Examination of Witness (Questions 60 -
75)
THURSDAY 7 FEBRUARY 2002
SIR DAVID
PHILLIPS QPM
60. So it is really the later arrest that this
clause is talking about?
(Sir David Phillips) Yes.
Mr Malins: That explains why they have been
added. Thank you.
Bob Russell
61. Sir David, we have not had the outcome of
the ballot on the new pay and conditions package but how critical
is that, do you think, to the whole proposals?
(Sir David Phillips) I am not sure that the pay agreement
is vital to many— Are you saying in relation to the Bill
or the whole of the reform?
62. The whole of the police reform, the whole
package. Surely that cannot be in isolation, can it?
(Sir David Phillips) There is clearly a connectedness
but I am not sure that this package would cripple the reform programme.
The issues in the reform programme that I believe are the most
significant are not necessarily included in the Bill. The real
issues that matter to me are to create a more professional police
service. If you want outcomes in terms of better handling of cases,
better investigation and the like and, indeed, a better ability
to handle sensitively community and neighbourhood order issues
you need to shift away from the concept of a police force of generalists
and recognise that you need people with professional skill and
high levels of training, that is the nature of the business we
are in. For me the great significance is that we move towards
qualification and the building up of doctrine that we train people
in. The connectedness to that package is there needs to be flexibility
in the workforce, but as to whether this rate of overtime is paid
or another, that does not hugely determine the fate of the modernisation
programme.
63. So, in summary, it is not critical?
(Sir David Phillips) Some parts of it are more critical
than others. I think the bits that are most critical are not ones
that are greatly contended.
64. Just moving on, is it possible that the
task force looking at reducing burdens and bureaucracy will conclude,
may conclude, that some change to legislation is needed, for example
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act?
(Sir David Phillips) I am cautious about this. I think
I know where most of the logjams are in this system because I
have looked at it several times. I am not entirely convinced by
the simple argument that there is too much bureaucracy. If you
arrest someone and take away their liberty and if you intend to
prosecute them so they might be imprisoned you have a responsibility
to create proper records around what is done and you cannot deal
with these kinds of serious interventions of the law without proper
procedures. The notion that you can simply arrest people and any
bit of paper will do is not acceptable in our society, as I see
it. Let us depart from the notion that there is a very simple
solution: dispense with record keeping. You have to put together
evidence properly. Somebody in a supervisory position has to be
sure. It is a very serious business to charge someone with a criminal
offence. I would not want to weaken the level of scrutiny and
authority that goes with doing that. I do not think it is simply
about removing those things. The issues in PACE that are a problem
are not issues of principle around PACE, they are issues around
the way in which sometimes PACE can produce delays because we
have to wait long periods of time for people to attend, say. In
my view, most of the ways around this consist of having better
technology and an adequate support staff capable of doing the
things that the police officer does not need to do. So, for example,
if a prisoner comes in and you are going to take their fingerprints
and their DNA and their descriptive details and to search them
and to put all these particulars on the police national computer
and all that, I do not think it is necessary for the investigating
officer to do that, in fact I would say it is better if he does
not because if there is any argument in the charge office between
the parties, it is usually between the arrested and the arrester
and the sooner you separate them the better. So what I would see
is not so much wholesale changes to PACE but proper staffing and
recognition that these procedures need to be done and that they
are probably not best done by the arresting officer. I am afraid
there will always be a level of procedure there.
65. The actual arrest, the charging and taking
someone's liberty away, I believe you are stating quite firmly
that must always be under jurisdiction of a police officer?
(Sir David Phillips) The decision to charge and to
further detain is a critical one. If the custody sergeant was
not to be a police officer it would at least have to be someone
of equivalent responsibility and stature. For example, if you
were to say to me "Could a retired experienced police officer
employed as a custody officer do it?", in all probability
yes, provided they were subject to some level of accountability.
One of the benefits of it being a police officer from the public's
point of view is the actions they take, they take within the context
of the police disciplinary code, they are investigatable, they
are accountable, they have to behave according to the rules.
Chairman
66. Sir David, are there any points that you
would like to make which we have not given you an opportunity
to make this afternoon?
(Sir David Phillips) If there are, Chairman, I cannot
think of them.
Angela Watkinson
67. I do just have a question about the pay
and conditions package and what effect you think it will have
on morale in general and would it assist in the retention of long
serving and experienced officers?
(Sir David Phillips) The package as it stands?
68. Yes?
(Sir David Phillips) I am not sure. The impression
I have is that officers have viewed it with some hesitation. I
think in part it comes within the context of a police pay settlement,
for which there is no equivalent budget support. Officers have
been saying to me "Well, how do we know it will be funded
in this context?" I think it is fair to say too that any
change of this order is bound to cause people to be concerned,
these changes do not come easily. I hope there are many things
in these provisions which on mature reflection people will see
are not against their interests. Indeed I think there are many
which will be in the interests of the rank and file constable.
69. With the recent boost in recruitment, are
you worried that there might develop an imbalance in the Metropolitan
Police Force weighted heavily towards newly recruited and newly
qualified inexperienced officers and not enough experienced long
serving officers at the other end?
(Sir David Phillips) I think it is inevitable, whatever
we do, the demographics of it are that over the next few years
there will be a considerable replacement of police officers naturally,
by natural wastage. It is true to say that we are always policing
with a relatively inexperienced front line. If you ask me, Chairman,
one thing which I would have liked to have seen within the modernisation
programme if not in the Bill, it would be this, I do not think
we take enough care in the training of our recruits. I think we
push them in to the front line too quickly. I think we ask them
to take responsibility too quickly on their own. The difficulty
is that effectively our establishments are built around a need
to survive with a pretty thin police force. I would like to take
officers, if you like, off the books for the first 12 months of
their service so that we can regard that first 12 months as training
time and not regard them as essential members of the front line
strength. It seems to me the real thrust that I want to see in
this whole modernisation programme is about developing people
with professional confidence and competence. The way we take them
in and throw them straight in at the deep end is not the best
way to produce that. One way or another, particularly if we are
going to take so many in, as we are, I would like more time to
train these people properly.
Chairman
70. Is there already a probation period?
(Sir David Phillips) There is a probationary period,
Chairman, of two years. The reality in policing is that after
a relatively short period of time from leaving a training school
they will be fulfilling routine patrol duties. They will be given
assistance. There will be a sergeant watching what they do but
frequently they are out on individual patrol answering difficult
calls.
71. Surely in doing that with a more experience
police officer?
(Sir David Phillips) Not necessarily.
72. As a single person?
(Sir David Phillips) Yes. For most of their time as
a probationer, certainly in the daylight hours, they will be on
their own. The truth is that in many police forces, given the
level of recruitment over the last couple of years, when you look
at the night shift parade, more than half of them will be probationer
constables, so who is leading whom? This puts terrific responsibility
on the sergeants.
Chairman: Okay.
Angela Watkinson
73. I understand the pass out rate in the Metropolitan
Police at their training school now is approaching 100 per cent.
I know that some years ago it was probably very much lower than
that. Would you care to comment?
(Sir David Phillips) I am sorry. I do not really know
any of the circumstances of the Metropolitan Police recruitment.
74. I have attempted to get an answer to this
question. It means either that the quality of recruits is very
much higher than it ever used to be or the standard is lower.
(Sir David Phillips) You may be right. I cannot comment.
Chairman
75. Okay. On that note, I must say when we visited
the police training college we thought the standard was really
high of the recruits we met.
(Sir David Phillips) Good.
Chairman: This was two or three years back.
What was particularly impressive was that many of them had not
just left school or college, they had done something else in the
world before wanting to become police officers. On that note,
Sir David, thank you for coming. That concludes this session.
We have another session in a moment with the Police Superintendents'
Association.
| 
