APPENDIX 4
Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Police Authorities
Police authorities share the objectives set
out by Ministers in seeking police reform. They are fully committed
to working in partnership with Ministers and Chief Officers within
the existing constitutional framework, to deliver better local
policing.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Ministers have given assurances that it is not
their intention to change or undermine the tri-partite governance
structure for policing enshrined in the Police Act 1996, involving
the Home Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament; the local
police authority made up of, and accountable to, local people;
and the chief constable—who has operational independence
and who is appointed and held to account by the local police authority.
The tri-partite structure is a system of carefully
constructed checks and balances—which ensures that policing
is not subject to partisan political control. It is a system which
gives local people a substantive voice in how they are policed,
and means policing is tailored to local needs and expectations.
The Association of Police Authorities believes
that the cumulative effect of the proposals contained in the Police
Reform Bill (which must be read in conjunction with the wider
proposals set out in the Government's White Paper "Policing
a New Century: a Blueprint for Reform") would radically shift
the current balance within the tripartite system—away from
local people and local accountability, towards greater central
direction and control by the Home Secretary.
Police authorities are local partners of the
Government. They will not support proposals which sideline the
voice of local communities, by turning police authorities into
local agents of Government. Police authorities also believe that
the principle of the operational independence of chief officers
within the tripartite framework of accountability, remains an
essential bedrock of policing.
The Home Secretary is proposing:
— To produce an annual national policing
plan, which will not be the subject of statutory consultation
with tripartite partners but which will set out
— The Home Secretary's 3 year strategic
policing priorities
— The Home Secretary's Objectives under
section 37 of the Police Act 1996 for policing for the year
— Any regulations which the Home Secretary
proposes to make
— Any guidance and codes of practice
the Home Secretary proposes to issue
— Such other information, plans and
advice as the Home Secretary considers relevant
— To take powers to give directions
to Chief Officers to produce remedial plans to address performance
issues (without the involvement of the police authority)
— To take powers to direct the use
of particular equipment or adoption of particular operational
procedures and practices
— To take a power to direct a police
authority to suspend the Chief Constable of a force, notwithstanding
that the police authority does not judge this necessary to maintain
local confidence in the force
— To issue statutory guidance to police
authorities and chief officers on the preparation of 3 year strategy
plans and to require the plans to be sent to the Home Secretary
— To establish a process for forming
a view as to whether in his view the local plan is consistent
with the national policing plan.
— To task the Standards Unit to intervene
directly with forces and BCUs within forces on performance issues.
LOCAL CONSULTATION
The Government is proposing in the Police Bill
some fundamental changes to the way in which policing is delivered
including:
— The introduction of Community Support
Officers (CSOs), designated by the Chief Constable
— The introduction of Community Safety
Accreditation Schemes, with individuals accredited by the Chief
Constable.
Designated Community Support Officers will have
powers including:
— powers to issue fixed penalty notices
in relation to certain offences
— power to require a name and address
— power to detain a person for up to
30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable unless the person
chooses to go with the CSO to a police station
— power to use reasonable force to
detain someone
Accredited individuals will have powers including:
— powers to issue fixed penalty notices
in relation to certain offences
— power to require a name and address
— power to detain a person for up to
30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable (but not to use
reasonable force)
Community Support Officers
The APA welcomes the fact that the provisions
are "enabling" ie it will be for each chief officer
to decide whether or not to take them up. However, the introduction
of CSOs has significant implications for the style and nature
of local policing—matters on which it is essential to hear
and reflect the views of local communities.
As currently drafted there is no requirement
in the Bill for the chief officer to seek the approval of (or
even consult), the body accountable to local communities—the
police authority—as to the introduction of CSOs in the area.
The Bill should require the chief officer to obtain the approval
of the police authority to the principle of introducing CSOs and
other designated support staff and the policy and strategy for
deployment of CSOs and other such staff. We would expect police
authorities to consult widely with their communities before taking
such a step and it is disappointing that the Government does not
share our view of the importance of dialogue with local communities
about the nature of policing in their area to determine their
views and support for initiatives such as this.
If provisions to allow the appointment of CSOs
are to be introduced then the APA believes the following are the
minimum safeguards to protect the interests of local communities:
— CSOs should only be introduced in
an area with the full consent and approval of the police authority
and after the police authority has consulted widely with local
communities
— The accountability and direction
and control of CSOs must be the same as for regular officers
— The role of CSOs would need to be
clearly defined so that this does not lead to the development
of two-tier policing
— CSOs must be standardised with the
rest of the service to ensure that they are instantly recognisable
to the public and their role is properly understood.
— CSOs must be suitably trained and
brought within the ambit of the police complaints process
— The exercise by CSOs of powers to
detain, stop vehicles or issue fixed penalty notices must be subject
to the same recording requirements as is the exercise of such
powers, including stop and search, by police officers so that
proper monitoring can be undertaken to ensure that the powers
are not used disproportionately or discriminately
— Efforts should be made to ensure
that CSOs are properly reflective of the local communities they
serve
Accreditation Schemes
The APA has substantial concerns about proposals
to award police powers of any sort to accredited organisations.
The award of such powers raises significant questions around accountability,
control, training and the community's perception of policing as
a whole. It also raises questions, not addressed by the White
Paper, about the legal responsibilities for acts committed by
such staff.
As with the proposals for CSOs, it is unclear
to what extent giving powers to non-police officers has support
amongst local communities. We understand that many local warden
schemes are strongly opposed to their staff being given police
powers. Much of the success of local warden schemes is due to
wardens being seen as part of the community: exercising powers
would identify them too closely with the police and impact on
those strong community links.
The Bill only places an obligation on chief
officers to consult police authorities about establishing accreditation
schemes in their area and in our view this is insufficient. The
establishment of accreditation schemes in an area goes to the
heart of the nature and style of local policing and is not simply
an operational matter for chief officers to determine. Such a
significant change in local policing should be the subject of
full and open debate with local communities to ascertain their
support before embarking on such a course. The provisions in Clause
34 to provide for information about local accreditation schemes
to be included in the policing plan are welcome but not in themselves
sufficient to achieve real consultation before schemes are introduced.
The Bill should require the chief officer to
obtain the approval of the police authority to:
— the principle of introducing community
safety accreditation schemes
— the entering into of "arrangements"
with particular employers
— the policy and strategy for giving
powers to, and managing deployment of, accredited staff in the
area.
The requirements for the chief officer to be
satisfied about the training of accredited staff and that adequate
complaints processes be in place are woefully insufficient to
meet the high standards necessary to maintain public confidence
in local policing or those exercising even limited police powers.
FUNDING
The Government's proposals are all uncosted.
However, preliminary work suggests that the resource implications
of many of the proposals are significant. The Government must
give a clear commitment to finding the necessary funding.
There is also a need for further open debate
on the priority that should be given to the various proposals,
assuming funding will not be available immediately for all initiatives.
The Government should give a commitment that
these issues will be able to be debated meaningfully at local
level, and that new proposals will not be implemented through
ring-fenced central funding pockets. This complicates unnecessarily
police funding issues, prejudices the ability in practice of authorities
and forces to take decisions about local policing and reduces
direct local accountability.
Association of Police Authorities
February 2002
| 
