12. Memorandum submitted by
PC David Grant
NOTE ABOUT
AUTHOR:I am a Police Constable
with almost six years service with the British Transport Police.
Additionally I am seeking promotion and have just finished a six-month
period as Acting Sergeant. My career and interest lies in Uniform
frontline policing.
The views expressed herein are entirely my own
and should not be regarded as representing those of my employer.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION:
1. Police Forces should undertake a root
and branch review of paper-based and computer-based systems to
ensure there is no duplication of information/staff time.
2. The Stop-Search form should be simplified,
and the requirement to complete Stop-Check forms abolished.
3. All relevant Government initiatives should
include the British Transport Police and must be backed by adequate
funding and access to those funds by that Force.
4. Competency Related Threshold Payments
and Special Priority Payments should be abolished forthwith and
the money spent elsewhere within the police service.
1.1 The Government's Police Reforms have
had quite a dramatic effect on the police service as a whole.
From reading the specialist media it is clear that many of the
changes are hotly debated within the articles and letters pages.
However, as a frontline Uniformed officer in the British Transport
Police I have to say that the impact they have had on me personally,
and my area of work, is absolutely negligible.
1.2 I am not speaking about indirect effects—because
I am sure that there are many issues that filter down from Force
or Area Headquarters that are in some way related to "police
reforms". What I am interested in is how do the reforms affect
me and the way that I do my job?
1.3 Please let me give you my thoughts on
just a few topics that I feel qualified to mention:
Paperwork & Bureaucracy
2.1 As a frontline uniformed police officer my
biggest gripe without a shadow of a doubt is paperwork. It is
always a standing joke to quote the phrase "Do you know that
when they invented computers they said they would lead to the
paperless office?" and then mutter ". . . and they said
North Sea gas would be free too!" Reality is somewhat different!
2.2 Unfortunately, where computer-based
systems have been introduced these have tended to add an extra
layer of bureaucracy to my job rather than actually reduce paperwork.
I am extremely computer literate and can type to a professional
standard. However, the senior officers within the Police Service
are of an age when the Forces ran on paper-based systems and I
find that there are many of these officers that cannot grasp the
fact that a new computer system should replace the paper system
instead of duplicating it. Alas no! For example, where my police
force raises a crime for a recordable offence procedure decrees
that an officer make out a Crime Folder. The purpose of the Crime
Folder is to record the investigation of the offence, and every
action taken in that investigation is noted contemporaneously.
We also have a computer system, called e-Pins, which records exactly
the same thing. The officer assigned to investigate the recordable
offence has to input all the actions taken in the investigation.
I now have to complete both the paper system (Crime Folder) and
e-Pins. Not only that, the Sergeant then has to check that both
the Crime Folder has been correctly filled in and the investigation
completed to at least "minimum standards", and also
check that e-Pins has been updated by the officer. Once this is
done the Sergeant files the Crime Folder in a filing cabinet,
and in turn these go away to Area Headquarters to be archived,
and the e-Pins record has to be endorsed by the Sergeant as complete.
From the officer investigating, to the Sergeant supervising, every
step is duplicated twice by the officer and twice by the Sergeant.
2.3 IT systems are often seen as a panacea
for all the ills of the Police Service. Whilst I am all in favour
of using technology to the fullest—and please don't get
me started on the subject of why we do not have portable fingerprint
scanners in our police cars!—I think there has to be some
recognition of the practical limitations. When I and my colleagues
come on shift there is a mad scramble for an available computer
so that we can: check the Force Intranet, read the Daily Intelligence
briefing, review Incident Logs, check our e-mail, update a crime
investigation on e-Pins, or type up a Statement, etc, etc. And
when I've finished doing all that then the next officer is waiting
to do the same. Of course we want more money spent on police officers,
but at the end of the day we still need the tools to do the job.
2.4 One of the biggest problems that affects
the bureaucracy placed upon the police is the fact that procedures
are laid down by people who have no experience of the daily hardships
of being a frontline police officer. Decisions to implement a
system are usually made by people who do not have criminal records,
do not come into daily contact with police officers, and are motivated
by an "ideal world" situation where if they did come
into contact with the police this is how they would want to be
treated. The reality, like it or not, is that there are people
out there who want to kill me, or cause me serious harm, just
because of the job I do. This is the daily reality of being a
police officer. It's not just the gangsters and terrorists of
this world, it's the drug addict with his hypodermic needle, the
shoplifter with the knife, the drunk with his fists. If you are
a law abiding person why bemoan the fact that you "never
see a police officer" We are out there dealing with the law
breakers, and these are the people that really do not want to
see a police officer, and when we turn up they are not best pleased.
2.5 Parliament has decided to make my job
on the streets even harder. An example is the expanding of the
Stop-Search form. Prior to carrying out the search I already had
to comply with the PACE Codes of Practice. This meant that I outlined
my grounds for the search, the object I was looking for, produced
my Warrant card (if not in uniform or if requested), identified
myself by name and station, and explained to the person their
entitlement to a copy of the search record. Whenever I carried
out a Stop-Search I had to complete a form which measured 10cm
x 14cm and required 40 pieces of information.
2.6 Now when I carry out a Stop-Search I
have to complete a form which measures 10cm x 28cm, is double-sided,
and requires 70 pieces of information. I record the details of
the stop in my pocket notebook, on the Stop-Search form, and then
input all the information again onto the Intelligence System on
the computer back in the office.
2.7 New changes which come into effect from
1st August 2004 will mean that just for a simple Stop-Check (or
"Stop and Talk" as it is sometimes called) where I ask
a person in a public place to account for their presence it will
mean that I have to complete a Stop-Check form. Previously I completed
no form, just recorded the details in my pocket notebook. The
new form, based on the Stop-Search form (10cm x 28cm in size),
requires 55 pieces of information. In my job I can quite easily
encounter groups of 20 juveniles loitering on railway station
platforms. Our policy is to take all their names and addresses
and send letters to their parents and for Youth Referrals. Why
has Parliament made my job so much more difficult by deciding
I now have to fill in 20 Stop-Check forms?
2.8 Bearing in mind the fact that people
I approach to account for their presence are people who have already
raised my suspicions, the danger of form-filling is also one of
officer safety and crime detection. I have witnessed less-experienced
officers approach the suspect and start filling in the form. Engrossed
in the paperwork they've failed to spot the suspect discard drugs,
stolen items, or a weapon. Is there really need to have such a
detailed and cumbersome form when the previous form was sufficient?
And is it really essential to detail every Stop-Check on the same
form? I think not.
Fixed Penalty Notices
3.1 I believe that the greater use of Fixed
Penalty Notices (FPN) is a superb way of reducing much of the
bureaucracy associated with being a police officer. The Police
Reform Act 2003 gave the British Transport Police the power to
issue Fixed Penalty Notices for the whole range of offences for
which the Home Office forces already issue them. Fantastic! There
are now even Fixed Penalty Notices for Trespassing on the Railway,
and Stonethrowing at Trains. However, even though Parliament has
given us the power to use these measures to the full the British
Transport Police do not have a Central Ticket Office. Instead
I have to look on in envy as local police issue the drunk in custody
a FPN when they have sobered up, and I go away knowing that I'll
spend the next two hours putting together a prosecution file for
my drunk. To add insult to injury the local police now have FPN
for Railway Trespass and Stonethowing, but I, as a member of the
specialist police force for the railways have no such option.
It is a joke—and a very unfunny one at that! Full marks
to Parliament for giving us the powers, no marks at all to Force
Headquarters for still not creating a Central Ticket Office, even
after all this time.
(See Appendix A—article from Lancashire
Evening Post newspaper dated 27th July 2004 [not printed]).
Police Community Support Officers
4.1 I have not had any personal experience
of Community Support Officers (CSOs). It appears then when most
legislation is put together by Parliament they seem to, for one
reason or another, "forget" about the British Transport
Police.
4.2 I hope that BTP will take on CSOs—although
I understand that the main reason this may have not happened so
far is that once again an initiative was created and BTP was excluded
from the funding pot. I do believe very strongly that CSOs should
have a well-defined remit and a nationally recognised standard
level of training. Within BTP they could provide a useful function
patrolling stations and trains, particularly if they were an Area
resource rather than a police station resource. This would allow
them to patrol a train from one BTP post to another, for example
covering a late night train from Manchester to Blackpool, rather
than just Manchester to Bolton (which is within one BTP police
station area).
4.3 I do also firmly believe that police
officers should retain a patrol function and this should never
be replaced entirely by CSO's. Otherwise police will only turn
up at incidents when something "bad" has happened, or
someone needs to be arrested, and we will be in danger of losing
what "policing by consent" that still very tentatively
exists. I enjoy high profile patrolling—it enables me to
maintain personal contact with the railway community, gather intelligence,
and provide reassurance to both public and staff.
Pay
5.1 The creation of Competency Related Threshold
Payments (CRTP), and Special Priority Payments (SPP), is a subject
that makes my blood boil. The Police Service relies on a very
strong team functioning as one in adverse conditions. These payments—however
well intentioned—have been completely divisive and the source
of much bitterness.
5.2 With regard to CRTP the rewarding of
officers who have reached the top of their salary scale is perverse.
I can see the reasoning behind it, but poorly-paid Probationary
Police Constables will put far more time, effort, and enthusiasm
into their work than any time-served police officer. Of course
this is because their services can be dispensed with within the
first two years and therefore their job quite literally demands
it of them. Police Constables know what the salary scale is when
they start the job. If they don't feel that there is enough money
or enough incentive for them when they reach the top of the scale
then they should consider promotion. If they do not want to go
down that road then they should be content with their lot. Just
because a lazy and incompetent officer can fill in an application
form smartly (or be told what to write on the application form)
it does not make it right they should be given an extra £1,002
per annum.
5.3 The issue of SPP has been even more
contentious. BTP has given some of these payments to very senior
officers just because they are on-call (and these officers are
already very well paid). Yet frontline officers working 24/7 shifts
in most Areas have received nothing. More than any other thing,
this Police Reform has created the most resentment. Either give
us all a pay rise, or abolish these payments and spend the money
elsewhere within the police service.
Other matters
6.1 With so many non-sworn personnel and
accredited staff having "police" powers we are already
on the way to the American system where there are a multitude
of police forces, and I do not mean just State and local police.
A classic example is that on my last trip to the US I visited
the Central Lending Library in Washington DC. Upon entering the
door I was surprised to see a uniformed police officer, complete
with firearm, sat at a desk. The sign in front of him said "Library
Police". Is this the road we want to go down in the UK?
And finally...
7.1 Nobody in authority ever asks my opinion
on the subject of firearms and "should the police be routinely
armed?" My answer is "Yes!" It is very dangerous
on the streets these days and firearms are encountered much more
commonly. I do not believe the average member of the public realises
how commonly firearms and other weapons are encountered or used
against the police. I speak as someone who was stabbed whilst
trying to effect an arrest. If you want to make a worthwhile Police
Reform, then we need the tools to protect the public and ourselves.
There is no doubt at all that whether we like it or not the police
in Britain will one day be routinely armed. It is a pity that
police officers will continue to die needlessly because Parliament
lacks the will to make now the right time.
29 July 2004
| 
