Memorandum submitted by The Police Federation
of England and Wales
This memorandum addresses questions sent to
the Police Federation of England and Wales following evidence
given to the Sub-committee by Police Federation Chairman Jan Berry.
[1]
1.1 In evidence before the Committee you said
that in the past the police did not give environmental crime a
very high priority, to the extent that it was not reflected at
all in the National Policing Plan. Was there any attempt by the
Police Federation or other police representative bodies to get
it put into the Plan?
1.2 First and foremost, it is important
to note that environmental crime is a generic term. There are
a wide variety of environmental crimes and these are dealt with
in a wide variety of ways by a number of different organisations
and partnerships.
1.3 The National Policing Plan in effect
dictates where police focus lies and perhaps more importantly,
where it does not. In its current format the Plan specifically
concerns crimes that are easily countable, but the majority of
environmental crimes do not fall within this category. For this
reason the National Policing Plan has had a significant contribution
to the lack of focus on some forms of environmental crime.
1.4 The Police Federation did not specifically
make mention to, for instance, noise or other forms of anti-social
behaviour in correspondence to the Home Office during the drawing-up
process of the Plan. These issues were, however, alluded to, and
the Police Federation stressed that the Plan was aimed at crime—e.g.
volume crime and persistent offenders—to the detriment of
other issues such as the environmental crime. Moreover, we affirmed
that "low-level" environmental issues and "more
serious" crime are very much a part of the same issue. This,
coupled with the art of patrolling being devalued and a decreased
police presence on the streets, has allowed environmental crime
and anti-social behaviour to take a greater hold on communities.
1.5 We continue to highlight the importance
of revaluing patrolling as a proactive approach to policing, and
Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) are in many areas performing
this role.
2.1 What successful alternatives to the prosecution
of offenders have your members seen in action?
2.2 We believe there is sometimes a tendency
to be over reliant on criminal sanctions as a solution. In reality,
communities can sometimes be turned around by the communities
themselves—but for this to occur they need to be assisted.
2.3 Examples of effective projects are cleaner
street campaigns involving offenders as an alternative to prosecution.
Such campaigns can be very impactive but are resource intensive
and are often only viewed in terms of the short-term financial
trade offs they bring.
3.1 How good is the general working relationship
with local authority officials in dealing with local environmental
crime? Would it be fair to say that there is sometimes disagreement
over how to prioritise the various categories of local crimes?
How seriously do such disagreements hinder effective action against
such offences?
3.2 The effectiveness of the general working
relationship with local authority officials in dealing with local
environmental crime is highly dependent upon the priorities of
the given local authority. If local authorities fail to devote
the requisite time, energy and resources to dealing with the cause
and effects of environmental crime this can cause an element of
disagreement as to where priorities should lie.
3.3 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
(CDRPs) contain the major players in terms of those who have a
capacity to make a real and deliverable difference at a local
level e.g. the police, schools etc. Whether CDRPs are a success
or failure is therefore more dependent upon these personnel rather
than any limitations of extant legislation, or the actual structure
of the CDRP. This, in part, therefore accounts for the wide variance
in success of tackling environmental crime.
4.1 How useful do you think street and community
wardens will be in helping to tackle local environmental crime?
Do you have concerns about what powers they should have?
4.2 A visible presence can be very effective
as a deterrent in its own right as people react differently when
they see a "uniform". But these personnel have a wider
role with wider benefits. Park wardens, for instance, can be effective
in nipping problems in the bud, especially in low-level so-called
"broken window" incidents.
4.3 These personnel should however be limited
to non-confrontational situations. Individuals "testing"
authorities should be dealt with by the police as only they have
the special training required to deal with such incidents. We
have strong concerns that by giving non-police personnel policing
powers the role of wardens and other such personnel is changed,
thus damaging their relationship with the communities they serve.
5.1 While logically both the chances of being
caught and the likely sentences resulting from a successful prosecution
have their part to play in deterrence, do you have a view as to
whether the greatest problem with deterring people effectively
from offending is that they don't think they will be caught or
that the consequences, if they are caught, are pretty trivial?
5.2 As referred to in paragraphs 1.3 and
4.2, deterrence is intrinsically linked with the presence of police
and other associated personnel on the streets. It is a simple
fact that if individuals believe that the chance of being caught
is negligible they will be more likely to commit an offence. Equally
so, if the consequences do not fit the crime, and when recidivism
rates are high, it can be argued that the consequences are trivial.
5.3 The answer to this question is therefore
not necessary one of "either/or". Tackling crime effectively
is dependent upon a combination of apposite deterrence and consequence.
Different people respond differently dependent upon the severity
of the consequences of committing a crime or the relative risk
of being caught. It is clear from our experience that an appropriate
balance has yet to be found to counter the effects of the crimes
being investigated by this sub-committee.
May 2004
1 Jan Berry, Chairman of the Police Federation of
England and Wales uncorrected oral evidence to the Sub-committee
on environmental crime, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvaud/uc445-iii/uc44502.htm Back
| 
