19. First supplementary memorandum
from the Association of Police Authorities
MODERNISING POLICE
POWERS—APA INITIAL
VIEWS
1. The Committee requested our initial views
on the Home Office consultation paper "Policing: Modernising
Police Powers to suit Community Needs".
2. As the Committee will appreciate, we
are currently studying the proposals in detail and consulting
police authorities to inform our response within the Home Office's
deadline of 8 October. Given the holiday season, authorities have,
as yet had little time to consider the proposals locally, and
feedback has therefore been limited. This note therefore represents
very much an initial reaction to the proposals and does not yet
fully reflect the views of all authorities.
ARRESTS AND
SEARCH WARRANTS
3. Our initial view of the proposals is
that we are likely to be able to welcome the bulk of the proposals.
The measures are designed to help the police service fight crime
and to increase the range of tools available to operational officers
and police staff.
4. Police authorities will, however, want
to examine closely any changes to police powers from the perspective
of their communities and how they might be affected. It is important
that powers exercised by the police or indeed any other enforcement
agency are clear and easily understood by communities and have
their support and consent. Anything which helps therefore to clarify
and simplify the current confusing array of powers of arrest is
to be welcomed provided that appropriate safeguards to protect
the law abiding citizen from unwarranted interference.
5. The proposals to clarify the citizen's
power of arrest are likely to be welcome in principle.
WORKFORCE MODERNISATION
6. The Committee will be aware from our
previous written evidence of the very positive reception to the
introduction of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and
their popularity with communities. As that submission indicated,
we are wary of giving PCSOs additional powers at this stage, pending
the outcomes of the national evaluation of PCSOs led by the Home
Office. In our view, PCSOs popularity stems partly from the fact
that they have a very distinct role from that of police officers.
They are seen as visible, available and a resource for communities
to draw on. They are relatively inexpensive compared to police
officers partly because they take less time to train and need
less equipment. The more powers they are given the more potential
there is for that distinction to be blurred. It may also require
an extension to the training which PCSOs receive and possibly
even equipment, in turn reducing the cost differential with police
officers. Additional powers may also have the impact of reducing
the time available to PCSOs to work directly with communities,
for example because they are completing paper-work at the station.
This is likely to lead to further disillusionment on the part
of communities who will have got used to having a reassuring presence
on the streets.
7. On the face of it the power to enforce
byelaws, for example, may be uncontroversial. But the power to
search a detained person who may present a danger to himself or
others could put PCSOs in potentially dangerous situations and
would be a significant step which would need to be considered
carefully.
PROSECUTION OF
CHIEF OFFICERS
8. We support the move to take away chief
constables' personal liability for organisational health and safety
failures, but we need to look carefully at the chosen route ie
creating the chief officer as a corporation sole. It needs to
be clear that this entity would exist only in relation to health
and safety issues.
CONCLUSION
9. The police service needs to be properly
equipped to carry out its duties efficiently and effectively.
Efforts to rationalise and simplify the plethora of different
powers are therefore welcome in principle and should benefit both
the police and public alike. However, it is important to ensure
that any extensions to police powers have the support of communities
and do not alienate those who would normally support the police.
In particular, the additional powers to take identification evidence
and to widen powers to implement search warrants clearly have
civil liberties implications. These proposals would need to be
carefully thought through and proper safeguards would need to
be put in place to ensure they could not be used disproportionately
or unfairly.
2 September 2004
| 
