30. Second supplementary memorandum
by the Association of Police Authorities
APA RESPONSE TO
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
FROM THE
HOME AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
What is your response to HMIC's recent report
on a future strategy for civilianisation?
We welcome the report of HMIC's modernisation
thematic inspection which is a very helpful contribution to the
debate on how we achieve a police service in which police officers
and police staff are fully integrated. We accept and welcome the
recommendations which are aimed at the APA, in particular recommendation
23, that we seek agreement with ACPO to ensure greater consistency
in the appointment of police officers and police staff to chief
officer roles. This recommendation points up the fact that while
police authorities have a statutory responsibility to appoint
members of the chief officer team, this is not the case for the
appointment of police staff members of similar seniority. Indeed,
the APA called for authorities to be given a statutory role in
such appointments in our response to the Government's Green paper
on Police Reform. Increasingly, in practice police authorities
are becoming involved in these appointments, but it is right that
there should be greater consistency in this area and we will work
with ACPO to take this recommendation forward.
How much scope is there for a unified system of
pay and conditions within the police service?
We have signalled our view that the separate
sets of pay and conditions and of negotiating machineries militate
against modernisation in the police service. We aspire to full
integration in both areas while recognising that there are some
big issues to be overcome. I would stress that a unified system
of pay and conditions does not necessarily mean officers and staff
getting paid the same. Those with additional skills and responsibilities,
whether police officers or staff, will always need to be rewarded
accordingly.
What are your views on the retention of the office
of constable? Does the fundamental distinction between officers
of the Crown and other police staff continue to serve a useful
purpose?
There is an argument that police officers should
be employees in the same way as police staff. This would make
the unified workforce we seek easier to achieve. However, we recognise
that there are strong concerns both among serving police officers
and more widely about any abolition of police officers' status
as office holders under the Crown. In particular, these focus
on the possibility of industrial action by police officers. The
public needs to have confidence in a politically impartial police
service. We would welcome further debate on this issue but in
the meantime fully support the view that ordinary employment law
should be applied to police officers.
Do you anticipate that there will be significant
variations between forces in the proportion of CSOs employed and
the use made of them?
There are currently significant variations in
numbers. A number of forces have no Police Community Support Officers
(PCSOs) and some have very few, although every force has applied
for the latest tranche of Home Office funding for PCSOs.
One of the problems with ring-fenced funding
is that forces either take the plunge and apply for the funding
despite any reservations they have, or miss out on the money altogether.
Given the current scarcity of resources for policing, it is a
very tough decision to ignore money on offer for PCSOs.
We are co-operating with ACPO and the Home Office
on the production of guidance on PCSOs which it is intended will
contain some useful good practice advice on their deployment.
But each force area has a different socio-demographic and geographical
make-up and different policing challenges. So it would not be
surprising to see different approaches to deployment, for example
the Metropolitan Police have deployed them in particular areas
with large numbers of foreign visitors. We would like to see police
authorities, together with their chief officer team, deciding
on the best mix of police officers, PCSOs and other police staff
to suit their own force area and indeed different localities within
the force.
Do you think it was appropriate for the Government
to announce the recruitment of a further 20,000 CSOs before completion
of a proper evaluation of the effectiveness of the first 4,000?
Our initial views of PCSOs are generally very
positive, and in particular they are very popular with local communities.
But the Government's decision to make large sums of money available
for additional PCSOs before a proper national evaluation of the
first tranche of officers is a risk. It is not yet clear what
the best ways of deploying PCSOs, nor what the right mix between
officers, PCSOs and other police staff is. Nor is it clear why
the Government wants to see an additional 20,000 officers, rather
than say 10 or 50,000.
What funding arrangements would you like to see
in place for the recruitment of further CSOs?
We would prefer to see a situation where police
authorities could, together with their chief officer team and
having consulted communities, decide on the right staffing mix
for that area, without the distortion of very large sums of ring-fenced
funding for PCSOs. If there are additional resources available
they should be provided as part of the overall police funding
settlement, to give police authorities and forces this flexibility.
What is your view of the Government's recent proposals
to further extend the powers of CSOs?
We have always been wary of giving PCSOs additional
powers. 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 become used to having a reassuring
presence on the streets.
PCSOs are still relatively new and we feel it
is too early to consider giving them major new powers, such as
the power to search detained people and the extension of powers
of PCSOs to deal with alcohol-related anti-social behaviour. Such
powers would put PCSOs in potentially dangerous situations, and
areas such as equipment, training and recruitment criteria would
have to be re-considered. The fundamental role of the PCSO would
be altered, so soon after the current role has been established
successfully. We do not object to PCSOs having the power to enforce
byelaws.
We note the very recently published Home Office
evaluation of PCSOs with detention powers, which views the piloting
of those powers as successful, and will need to carefully consider
the findings of the research. We note too that the basis of the
research is the views of PCSOs themselves, and that those of communities
have not been taken into account.
Do you support the Government's proposals for
change to police powers, announced last month? Do any of the proposals
give you cause for concern?
We support the thrust of the proposals to simplify
and clarify existing provisions, and to ensure that officers have
the powers to tackle crime.
We have some concerns, especially around the
search warrant proposals, in addition to those expressed above
about the extension of PCSO powers. While there is general support
from police authorities for the proposals relating to search warrants,
some police authorities felt that there was scope for abuse, for
example officers would be able to search a very large number of
premises which might affect a number of blameless individuals.
We have therefore proposed to the Home Office that the proposal
be moderated, by adding the proviso that the premises would have
to be named in the warrant, and by putting an upper limit of 90
days on a warrant's lifetime. We agree with the proposal that
telephone and electronic communication could be used in applying
for and granting warrants.
We have also expressed a general concern about
the potential for bureaucracy in the new measures: we need to
ensure in introducing any of these provisions that paperwork is
kept to an absolute minimum.
Career breaks—APA Position
We fully support the system of career breaks
which enables officers to take a break in service with the agreement
of the chief constable. It's a good way of keeping links with
officers, and other staff, who might otherwise be lost to the
service altogether. It fits very well with our vision of a more
flexible service where people can leave, gain new skills and re-join.
Career breaks also encourage diversity since
in many cases the officers may be women who want to spend a few
years bringing up young children, and who might otherwise have
to resign from the service. The numbers involved are relatively
small, less than 1% of officers according to figures quoted in
the media during coverage of the Clay Birch case.
There is no entitlement for officers to have
a break. Each individual case has to be approved by the chief
constable concerned and, of course, these breaks are wholly unpaid.
The recent case was very unfortunate and it
emphasises the need for forces to maintain good communication
with officers on career breaks. But we have no reason to believe
it was other than an isolated case.
Race Equality Targets for the Police Service
The APA nationally, and police authorities locally,
are committed to securing a police service which fully reflects
the communities it serves. The APA fully supported the introduction
of the 10 year race equality targets for the police service in
1999. However, it was clear, even at that time, given the historical
position and starting point that some forces would face a considerable,
if not impossible, challenge to meet those targets within the
bounds of existing legislation.
Significant progress has been made in many areas,
with a number of forces already meeting or exceeding the targets.
However, nationally, as the Committee points out, we are a considerable
way off meeting the 7% target by 2009.
The APA worked very closely with the Home Office,
ACPO and staff associations and networks to produce the tripartite
action plan "Breaking Through", launched earlier this
year to provide practical tactical options to assist forces do
more in this area. Alongside that publication, the APA issued
guidance to police authorities to assist them in meeting the progression
targets for ACPO rank officers—a copy of which is at Annex
A.
We believe that authorities and forces need
to ensure that they are making use of all available options and
opportunities, including positive action, to not only recruit
but also to retain a more diverse workforce. In particular, the
APA has issued guidance to police authorities to help them exercise
effective scrutiny and oversight of grievance and Employment Tribunals
cases, given the impact which such cases can have on both trust
and confidence of minority ethnic staff within the service and
on communities and their willingness to consider policing as an
attractive career option.
Police authorities have sought to demonstrate
leadership and commitment by working hard to ensure that their
own (albeit small) membership reflects the local communities they
serve, with some success—9% of police authority members
are now drawn from minority ethnic backgrounds and 28% are women.
In the case of independent police authority members, some 21%
are from BME communities and just under half are women. The APA's
Black and Minority Ethnic Members Network set up in 2001 to provide
support to BME police authority members has played a key role
in helping to encouraging more people from black and minority
ethnic communities to serve on police authorities and to proactively
support applicants.
The APA welcomes the fact that the National
Policing Plan makes clear the importance of this agenda and we
hope and expect that this will also feature as a strong element
in the forthcoming White Paper on Police Reform since all elements
of the service need to see this as a clear priority for the police
service going forward.
We are, of course, aware of the recent debate
around issues such as quotas and affirmative action, including
the recent call by the British Association for Women in Policing
for a temporary suspension of existing legislation to enable public
sector services to reach "critical mass" in terms of
both gender and ethnicity. These issues were debated by the APA's
governing body, the Plenary, comprising representatives of all
authorities on 20 October. The Plenary has asked that the APA's
Diversity Policy Group and HR/Personnel Issues Policy Group consider
the issues in more depth before a definitive APA position is reached.
In doing so, we intend to draw on the experiences of our colleagues
in the Northern Ireland Policing Board where the evidence suggests
that such an approach is meeting with some success in changing
the make-up of PSNI. We understand, however, that at present the
Government has indicated that is does not intend to pursue this
particular approach in England and Wales.
2 November 2004
| 
