 27%. I do not seek to take credit for that; that is what happens when you take a data-driven approach. If we can do it in health, I am sure we can do it in policing.

Q16        Dr Prinsley: I agree. This question is more about the role you would take as the chief inspector. Are there are any ways in which you expect to undertake the role which would be different to the previous chief inspector, and why would that be?

Sir Andy Marsh: I have great admiration for what the previous chief inspector did, particularly around performance and basics—that needs to be continued. As policing enters a period of reform, if it is not to lose its nerve and fail the public, it needs to maintain an eye on the basics. The same needs to be said of fire, because there is incomplete reform in fire. But the thing that will be different is that policing and fire will be organised in a very different way.

We may have super-new, behemoth-sized police organisations. Both police and fire will come under new governance. It could well be that there is a college of fire. The methodology of inspection will need to change, first, to make sure that it does not fetter the day job, as we were discussing earlier, and secondly, to make sure that it gives the public the right answers to the questions that they would reasonably ask in the new structures.

For example, would an inspection of a very large regional force be as meaningful to someone in Wiltshire as the Wiltshire inspection is now? Probably not, so we need to look at how we make inspection more meaningful for what is the relevant area of local geography for that citizen, for fire and rescue, and in policing, where it is likely to be something called a local policing area.

Q17        Dr Prinsley: You said that you wanted to focus the inspections on issues that matter most to communities, which I agree with, but how will you decide what those issues are, and what will you do if the inspectorate’s powers are insufficient to secure improvements in the areas that matter most to communities?

Sir Andy Marsh: Clearly, I do not work in the inspectorate, but I have been a close partner, so I have some understanding of how it operates. I think that they conduct quite extensive workforce surveys in policing before each inspection—that is important. I would like to have a look at how the inspectorate hears the voice of the public in respect to fire and policing. That would be a touchstone for what matters most.

My understanding of public sentiment at the moment is that they want us to take crimes seriously and they want us to investigate thoroughly, so there is a reasonable chance, if there are lines of inquiry, that we might bring someone to justice. All my experience in policing and desistance theory is that, if you do not catch people, that crime type probably will start to gather out of control.

There is a big focus on safety in town centres and volume crime, as well as on the other complex issues. Policing needs to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

The world of fire is changing dramatically as well, in terms of the other responsibilities that fire officers have beyond simply putting out fires. I know there is an awful lot about protecting people and protecting buildings, but as we have now found, we live in a much more unpredictable climate; we live in an unpredictable world. What is the role of fire and rescue, and policing, in terms of local resilience?

I think I can forge a stronger bond with communities on what matters most. If I was not doing that, I would want someone to point it out to me pretty sharply.

Q18        Dr Prinsley: Do you think there is a role for something you might call “Policewatch”—an organisation a bit like Healthwatch—that connected communities with the people who are running the police? Is such a thing necessary?

Sir Andy Marsh: The killer question in policing, as per the evidence base of what works in terms of trust and confidence in the police, is the answer to that question: the police in my neighbourhood are doing something to tackle the issues of crime and antisocial behaviour that matter most to me.

That is hyper-local. So, while we need a more strategic approach across England and Wales to fire and policing, we must have that local connection with our neighbourhood teams, our local policing teams. We should use all the technological possibilities to help us do that.

Q19        Dr Prinsley: You have had a long career as a chief constable. What assurances can you give us that you will be able to effectively hold former colleagues, many of whom must be friends of yours, to account?

Sir Andy Marsh: I do not know how the world of health works, but you really make your friendships when you are very junior in your career. I remember—because they contact me every now and then—my first sergeant, my first inspector, my duty constable. Some of these people are no longer with us; none of them are in policing any more.

I would not want to strike you as a lonely character—I am not—but this is my job. The people I grew up with are not in policing any more. While I get on well with people, they are not my friends, and my track record of holding them to account on vetting, public firearms licensing, police use of firearms, neighbourhood policing standards, investigation standards, murder investigations, rape teams in every force—my track record is really clear. I am absolutely independent and unfettered from any friendship. Is this a moment to declare issues?

Q20        Dr Prinsley: Yes, because my next question is about your wife being the chief fire officer for Northamptonshire.

Sir Andy Marsh: Thank you. I am very proud of my wife, and I am very proud of my family. We joined the police on the same day, which is an unusual thing, but we became a partnership before we joined the police, so that is a lifelong partnership of public service.

In relation to my two former police forces, I think it is custom and practice in the inspectorate to be very transparent about allegiances, so to speak. I have not been chief in Hampshire for 10 years, so I think everyone has moved on, and I left Avon and Somerset five years ago. I would not be personally involved in setting decisions for my two former forces, to be clear about that.

In relation to Northamptonshire fire and rescue, that is clearly a different situation, as it involves my wife. I have worked alongside her in different guises for many decades, without problem. To be clear, I would make it absolutely clear in writing—probably in a legal document—that I would not be involved in grading decisions involving Northamptonshire police or Northamptonshire fire and rescue, because my wife’s boss is the police and fire commissioner. I do not believe that it would stop me doing my job, but there are four other inspectors of constabulary who are very capable of doing the grading of that force.

Q21        Lewis Atkinson: To continue testing independence from Government, the inspectorate is clearly independent of Government and appointed by the Crown. However, there is a recognition that the inspectorate will need to take account of the Government’s priorities at the time, and the policy environment they set for fire and rescue services and the police. How would you maintain appropriate relationships with people in Government while ensuring your independence from them?

Sir Andy Marsh: It is perfectly valid for the democratic Government and elected members at every level to have a say in policing matters, but I also believe that the police should be operationally independent. Clearly, there needs to be similar safeguards with fire and rescue.

In my time as a chief constable, I have worked with 10 Home Secretaries and 13 Policing Ministers. I have had robust conversations with many of them, where I maintained a professional relationship that respected their democratic rights, while also protecting operational independence. I can give you plenty of examples, if that helps.

Q22        Lewis Atkinson: My follow-up question was going to be: can you tell us about a time when you thought the Government or a politician were putting pressure on you, or expecting a certain course of action that you did not feel appropriate? How did you feel able to push back and challenge Government Ministers, or assert your independence, in the light of that?

Sir Andy Marsh: In 2015, as the national firearms and shotgun licensing lead, I secured the first fee increase for 15 years. That involved an awful lot of stakeholder engagement, because we also put markers on medical records for the first time, following the Cumbria shootings. I did require people on the Government side to declare whether they had a firearms or shotgun licence, because I felt that there was some interest in that, and we secured the increase.

In 2021, the Home Secretary was very unhappy with the outcome of the Black Lives Matter protest in which the Colston statue was toppled. I answered all the questions very publicly, but I held my ground regarding our operational independence and what we did.

If we move into my current portfolio, we rewrote the code of ethics, which was incredibly important work for me, not least because we expanded the code of ethics from applying just to chief constables to applying to everyone in policing, including staff and officers. It embraced a commitment to a duty of candour. It also embraced a commitment to victims and families who had suffered tragedy that the police—and this reads across into fire, which has its own code of ethics—would respect victims above their reputation. At the eleventh hour, there was a political intervention to stop me publishing it. I worked with other leaders in the sector—but it was very clear that it was my code of ethics and I led it—to make representations to the Home Secretary that this was really important work and we needed to do it.

No. 10 got involved and, ultimately, it was published without the changes that I was being required to make. I have also had robust conversations about the quality of initial training. I have found myself in a number of high-profile situations, some of them public, some of them not.

I am less comfortable talking about the private ones. One of the reasons I have been able to do things in policing, and I hope to do more in policing and fire, is that people trust me. That is because I respect them, and that is one of the principal principles of the code of ethics—respect and empathy.

I believe that kindness is the ultimate professional advantage in our world. Also, courage to do the right thing on a difficult day. That is really important to me as well, as is public service, which is what drives me and gets me out of bed in the morning.

Q23        Chris Murray: Thank you. HMI has a vast range of stakeholders. Often, they are organisations that are in the public eye and are involved in controversies. Some of the biggest controversies of recent years have involved a lot of the stakeholders that you will be dealing with. Can you tell us about your experience of dealing with and of challenging and influencing stakeholders, especially those who are resistant to external criticism?

Sir Andy Marsh: The college is one of the designated bodies for dealing with super-complaints with the inspectorate. I have led a super-complaint investigation into stalking. I have been involved in super-complaint investigations into police-perpetrated domestic abuse. Of course, those have involved engaging with the sectors that raised those super-complaints and who understandably have very high expectations of policing.

The investigation means that you need to gather information across and outside the sector that answers the exam question, makes some recommendations if appropriate and, as far as possible, keeps everyone on board so that those recommendations actually stick.

That would be one example of how I have done it. I mentioned the Nicola Bulley review earlier. I felt that the way that the police were engaging with the media was sub-optimal to be polite. There had been a freezing of the relationship. We needed to change it. I felt there was some risk aversion and timidity as well.

It is all very well making that recommendation, but I had to land it as the professional body for policing. I could not land it without, first, seeking police chiefs and people involved in policing media leads to accept that he had a point—we need to change—and secondly, working with the Society of Editors, journalists and the wider sector about how they could meet policing somewhere in the middle around a new charter for policing.

The results of that were launched this year: a new charter for policing, a relationship with the media, a new authorised professional practice for media and policing, and particular guidance on ethnicity and nationality, which was highly controversial. Fifty organisations petitioned that we should not do a certain aspect of it. That was a very complex piece of work that we landed across multiple stakeholders.

Q24        Chris Murray: That leads on to my next question. The inspectorate is an inspectorate; it is not a regulator. It does not have the powers to compel forces to respond and change how they behave. What approach would you take if forces did not respond constructively to the recommendations you make?

Sir Andy Marsh: Under police reform, one of the proposed powers is to create the power for the inspectorate to write a recommendation to which the lead authority for fire or policing must respond. That has been closed. Discussions are taking place about how that is used with appropriate caution, because you do not want to be doing that too often.

I would make a commitment for the inspectorate to be three things—I have covered a bit of this. First, it would be relevant to what matters most. We have covered that. Secondly, it would be independent. We have covered that. Thirdly, it would be influential because of the power of our data and insight, the quality of our work and recommendations, the nature of our relationships, and the trust we have with our primary stakeholder—the public—and across the sector and other agencies. Trust drives the economic engine of influence, which is what I would seek to build up through the quality of our work.

Q25        Chris Murray: Thank you. You are joining the inspectorate from the College of Policing—two organisations that have not always seen eye to eye, it is fair to say. Does that create a conflict of interest?

Sir Andy Marsh: I do not believe it does. I am absolutely objective enough to mark my own homework. There are plenty of things that are unfinished work for the college. I have no issues or qualms about objectively criticising, on an evidence base, what we have done. There was a moment post-fundamental review when there was a dispute over who sets the standards.

The reality of the inspectorate, as I understand it, is that our standards are used for the vast majority of inspection work. There are some occasions when that is not the case—our standards might be out of date or absent in a certain area. One thing I have always personally respected, and agreed with Andy Cooke on, is that the inspectorate retains the final view of what good looks like. If you do not think our standards are right, it is absolutely the responsibility of the independent inspectorate to say, “In the public interest, this is not right.” That is exactly what I would do.

Q26        Chris Murray: You talked about the public interest, and the public are a key stakeholder. There are obviously certain groups among the public where trust in policing is low, whether that is women, following the Sarah Everard and other scandals, or the black and other ethnic minority communities. In some parts of the country, trust in policing is substantially lower in the LGBT community. There are allegations, which I would argue are not credible, around two-tier policing. Do you perceive your stakeholder—the public—as one group, or do you disaggregate into thinking through what different groups of the public might have concerns about?

Sir Andy Marsh: I think we live in far too complex a society to view the public as one cohort of people. Two things can be incredibly important at the same time. It is absolutely important that the police are seen to be impartial in everything they do. We have to be everyone’s police and fire and rescue service, because that is who we are here to serve.

At the same time as being impartial, we also have to be inclusive. I don’t believe those two things are mutually exclusive. I think they are different sides of the same coin. Policing clearly has got a trust deficit to make up with the public. I could talk about fire and rescue differently, if you would like me to, but policing has got a trust deficit. We know that the trust deficit is different in different communities and different forces. We need to be smart enough in our data and decision making to respond to that, but not in a way that fetters our impartiality. Everyone must be equal before the law.

Q27        Chris Murray: I think you are saying—and I agree—that the trust deficit in policing is different from that in fire and rescue. Do you think there is a trust deficit in fire and rescue? Are there some issues there you would want to inspect?

Sir Andy Marsh: I will be honest: I have not seen good data on trust and confidence in fire and rescue. Speaking now as a citizen, I would imagine that, if you have a fire, it is really important that someone answers the phone and turns up quickly, and is properly trained and equipped to put it out. Sitting behind that is the question of whether the organisation is run fairly and ethically, allowing maximum benefit to be extracted from the taxpayer’s money—that is also a really important question. But I have not seen data that indicates a trust deficit in fire and rescue.

I would make two points on fire and rescue. All the people I have met in fire and rescue are deeply passionate and committed to their life-saving role. It is a vocation for them; they are very proud of it and want to improve and do better. There have been instances, identified through inspection and other means, where the culture in fire and rescue has been found wanting. If that is the case, I would argue that those dedicated and committed people in that service will not be able to do their best, so it needs to be addressed.

Chair: Let me bring in Lewis Atkinson, because he has some specific questions on that.

Q28        Lewis Atkinson: As you said, it is fair to say that our predecessor Committee and another independent report identified cultural issues in the fire and rescue service across the country, and in specific forces. There was the tragic death of firefighter Jaden Francois-Esprit in London that prompted review and consideration. Could you say a little more about your view of the inspectorate’s role in inspecting culture, and in particular leadership? I would also add that there has been criticism from some, including the Fire Brigades Union, that the inspectorate has been slack in inspecting the leadership culture of fire and rescue forces.

Sir Andy Marsh: If I look at the PEEL police inspection framework, I think I am right in saying that no police force has got “outstanding” for leadership. That is a concern. You may want to ask me more about the police leadership commission in a moment, but there is clearly a well-made case for significant improvements in leadership in policing.

Chair: We have questions on that.

Sir Andy Marsh: I am sure you do. On your question about fire, has the inspectorate been slack on leadership? I do not know. However, given my own position that leadership makes everything better, whether we are talking about performance standards or staff recruitment and retention, I would put it right at the top of things that are most important in an inspection regime.

In the work I have done on improving struggling or failing forces, the diagnosis I have made from my data and evidence, and in partnership with the inspectorates, is that there are a couple of things that are always apparent. One is a failure to invest in appropriate amounts of leadership development, visibility and other aspects of leadership. The second, coming back to the other issue, is that those institutions are unable to tactically or strategically problem-solve because they do not understand their data. They are trying to fly the plane with the blinds down. I do not know whether leadership has been neglected, but I do not think it should be neglected in fire.

Q29        Lewis Atkinson: On the inspection framework for fire and rescue, how would you ensure that the inspectorate was hearing the experiences of frontline staff?

Sir Andy Marsh: I come back to: “Read the dials and see how it feels.” There must be data on the experiences of staff and firefighters, and I also know that the inspectorate has a well tried and tested methodology—I would seek to experience it with my own feet on the ground—for gathering feedback and information through focus groups where people can speak their mind. There could also be other aspects to triangulate, such as employment tribunals, whistleblowing lines and conduct-related issues. Those are the issues that would help diagnose the cultural health and leadership quality in an organisation. That is how I would diagnose it.

Q30        Lewis Atkinson: That is really important. My final question is specific to fire and rescue authorities. The previous Government published a fire reform White Paper setting out plans for system-wide reform to strengthen fire and rescue services. Do you have views on that White Paper and any initial views on what should be taken forward by this Government?

Sir Andy Marsh: I would look to meet stakeholders from across fire and rescue, hopefully starting with the Minister, Samantha Dixon, but also the Local Government Association, the National Fire Chiefs Council and the unions. There are a number of recommendations that are unfinished business. There are four that I would draw to your attention, which I think the inspectorate should look at.

One is that the national framework has not been updated since 2018, so what fire and rescue are responsible for needs refreshing. Secondly, there is the college of fire. I think the consultation has just finished, but from what I hear and see, there seems to be support in the sector for a college of fire. That is interesting, given my role: I formally advised the Home Office, when fire and rescue sat under the Home Office, on how it could go about setting up a college of fire. I think that is still relevant in terms of consistency, evidence, spreading good practice, performance improvement and standard-setting.

There is also productivity—the role of the firefighter. The last one, critically, is that good governance really does matter to the quality of the leadership, transparency and accountability. In both fire and policing, the governance is going to experience significant reform. Those are four areas that I think are still relevant.

Q31        Chris Murray: The inspectorate has four strategic objectives: being proactive, focusing on outcomes, driving sustainable improvement and promoting smarter systems. Do you think those are the right objectives for the organisation? I won’t lie: when I read them, I thought they could apply to almost any organisation in the world. What do you think? Do you think there should be further objectives?

Sir Andy Marsh: It would be wrong to say they were not relevant. They are relevant objectives for an organisation with a role such as the inspectorate, but I would want to review them. On how I would organise and graphically represent them, there are probably people who I could draw ideas out of, including stakeholders from across both sectors and beyond, as well as my own workforce, as to how I might do that.

Some of the things that I would like to introduce into the plan would be a greater speed—from flash to bang—on the gathering of information and the report. My ultimate customer would be the public, so I would consider what works best for the public in consuming that information. I do not want to oversimplify it, but I am not sure that the public are interested in very dense reports. They want to know what they can expect and whether they are getting it or not. I think we could make it more data driven. As I have said, we could ethically consider the use of new technologies to deliver efficiencies for the public purse.

Q32        Chris Murray: Let us talk about the organisation, its workforce and resources. Funding is limited across the public sphere. How are you going to make the money allocated to you go as far as possible for the public and the inspectorate?

Sir Andy Marsh: Every penny and pound has to count. I would repeat what I said about focusing on the things that are relevant. It is important to consider the cycle of inspection. I am sure that there is experience from health and education in this room, and I know that other sectors have experienced the risk of mission drift when the cycle is too slow or too light. While I understand the concept of earned autonomy, I am not entirely sure it works within inspection given the way that things change so quickly in fire and policing.

As the head of that organisation, and in the way that I have with the College of Policing, I would look at driving our annual efficiency savings and plans. Until I can get my feet under the table, it will be difficult for me to identify where those might be, but the use of technology is an obvious one.

Q33        Chris Murray: That is good to know. Your predecessor noted that the budget had been held steady at £25 million for the past five years and had called for a £13 million increase, which is 50%. I appreciate you saying that you have not got your feet under the desk, but do you think you can do the job on a budget that is not increasing?

Sir Andy Marsh: One thing that I found particularly rewarding about the College of Policing was how a relatively small but significant organisation—our budget was around £70 million when I first took the job—was able to lever a whole sector. It is possible and the inspectorate are another organisation with remarkably powerful levers and the potential for huge influence.

I am a pragmatist. If I feel that there is a business case to be made, I will explicitly make the business case, and I would expect that business case to have a huge return on investment. It is possible for a small organisation to lever a whole sector. I personally think that in many respects the inspectorate has done that. I will do it with the amount of money available, being clear and transparent about what I could do with more or less choices.

Q34        Chris Murray: You admirably walked through that question, but the Home Secretary might still expect a request for more funding. Four fifths of the inspectorate’s money goes on staff, a number of whom are seconded from the police forces and fire and rescue authorities. Do you have a view on what proportion of the inspectorate’s staffing should be from the organisations it is inspecting and what proportion should not be? How do you see that evolving over time?

Sir Andy Marsh: I am told that it is as low now as it has ever been, and I understand that the inspectorate struggles to attract secondees.

Q35        Chris Murray: Is that a problem?

Sir Andy Marsh: It is a problem. What we saw in the leadership commission was a commitment to porosity. One of the ways in which police chiefs could allow the brightest and best to learn from elsewhere and flourish through the acquisition of different skills is secondments. I suffer from exactly the same problem in the College of Policing.

The one caveat that I would make is that secondments are expensive. When money matters, that will enter into the decision making, but I would expect chief constables who are ambitious for the sector and prepared to invest in leaders of the future to let me have some really good people, maybe for a short amount of time. There needs to be more of that in policing, and I am sure the same is true in fire.

Q36        Chair: Obviously, there is a current inspection programme, but do you have a view on what the inspectorate is doing at the moment, what its priorities are and what things will be less of a priority in the future, should you be appointed?

Sir Andy Marsh: The thematics are largely commissioned by the Home Secretary. Because the inspectorate is independent, it has the ability to conduct thematic inspections of its own choosing, but the budget limits the opportunity for that.

From the engagement I have had with people within the sector, fire and rescue regret, or are disappointed by, the lack of thematic work and have expressed some ideas about how they could be thematic. There is a big difference between the police PEEL inspections and the fire equivalent, in that the police are continually assessed and fire are periodically assessed. Fire would like a more continuous inspection regime—they should be careful what they wish for.

The big changes probably come in the methodology of those continuous inspection regimes. If we were able to balance them somehow, we would potentially have scope to do more thematics on separate issues that matter most. By the way, I know that the inspectorate will refine their questions for the rolling inspection every cycle, and that is a way of being relevant. These are issues that I need to apply my thinking to when I have more understanding.

Q37        Chair: Is there anything that the inspectorate does not do that you think it should?

Sir Andy Marsh: There will be things. I think I can mention a couple as a starter for 10; regrettably—I apologise—they are in policing again. One is that the experience that members of the public who are victims of crime have in terms of support is entirely commissioned and delivered through the offices of police and crime commissioners. Those are not inspected by the inspectorate. That is a really important part of the jigsaw if we care about what victims think about their experience, so that would be one.

On the other one, this comes from someone who would find it a bit presumptuous for a police chief to be saying, “This is the way I must be held to account.” I am not saying that; I have managed to forge a positive relationship with two police and crime commissioners, and my tenure as chief started back in 2012—I am probably the only one, apart from Mark Rowley, who can remember what police authorities looked like. We should be very careful about saying, “This is the way you should hold me to account,” but I am saying that accountability really matters.

Policing needs good oversight and accountability, including of chief constables, and maybe some of the issues of conduct that we have seen are where there has not been that sort of accountability—I am just saying maybe. The ability of the inspectorate to at the very least comment on, and maybe inspect, governance and oversight arrangements would be in the interest of the public.

Chair: That leads nicely on to Paul Kohler’s questions.

Q38        Mr Kohler: I have just been looking up the “Fundamental review of the College of Policing”, which was issued under your watch. On page 19, it says the inspectorate, “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” by the college. How is that consistent with your earlier answer to Chris about the inspectorate having the final say?

Sir Andy Marsh: I am obviously aware of that comment, and it led to a letter, not an exchange of letters. I resolved the issue as far as I understood it with Sir Andy Cooke, who was the incoming chief inspector of constabulary. As I said earlier—this is Andy to me—it was, “We use all your standards in inspections.” He also said, “But you will appreciate, Andy, that if we see something that isn’t right, we’re the independent inspectorate, so we’re going to call it out.” My answer was, “Of course you will.” I do not think that is a lack of clarity, and I think we cleared it up in that discussion. The police reform discussions that are taking place at the moment, where it is proposed that the College of Policing moves in its entirety into the national police service, are a fresh opportunity to consider the standard-setting role.

I will make one last observation. We do not have sufficient resources at the College of Policing to set standards for everything, which means that there is a very significant bun fight over prioritisation for authorised professional practice and other products. I make a decision guided by the board to focus our standards-setting activity and refreshing on the things that matter most and are the most relevant. That reveals a very real gap in that there will be some areas of inspection where the inspectorate simply cannot say, “That’s the standard; that’s what the college say.” So I think that I have been pragmatic in my agreement with Andy Cooke.

Q39        Mr Kohler: In situations where the college has set the standard, are you saying that the inspectorate can ultimately say no? You said to Chris that it has the final say, and that is not what your paragraph says in the 2022 report.

Sir Andy Marsh: It is not. I am saying that it is an independent inspectorate and I think it should be able to say, “We disagree.”

Q40        Mr Kohler: That is not what you said in 2022. Were you wrong in that paragraph?

Sir Andy Marsh: I guess I am trying to be delicate about this—

Mr Kohler: You can criticise yourself.

Sir Andy Marsh: It was a very good review, and it was commissioned, helpfully, before I started. That was a line, and the implications and consequences of it only truly fell out once it was published, and Sir Tom wrote his letter expressing dissatisfaction. I think that there is a nuance that is not correct in that report.

Q41        Mr Kohler: That is useful; thank you. As you said, a memorandum of understanding was produced in the light of that tension. How is that working? Does it need review?

Sir Andy Marsh: I have not found an area of inspection where I have had to say to any of the inspectors or Andy Cooke, “Your report is taking policing in a direction that our evidence-based standards do not set.” It is an anomaly that needed to be dealt with, but it really is an exception and not the way we work together.

Q42        Mr Kohler: The memorandum talks about “promoting promising and innovative practice”. Going back to one of your very early answers about how you do not produce a risk-averse approach from chief inspectors, how have you achieved that? Can you give me some examples?

Sir Andy Marsh: I can. In fairness to Andy Cooke, he used the power of the inspectorate very effectively against me in a way that was helpful, and I would seek to hold everyone to account in that way. We have known each other a long time, but it never stopped him being incredibly difficult with me. He made the observation that we are identifying lots of good practice, but no one is doing anything with it; it is not spreading.

Policing is still inconsistent—that is a problem that remains—but in response to that, I set up the practice bank, and I welcome any of you having a look at our website to find it. Where we identify innovative or promising practice, or it is proposed by forces or identified by the inspectorate, we have a very fast, light-touch look. If it looks promising and innovative, we put it on the promising and innovative practice bank on the website. There are almost 500 examples.

This is still a big frustration of mine in policing, and I could talk about fire, because there are parallels. Whoever you are in policing—whether you are a constable or chief constable, or police staff—there will be some problems you are wrestling with, and I bet that someone has solved the problem on our practice bank. From there, we put it into chapters, and we identify pervasive and recurring problems. There is a whole chapter on investigating crime and crime investigation quality. We have developed lots of products to help forces improve investigation quality.

I chair a “what works” board. We have taken a leaf out of the medical profession with this. From the practice bank, we identified the game-changing innovations that will have the biggest impact on police productivity and performance. Then we use our limited money to evaluate them through trials in the sector. If they pass a trial, they go on the full “what works” website and are accelerated into policing through a productivity capability team that I have at the College of Policing. One of the things that they promoted recently is rapid video response across policing, for example.

Q43        Mr Kohler: Is the bank being used by forces?

Sir Andy Marsh: In Avon and Somerset when I created dashboards and dials informed by the staff and officers to help them make better decisions, I would monitor—it was all auditable—who was using it, and I found super-users using it in ways that I could not imagine, and we changed and improved it. I absolutely monitor who hits my website. I created a digital twin of police forces’ relationships with the College of Policing, which I share with the inspectorate, by the way, and it shows what police forces are contributing to—ideas, innovation, secondments—and which products they take up. For example, I learnt that that one of our products that flew off the shelf because of its high quality was an online 30-minute lesson on non-contact sexual offending—flashing on tube trains and upskirting. It was particularly good and relevant because of what had happened in the climate of violence against women and girls. It had embedded within it very meaningful family testimony from people who had been victims of those crimes, including from the mother of a daughter who had been murdered, to explain the importance to officers and staff. We can learn so much from who chooses to do what, or not, in relation to their relationship with the College of Policing. I monitor all of that stuff and point it out to chiefs as well.

Q44        Mr Kohler: On the new officer vetting rules that fell foul of the High Court, what have you learned from that experience?

Sir Andy Marsh: Can you remind me of that? There has been so much happening. What are you thinking of?

Q45        Mr Kohler: The College of Policing produced new vetting rules where vetting could be withdrawn on untested testimony and accusations, and that was thrown out by the High Court. Maybe you do not recall it.

Sir Andy Marsh: I do. I recall so much in terms of vetting. When I took this job in 2021, I did a public interview and said that vetting is a Cinderella service that is too important to be left out of the sunlight of scrutiny and standard setting. I put forward in 2021 that vetting units should be licensed and accredited by the professional body, the College of Policing. The chiefs—most of them, the important ones, disagreed with me. There was a recent vetting scandal known as Op Jorica in the media, and I recommended directly to the Home Secretary that we should license vetting units in the same way that we license police use of firearms. You would not dream of seeing a police officer with a firearm out there unless they are trained and accredited by the standards that I set at the College of Policing; vetting is equally important.

In that case, the Metropolitan police have been instrumental in pushing the boundaries of vetting. I think they won the appeal and my vetting authorised professional practice has been changed. It is up to date. We are looking at amending it further to include notifiable associations. It is an area that is constantly under review, but I think the Met won their appeal on that.

Q46        Mr Kohler: It is an iterative process whereby they can push the boundaries and the College of Policing standards can improve that.

Sir Andy Marsh: We work closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which the Met would be feeding in through to make sure we understand how those standards play out. There have been, as you know—your question alludes to it—some very specific problems in vetting. The college has been incredibly forthright in saying, “That is not good enough. Do it properly.” We are about to roll out that round of vetting unit accreditations, which I think will give the public greater confidence that that this has been done properly for the officers and staff who deal with them when they might be having the worst day of their lives. That is so important.

Q47        Mr Kohler: You have talked about the loss of public confidence in the police. How can the inspectorate help to address that issue?

Sir Andy Marsh: By using its methodology, its influence and its reports to focus policing on the things that matter most to the public, and to boost the performance of policing and fire and rescue by being absolutely transparent. I would want to bring a performance reporting regime into fire and rescue, similar to the one that is being developed in policing, to help the public understand that. The inspectorate have two roles in raising confidence: they can use their influence and levers to improve the experience that the public get with policing and fire and rescue, but they can also, through the transparent reporting of what is good and what needs to improve, bring greater transparency, which is an antidote to mistrust.

Q48        Mr Kohler: The issue of two-tier policing has been raised time and again recently. Should the inspectorate investigate that, have a role in that, or stay away from that controversy?

Sir Andy Marsh: As I understand it, the inspectorate—I am lightly quoting—found no evidence of two-tier policing. My own view is that impartiality is incredibly important, and whether there is evidence of it or not, it is set in the public’s understanding, so something needs to be done to make sure that we are impartial in our delivery of our services, whether that is policing or fire and rescue.

The other point I would make is that policing has huge volumes—millions-of calls and interactions. In our system, we give a huge amount of autonomy to the person on the frontline to make decisions—it is called discretion—about what is in front of them. The college offers lots of decision-making tools. Of course, if you go looking for difference you will find it, but if you go looking for difference in the quality of service that black communities experience, you will find that it is occasionally different from the service that white communities experience. The quality of service is important to all our communities. I do not know whether the inspectorate should have a role at the moment in judging this impartiality question, but it is incredibly important that policing responds to it.

Q49        Mr Kohler: If the inspectorate do not have that role, who should have it?

Sir Andy Marsh: If anyone is going to be the judge, it should be the inspectorate.

Q50        Mr Kohler: You are saying you are not sure they should.

Sir Andy Marsh: I think policing needs to decide its position first, and how it responds to this challenge.

Q51        Mr Kohler: That is a standard that the College of Policing would set. Is that something they are looking at?

Sir Andy Marsh: I have spoken to chief constables about it.

Mr Kohler: Is that a yes or a no?

Sir Andy Marsh: I actually think that the inspectorate’s report on activism is an incredibly good report and there is some unfinished business in it. This comes back to the question of how the inspectorate makes its recommendations stick. I have spoken to chief constables about the outstanding recommendations in that report.

Q52        Mr Kohler: Finally, on the leadership commission’s report, I understand that they said there was no clear system of leadership development with responsibility shared between the College of Policing and individual forces. Is that your understanding of what they said?

Sir Andy Marsh: I think it was a really good report, I know it has been welcomed in the sector at many levels—chief constables, the federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association—and there has been positive feedback, anecdotally. It is important to say that I was very supportive of commissioning that report. The report sets out 27 recommendations, but there are two big problems. One is a lack of consistency in so many ways, whether we are talking about talent spotting, personal development reviews or promotion. There is inconsistency across the sector,

The second aspect is woeful under-investment in leadership. Leadership is almost where it all starts to go right or go wrong. In a year, the College of Policing delivers leadership training to only about 550 officers and staff. There clearly is not enough investment, whoever is responsible. Certainly, the sentiment that I have picked up from the sector is that if we do these things, it will make policing so much better.

Q53        Mr Kohler: You will push back on this question, but why could you not address the issue from the vantage point of your role in the College of Policing?

Sir Andy Marsh: I reshaped the mission to be “leadership, standards and performance”. We did establish a national centre for police leadership. I did manage to secure an agenda item on a 2023 national policing—I cannot remember what the meeting was called, sorry, but the Home Secretary chairs it—and we established a strategy for improving leadership. The college has done some good work: we set the standard at five levels, and we completely reviewed the executive leadership selection process and course. I think that is high quality, but it is far too late in the lifespan of someone who is coming through policing. It might surprise you, or not, to know that our allocated budget at the College of Policing for leadership is £2.5 million—

Mr Kohler: I saw £4 million, but you are saying £2.5 million, which is even less than—

Sir Andy Marsh: We spent £4.1 million, and the £2.5 million is ringfenced, so the gap is made up through our grant in aid, which I can use as discretionary spend to run the college. What I have had to do recently, however, with great regret, is to start charging significantly more to recover the cost, because we simply cannot afford to do it. We only provide leadership training at levels 4 and 5, which is superintendent police staff equivalent level 4, while level 5 is chief officer gateway. Those are key reasons why leadership, I am afraid, is under-invested in.

I gave evidence to the commission, but they spoke to many people inside and outside policing. What I am particularly pleased with is their recognition of frontline leadership. If you are in a room with officers and staff—I am sure it is the same in fire and rescue—and you ask them to think about the worst time and the best time in their career, the best is about making a difference for the public, teamwork, good work being recognised, and poor behaviour and standards being addressed right away. At the centre of all that is a good frontline leader. On the police side, that is a sergeant, but it will be different in fire and rescue. That is the area that needs significant investment, as well as the top end.

Q54        Mr Kohler: The comparison with the Army is absolutely damning, isn’t it, and the different resource put in?

Sir Andy Marsh: There is a direct comparison: a chief superintendent in the Met leads about 1,500 people, might have taken between 20 and 30 years to arrive at that, and have had two or three weeks’ leadership training; while a colonel in the Army, with a similar span of command, would have had 72 weeks. I think even health probably has a bit more than us.

Dr Prinsley: Yes it does.

Sir Andy Marsh: I am passionate about it, and I would be the first to recognise that we have not done enough—we need to do much more. I am not afraid of criticism, or of criticising, which is why I was delighted that Lords Blunkett and Herbert conducted this commission.

Chair: We are on the final straight. Bell Ribeiro-Addy has questions on policing reform.

Q55        Bell Ribeiro-Addy: What is your view of the Government’s planned policing reforms, including the new national standards for policing and the set of national strategic policing priorities, which have been developed by the Home Office? Do you see any challenges and opportunities that those will create for the inspectorate?

Sir Andy Marsh: In its broadest brush, reform is to be welcomed, because where policing succeeds, in my experience, it is succeeding despite so many barriers and impediments. The public deserve better, and people in policing deserve better.

In terms of the explicit areas that you mentioned, standard setting and direction, I believe that it is the Home Secretary’s democratic right to say, “This is what I want from policing.” She happens to be the Home Secretary. The inspectorate, because we are independent, and certainly on the state of policing, could offer a different view about what might be important. Both things are possible. If there is to be that national direction, policing across England and Wales needs to be cognisant of and accountable for it. The new performance framework, which has worked in partnership with the inspectorate, will help to do that.

I have one more observation on direction setting. From neighbourhoods to local policing areas, and through to the police forces, whatever their size, there still needs to be the ability to include a local flavour, rather than directing them by saying, “You must take into account this direction.” Policing happens locally. If we take Avon and Somerset, where I policed, the needs of the community in St Pauls are very different from the needs of the community in Exmoor, for example. You need a local element to it.

Standards setting is something that I am passionate about, having spent the last five years doing it. This role will move into the National Police Service, and appropriate checks must be put in place to ensure that the commissioner of the national police service cannot inappropriately fetter the standards being set for the service. There are complex and extended discussions currently taking place about how that will work. By the way, I think it is possible to build those safeguards in.

Q56        Bell Ribeiro-Addy: What impact do you expect the reduction in police forces to have on the inspectorate’s overall inspection regime? Would you be looking to do fewer, more in-depth inspections of the larger forces, or would you also be inspecting the proposed local policing areas that sit within those forces?

Sir Andy Marsh: Personal experience of policing matters most to local communities, until something big goes wrong. Of course, tragically and concerningly, we have seen examples of that in the last week. On the plus side, if those bigger capabilities transpire—Bernard Hogan-Howe is conducting his review—they will have far greater strategic capability and capacity to pack a punch, so that they can solve a big problem when it happens.

To an extent, we work around that at the moment. The counter-terrorism activity that we see taking place is co-ordinated nationally and led by the Metropolitan police. That would move into the new body, which I think would be beneficial. What would also be beneficial is having fewer decision makers, so that you have a faster flash to bang when someone says, “We need to do this, don’t we?” Someone else can then say, “Yes, let’s do it. Let’s make it happen.” At the moment, innovation is far too slow to flow across England and Wales.

What we need to safeguard against is the loss of connection between the local person—the member of the public or the citizen in the community—and the police force or fire and rescue service that are there to serve them. I absolutely believe that is possible through creating a very clear, resilient model of local policing areas, with the best ever neighbourhood policing. That really matters, and some of the damage to trust and confidence that we have witnessed over the last 10 years has come through the attrition of neighbourhood policing. If that police reform allows us to do things more efficiently and effectively, so that we can protect the things that the public really care about, that would be a good thing.

Q57        Bell Ribeiro-Addy: So there is no concern that the reforms could overlap with your work.

Sir Andy Marsh: The inspectorate would absolutely need to adjust its methodology of inspection to match the new landscape, but it would still need to report first and independently for the member of the public on the street who wants to know how their fire and rescue and policing are delivering for them.

For the inspectorate, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that applies in two ways. First, we must ensure that, while this reform is going on, improvements in the performance of fire and rescue and policing are still driven through. We need to get the basics right, like it is business as usual. Secondly, at the end state, whatever it is, we must also independently and very fairly critique the standard of that.

Q58        Bell Ribeiro-Addy: What do you think about the plans to give the Home Secretary new powers to sack chief constables who do not perform? Do you think that any such decision should be subject to consultation with the inspectorate, as a check on the Home Secretary’s power?

Sir Andy Marsh: Policing works best when there is a balance in the system. In my experience of leading two big police forces, if you do not balance what happens centrally with what can only be best delivered locally, you will be sub-optimal and wasting money. That imbalance can happen in a police force, or in a national policing or fire and rescue system. If it is all about the local, that will not be right; if it is all about the central, that will not be right.

There need to be balances and checks, so I support the power. It is an incredibly important job—I know that, as I have done it myself and have also, on occasion, rightly felt insecure, because I needed to do the best I could for the public. I am absolutely supportive of an appropriate check and balance to make sure that the decision is properly advised and taken only appropriately. That decision must—not could or should but must—be consulted on with the chief inspector of the constabulary.

Q59        Bell Ribeiro-Addy: And there is no worry that the power to do this politicises the role of chief constable?

Sir Andy Marsh: In saying that it should be consulted on with the chief executive of the constabulary, whoever the postholder is—that includes me—might publicly say, “Under these circumstances, I don’t think that’s appropriate.” That is a possible outcome of having that safeguard.

Two things are really important. One, it is important that the police are operationally independent and able to make decisions, independent of politics, about who they do or do not arrest and what they investigate. I have been responsible in an international role for leading policing improvement missions or pieces of work around the whole world. We have a very unique and precious system, which we must fiercely guard.

At the same time, if the Home Secretary, whom the population are in some shape or form party to electing, is not able to shape the direction of policing with appropriate sanctions when things are not going the way they should, the system is out of balance. The power is right; it should have a check and balance so that someone who is courageous and strong enough can say whether they think a decision is right or not.

Q60        Bell Ribeiro-Addy: Going back to the reforms and reduction in police forces, your predecessor, Sir Andy Cooke, raised concerns about the integration of IT systems if the number of police forces in England and Wales were to be reduced overall. Can you foresee any other problems coming from this?

Sir Andy Marsh: There are plenty of problems on the risk register. Undertaking such a complex reform without some priming would make it even more difficult. As I have already talked about, there is the risk of a dip in performance on getting the basics right through a period of change, because of the disruption. The inspectorate can help to mitigate some of these risks by bringing clarity and transparency to what they see and advise.

I have seen major restructures fail for two reasons. One has been because of a lack of good leadership, clarity, intent and mission. In any restructuring, it would be important to make senior appointments early, so that the people who are responsible for making the decisions that shape the future can be held to account. The longer that you leave in place key people who are uncertain about the future, the more risk you start to encompass.

The other recurring failure point is poor data and technology infrastructure. It is all very well to have a new organisation, but the people we work with are smart people, not mugs, and if they cannot access the information or services that they need, they will lose confidence in it very quickly, and the purpose and clarity will be undermined. We must do better on IT. Looking at the amount of money the sector spends on IT, I personally think that we spend enough, as we spend a lot, but we spend it badly.

Chair: That brings us to the end of our questions. Is there anything else that you have not been asked about and that you would like to get on record?

Sir Andy Marsh: You have been very thorough. I am grateful for your patience; I am sorry if I have been a bit verbose.

Chair: Not at all; I am very grateful, as we have kept you slightly longer than we expected to. You have answered all our questions, so if there is nothing else, I bring the session to a close.