Select Committee on Home Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)

CHIEF CONSTABLE DR TIM BRAIN, CHIEF INSPECTOR JAN BERRY, CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT IAN JOHNSTON, MR BOB JONES AND MR BILL WILKINSON

22 MAY 2007

  Q20  Mr Browne: I understand your point. The final question really relates to your point where you said the worse case scenario is you could shed about 5,000 police officers. What are the potential implications of PCSOs because we have seen dramatic increases in their numbers—and I think most people welcome that—and then there was the controversy about the 24,000 figure going down to a 16,000 figure. Do you see that their numbers may even potentially fall or that police authorities that have planned on the basis of having larger numbers of PCSOs are now going to have to scale back their plans as a result of the cash settlement from the Home Office.

  Mr Jones: Clearly pressure is going to come on all forms of staff, whether it is police officers, PCSOs or others. I think different police authorities will look at the needs of their area and deploy teams of the combination of police officers and PCSOs in other ways. I can see it happening in some areas that they may seek to change the balance slightly favour of PCSOs and in other areas they may seek to change it the other way around and have less PCSOs and more police officers. But it will be a question of effective operational teams that meet the needs of their area.

  Q21  Chairman: Can I ask if Jan Berry has a view on the idea of police forces tipping the balance towards PCSOS?

  Chief Inspector Berry: I think I identify with the comments made earlier with regard to some police officers seeing the role now being undertake by PCSOs as the one that they joined the job to do, and I am aware that some police officers are leaving the service and becoming PCSOs and also the other way around—some are becoming PCSOs as their method of joining the police service. I think one of the questions that we all need to ask ourselves is how we are going to judge whether this workforce mix is actually a success because there is something about a feel good factor here which should not be ignored, but there is very little evidence to either demonstrate that a PCSO is providing value for money—that is if we know how it is going to be demonstrated—or whether the patrolling police officer delivers value for money. I think we need to get to some of those questions to answer. What I do know is that the police officer is a far more flexible resource than a PCSO because a PCSO is only supposed to perform one function. What would be an interesting question maybe for people to ask at the moment is what functions are PCSOs undertaking in forces? In the force very close to where we are sitting at the moment many of the PCSOs are not out on the streets, they are actually inside police stations acting as front office assistants; they are actually in police stations telephoning the victims of crime; they are actually in police stations recording people's particulars. That is not the intention of the Police Community Support Officer, the intention was for them to be the eyes and ears on the streets, and so some of the 16,000 PCSOs—which I think the target has now been met—are actually not out on the streets being the eyes and ears but are actually inside police stations doing some of the bureaucratic stuff, which, admittedly, my members do not want to do.[1]


  Q22 Bob Russell: Could I follow on with the Chairman's question and your last answer. Does the Police Federation regard PCSOs as part of the police family and are PCSOs allowed to join the Police Federation?

  Chief Inspector Berry: No, they are not police officers, they are not sworn constables; the only people who can become members of the Police Federation are sworn constables. That is by statute. Are they regarded as being members of the police family? There are mixed views. An increasing number of police officers do see them as being part of the police family, but, more importantly, every police officer recognises the function that they undertake. Whether that function should be undertaken by a sworn police officer or an un-sworn police officer, the visible professional police presence on the street is absolutely imperative—not only does it deliver reassurance; it is also there to nip problems in the bud before they get out of hand. It is also a really good source from a community point of view of information being gathered and also being disseminated as well.

  Q23  Bob Russell: So who provides the collective voice of PCSOs?

  Chief Inspector Berry: Different organisations. They are not constables, they are unionised—Unison certain for forces outside London and PCS for London.

  Chairman: David Winnick.

  Q24  Mr Winnick: I think all your responses are being closely monitored by a senior official in the Home Office, but since we leave in a free country there is no reason why it should not be. Coming to the question of police pay and the effect it will have—and I think the Association of Police Authorities would be the best people to ask—I want to come to you Ms Berry, first of all. At Blackpool you said that changes to the basis in which police pay is negotiated could result in industrial strike action. You are a very responsible officer of a very responsible organisation and you know better than anyone else that in 1919 legislation was passed, for reasons we all know, to prevent industrial strike action by the police. Are you telling your organisation and are you telling this Home Affairs Committee that the situation has now reached a point where you actually want a change in the law which would allow police officers to take strike action?

  Chief Inspector Berry: No, I am not and I hope that we never ever reach that position.

  Q25  Mr Winnick: So what was the purpose of your remark?

  Chief Inspector Berry: I think what I was telling both our conference and what I will say to you today is that police officers are feeling extremely frustrated at the way that they see they are being treated at the moment in the terms of their pay and conditions. The conditions that are placed upon them to be on duty 24/7, both on duty and off duty; that they are personally responsible for their actions both on and off duty; and also their inaction—if they do not take action they are responsible; and the fact that at this stage they do not have the right to take industrial action. What they see is the balance being taken away from them at the moment. The Booth Report, which is half way through at the moment, seeks to remove any negotiation from police officers; it seeks to suppress police pay over a period of time; it seeks to distribute that police pay in a divisive way, according to us. So they see that many of the protections that they have had in the past—and that is not to say that they have deserved protections over and above others—are slowly but surely being removed and more and more is being expected but without the protections. If you remove all of those protections and police officers see that they are giving the whole time and not being treated fairly—and that is the important word—then they will be the people demanding to have exactly the same rights as other workers.

  Q26  Mr Winnick: Ms Berry we all know the absolutely essential work that police officers do and, moreover, we know that in some tragic cases their lives are sacrificed, and anyone on this side of the table who does not recognise that obviously is not fit to be a Member of Parliament, and we do recognise it as our predecessors and our successors do, but it does not alter the fact regarding your remarks because you actually did say—unless the quote is such that it is not accurate—that changes to the basis on which police pay is negotiated could result in industrial strike action. So I come back to the point.

  Chief Inspector Berry: I do not have my words with me but my words were very, very carefully scripted.

  Q27  Mr Winnick: I am sure.

  Chief Inspector Berry: I am not convinced that is a true reflection. What I will do is share that section of my speech with the Committee because it was scripted and I read from autocue and I did not ad lib during that part of the speech, for very obvious reasons, and I will share that with you.

  Q28  Mr Winnick: I will not pursue it except to say that, as I understand it from your answer, the situation, wishing a change in the law regarding industrial action, is not what your organisation is asking, am I right?

  Chief Inspector Berry: We are not seeking that at this time.

  Q29  Mr Winnick: That answers my question; thank you very much indeed. In the absence of Tim Brain, if I can come to the Association of Police Authorities? It is argued that the budget increase to the lower level of funding, which is expected under the Comprehensive Spending Review, so we are told, will depend entirely on restraining pay. Is it the case that you say as the Association of Police Authorities that such pay restraints will have serious consequences for recruitment and retention?

  Mr Jones: We are extremely proud of the levels of recruitment and retention we have at the moment and wish to see that sustained, as I think we outstrip again the public sector and the private sector both on recruitment and retention of police officers, but clearly we wish to see that continue in the future. But because police pay is such a crucial component of our total budget it is one of those that it cannot be entirely not looked at if we are facing a significant gap, and clearly we have to look at all elements. We very much support the unique position of the Office of Constable and we very much support the fact, both in terms of the Act in 1918 which barred the right to strike gave us statutory negotiating machinery, and we very much support, from the Association of Police Authorities' point of view the concept set up by Edmund Davis in 1979, set up by the Callaghan Labour Government to actually have an indexation. However, the current indexation is not based on Edmund Davis, it is based on the Sheehey Report of the mid 1990s where I think almost every other aspect of Sheehey was rejected; but many of those aspects of Sheehey were the ones that would actually save police authorities money and part of the concept of the higher index was to compensate police officers for those other reductions. We ended up in this position where we did not get any of those things which would cost us money and we are not particularly arguing about that—many of them were ones which we did not think would be affected, even if they would save money; but we did end up with the higher index. We do believe it is possible to produce an index that is more affordable, that does need the requirements of the special nature of the Office of Constable but are ones which will not put the pressure on police budgets because the reality is that because it is such a massive component of our total budget extra pressures on that one can only be met at the cost of support to police officers or total number of police officers.

  Q30  Mr Winnick: Do we take it that there are ongoing talks with the Home Office regarding this aspect of the Comprehensive Spending Review or is it now in a situation where it is all finished? We are having the Minister very shortly, as the Chair has said, and I was wondering if the whole matter has been totally finalised?

  Mr Jones: Clearly we have not had a formal announcement of what the CSR round is and how it impacts on both the Home Office and on the Police Authorities. To my understanding it is pretty well finalised but we have not heard the final headlines of that. Again, as you indicate, Mr Winnick, it would probably be best that to the Police Minister who may be in a better position to give you an update.

  Mr Winnick: Thank you very much.

  Q31  Chairman: Mr Johnston, could I just bring you in about pay? We see that nurses have had a staged pay award, doctors have had a staged pay award—and we know that public spending is going to increase much more slowly—is there really a special case that can be made for the police?

  Chief Superintendent Johnston: I think there is, and in support of what Jan Berry has said, it is not only the detail of the pay negotiations we are in, it is the way that officers feel that the negotiations have gone thus far. We are not terribly sensitive, as you know, Mr Denham, but we really feel at the moment that this has been imposed and there is not an awful lot of negotiation going on and, as you will know, stage payments will in fact mean less of an increase. Can I just say that each time we debate this we are told that recruitment and retention currently is not an issue. I am old enough to remember when it was and we do not want to go back there, where recruitment and retention really was an issue and that is why we arrived where we did with Edmund Davis. So things are not going terribly well with the pay negotiations but, having said that, I am sure that through sensible negotiations there is a deal that can be struck.

  Chairman: Ann Cryer.

  Q32  Mrs Cryer: My questions are based mainly on the comments of ACPO but since the ACPO person is not here perhaps Mr Johnston could respond? I want to ask about the use of police financial reserves and the long term planning and investment impact that that will have. Would you like to comment on the investment in key infrastructure and systems, how it will suffer as a result of using reserves now?

  Chief Superintendent Johnston: I am allowed to pass, apparently; I am not in a very familiar position in speaking about this. I think Mr Wilkinson is happy to take that.

  Mr Wilkinson: I will have a crack. Reserves have come under pressure in the last few years as a means of balancing the budget gaps and a number of authorities are now running with reserve levels which are on the low side, below the levels that their treasurers would advise and that were adequate. So that is the first problem. But it is not evenly spread—some authorities are quite well provided for with reserves. Those reserves do have a purpose not just in covering funding gaps, they are there to cover unforeseen circumstances and, as you say, for investment, and to the extent that they are cut back I think the future plans are going to come under more pressure than they would do, and there is a massive programme of developments that would be looking for contributions from reserves properly, particularly on the technology side. The ACPO business areas have estimated that something like £1.5 billion of projects were on the stocks being worked on somewhere in the 43 forces. They are not all going to hit us in the next few years but they are there somewhere; so there is a built-up demand to the extent that as funding gets tighter it is going to commit more reserves to provide the backstops on the mainstream budget and therefore correspondingly less for investment.

  Q33  Mrs Cryer: Are you able to comment specifically on delivering workforce modernisation and shared services programmes? Do you know anything about that?

  Mr Wilkinson: I am not an expert on it; I know broadly what is going on. It is a pity that Tim is not here at the moment. The shared services project is quite well advanced and I think substantial savings are projected if it can be operated in the way that people would like it to be operated. It is in the tens of millions.

  Q34  Chairman: It is presumably things like payroll?

  Mr Wilkinson: It is back office functions—payroll, debtors, creditors, and pensions, setting up probably three or four service centres around the country. The problem with it is that it will need some fairly substantial investment to get it going in systems and start up costs, and I think that is probably the stumbling block at the moment in the service. If that money was available on an invest to save basis then I think there are some substantial savings achievable.

  Chief Inspector Berry: Could I add to that while Dr Brain takes his seat? There are some really good examples around the country of collaborative arrangements, particularly around back office responsibilities, and some real creative thinking around that area at the moment. For many years we have talked about the fact that we could make savings in this area. In addition to that there are some really good procurement arrangements for equipment and IT and things like that, but there will come a point when some of the collaborative arrangements will need specific governance arrangements that are not catered for in our arrangements at the moment. When you move from back office, payroll, maybe control centres and things like that you are then moving into some operational areas where there are some really creative collaboration arrangements, and we will need to be very clear about where primacy rests in operational matters, and that is a piece of work which I am not sure is particularly clear at the moment but will need to be developed.

  Q35  Chairman: We will bring in Dr Brain on the next question. Dr Brain, can I welcome you?

  Dr Brain: Thank you very much. I do apologise for being late—very heavy traffic on the M40.

  Chairman: We obviously had to start because we had the Minister booked in for quarter past 11 and we needed to make progress, but I am sure you will catch up the threads. Gary Streeter.

  Q36  Mr Streeter: Chairman, I would like to ask Mr Jones and Dr Brain a question about specific choices and compromises that need to be made in managing a tighter settlement, but can I put it to you first that the financial difficulty you say you are now in as police authorities and police forces is largely of your own making. Is it not the case that over the last 10 years you have been very slow to modernise, to make maximum use of modern technology, to streamline yourselves—which is why people like myself, a tremendous supporter of the police, I find that police forces up and down the country are bureaucratic, risk averse and technologically illiterate. Do you not have yourselves to blame? Why is it that I, at 51 years of age, have been using my own computer for the last 10 years—whereas 20 years before that I was dictating to a secretary—and why is it that police officers are still taking statements in laborious longhand—it is like watching paint dry. Do you not have yourselves to blame?

  Mr Jones: I will obviously say no. I think we have quite a good record of introducing a whole range of technology—the airwave, a £1 billion system, which is not just radio communications, but is enabling people to use local data information to cut out a lot of the paperwork.

  Q37  Mr Streeter: How many years did it take to introduce that?

  Mr Jones: It took a few years to introduce but clearly a £1.2 billion project of that particular size does actually need managing, at the same time as we are implementing automatic number plate recognition, fingerprints, ID systems, a whole series of improvements in command and control and trying to join up with the rest of the criminal justice system, and one of our biggest problems has been the problem of the fact that much of our information needs to go into the criminal justice system, and having a meaningful effective interface in terms of IT and meeting the requirements of the criminal justice system has been probably the biggest delay factor in the areas, particularly as many of their programmes which we need to join up with, like Libra, are running several years behind. So I think we have an extremely good record in terms of bringing on IT but clearly these do need to be managed. If you do not manage major projects like that and you do not introduce them effectively and you do not ensure that people are properly trained up to get maximum benefit from them then I think we have gone at the right place to make sure that once they are implemented police officers on the ground are able to get maximum use for them, and that is a continuing programme and we have a whole series of other IT items coming along.

  Q38  Mr Streeter: Dr Brain?

  Dr Brain: It is easy to most emphatically refute such a really rather extreme set of suggestions there. The reality of it is that the police service has been very adept at introducing new technology and new technology in its own right. If I can just ask the Committee to revert to the mid 1990s when it was the police service under the leadership of John Hoddinott, then Chief Constable of Hampshire, who took the ball from the office and introduced probably five to six years' earlier the automatic fingerprint recognition system upon which the country now has its own system based, and that was a consortium of police forces that introduced that, largely in opposition, I have to say, to the view of the Home Office. In terms of business efficiencies the police services are amongst the most outstanding of public sector organisations in terms of delivery; it has met all the efficiency targets it has been given over the years against a really difficult background of rising demand and expectations. It has delivered in terms of more offences brought to justice and it has delivered in terms of lower crime. At the same time it has had a whole plethora of new legislation that has to be introduced and that all requires adaptation in terms of training, new technology, polices and procedures. I think that is not a very helpful statement to make; the reality of it is that demands are growing, expectations are growing and the police service has done its absolute utmost to meet those requirements.

  Q39  Chairman: That is good to know. What specific choices and compromises have you made in terms of police activity as you face this shortfall in your budget, and what would the impact on crime and community safety of these choices be?

  Dr Brain: I think it is important to recognise that the shortfall in the budget has not occurred yet. As of 31 March this year, if we take a stock-take, police resources, particularly when expressed in terms of people, have never been higher. There are about 140,000 police officers, there are over 70,000 police staff and there are approaching 16,000 PCSOs, so, at this point in time, we are not facing a crisis in terms of the resources; it is what is likely to occur in the years ahead, looking ahead to the end of the CSR 2007 cycle. The problem about the squeeze on resources that is inevitably going to occur over the next three to four years with spending projections as they currently are is that we will see the effect cumulatively. It will be a series of cutbacks that we will not see the full effect of until three to four years from now and then I guess the whirligig of time will turn, resources will be put back into the Service and we will see them build up again, but there will be a lag effect in terms of seeing the benefit of that as well, so, at the moment, there is not a crisis in terms of resources. There are other problems which the Service face in terms of rising demands and expectations and increased workload because, whilst there have been savings in terms of bureaucracy, equally there have been new demands in terms of bureaucracy in terms of the requirement of the criminal justice system. Indeed, we have seen some very significant pieces of legislation over the last few years, all of which have had their own powerhouse in terms of bureaucracy, RIPA being a very clear example, but, if we actually take it back to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act itself, that was a huge impetus in terms of added procedures. They were there deliberately, it was not an unintended consequence, but they were there deliberately in order to build in new safeguards and improve the quality of police evidence, but we should not be under any illusion that those legislative initiatives increased the bureaucracy, not lessened it. What the Service will have to do over the next few years is continue to search for improved business processes, but that is not an easy thing to do against the background of rising demands and expectations.


1   Chief Inspector Jan Berry, Chair of the Police Federation, subsequently wrote to the Committee to say "The Metropolitan Police Service have used CSOs in this role. Kent Police have used them as missing person coordinators." Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 19 July 2007