Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
84-99)
Witnesses: SIR
HUGH ORDE,
President, and MR TIM
HOLLIS, Association of Chief Police
Officers (ACPO), gave evidence.
Q84 CHAIR:
Sir Hugh, my apologies for the delay and also there is a statement
in the House in approximately 25 minutes on the European Investigation
Order. I know that you will answer questions crisply as you have
done in the past and we promise to ask questions in an incisive
way. Can I start with a little quote: "If people seriously
think some form of elected individual is better placed to oversee
policing than the current structure then I am going to be very
interested in the detail of how that is going to work. Every
professional bone in my body tells me that it is a bad idea."
Do you remember who said that?
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
I said it, Chairman, and I can tell you exactly when I said
it: at the first ACPO conference when I took over as President.
I do not detract from it. What I am delighted to see in chapter
two of the consultation paper is the most emphatic statement I
have seen from government around preserving operational independence.
As my colleague has just mentioned, that is the jewel in the
policing crown. I am at one with Paul on how we are held to account
and I come from, as you well know me having given evidence here
and at the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, one of the
organisations that was held to account in a most visible and public
and high-profile way. I get public accountability. What we have
to maintain is operational independence if we are going to have
the style of policing that the public are used to in this country.
Q85 CHAIR: So
you are quite comfortable with the Government's proposals? Your
bones are not shaking?
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
My bones have not changed except they are getting older!
I think we still need to see how it works. A good question, and
I thought it was an interesting question on Channel 4 last night
from John Snow, was so what happens when a locally elected individual,
now the police and crime commissioner, on a mandate of higher
visibility for local policing asks the chief if they can increase
their visible presence when, as the Commissioner has so clearly
articulated, the complexity of the policing mission goes from
the visible to the invisible, and I think we need to understand
what happens when the chief says for operational reasons, "Much
as I would like to do that, I don't think I can." That is
the sort of hard question we need to work through and where the
scrutiny panel plays perhaps in that role is where there is a
difference of opinion. What I am clear on is the last thing the
public need is a sort of head-to-head with a professional chief
giving his or her best advice to the elected individual and the
elected individual, for whatever reason, saying, "I am sorry
but my mandate is to increase the number of cops; I want you to
do it," and we have got to be really careful about that.
Q86 CHAIR: What
kind of people do you think might run for this office?
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
I told the Minister that I live in Sussex and I thought I
would give it a shot!
Q87 CHAIR: It
may well be ex-chief constables who decide that they might want
to go for it.
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
Tim Brain was mentioned earlier. I think the reality is these
will be people with a party background because of the machine
that will need to support it, quite frankly. It is clearly open
to anybody and we may see some individuals from different places.
I am not too excited about whether we are going to get some sort
of extreme end of the spectrum, whatever spectrum, right or left,
or a single-issue sort of person. I think it will be people who
are genuinely interested in making a difference. Of course, they
are taking on a huge job. They are replacing 17 to 19 people
with one person. Again, we need to look at the detail of what
support is needed. The paper is open on what support structure
these individuals will need. In places like West Yorkshire with
large populations they are going to need some support if they
are going to do their job effectively and represent the massively
diverse communities that of course we are charged with policing.
Q88 CHAIR: As
you said, the detail is still to come.
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
It would appear so, yes.
Q89 MR WINNICK:
When I asked the Minister whether in fact it would make the police
force more politicised he did not believe so and was more or less
dismissive of the idea. Is your view the same as that of the
Minister or have you got greater concerns?
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
I think we will have to wait and see. I will ask Tim to say
a word in a moment being an operational chief constable, unlike
myself, something he hurtfully reminds me of all the time! We
will have to wait and see. I think the operational independence
is the critical bit because the chief can say, "I am making
a decision in my best professional judgment this is the right
way to go. Then if I get it right or wrong I am being held to
account by whatever structure you put in place for that decision."
That is how it should be. That does not necessarily change.
The danger is if someone comes in on a single issue or is keen
on making political points. If one looks at the Northern Ireland
model where I worked before I had a highly political policing
board of 19 members, ten of whom were elected and not directly
appointed under the d'Hondt principle, so they mirrored
the population and what you saw sometimes were some pretty high
tensions between the parties because of the political differences
and we had to handle that, and we did it by doing our professional
best depending for what we were dealing with. Tin may be able
to give you an operational perspective better than I can.
Q90 MARK RECKLESS:
Sir Hugh, you have made it clear that if an elected commissioner
were to ask you to have more visibility then in your view operational
independence would allow a chief constable to refuse that requirement.
However, we have heard from the Minister that he considers it
is appropriate for these elected commissioners to set the strategic
direction and indeed priorities through the budget. We heard
from your colleague the Commissioner that the Denning judgment
was apparently a "fine judgment" and gives the police
everything they want, but is it not appropriate that as elected
representatives we should be allowed to have our say on what things
are appropriate for someone elected and to determine which are
not?
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
I think it is a fine judgment too and of course we do not
want to get into a position where people are looking for a fight
when there is not going to be one. My sense is people who are
elected will be genuinely concerned and determined to keep their
people safe which is rather like chief constables. In terms of
strategic direction of course it is absolutely right, police boards
set strategic direction and they set targets, and they also set
budgets, and we have lived with that process, but the point would
be at some point I would have to as a chief say, "Look, I
understand that you want to put more police officers visibly on
the street but actually with what I have got and the budget you
have given me I can't." I do not think we can get into fine
tuning and you can have X amount for uniformed policing and Y
amount for the CID or something else. We have been set a budget
and we then decide how we use it to the best of our ability.
There are issues like terrorism, surveillance, major crime, domestic
violence units, rape units, public order, road traffic, close
protection, cyber crime, e-crime, the list goes on, that we also
have to do. The notion that police officers sitting in offices
do not solve crime is a false one. Warm offices or cold, they
do solve crime. I am up for the efficiency argument and again
for a sensible conversation around doing my level best to get
more officers on the street, crime commissioner or policing and
crime commission, but there is a balancing act. We take the risk
at the end of the day to keep people safe in local communities.
I know, certainly from my last role, that we do that a lot of
the time by dealing with serious organised crime internationally,
stopping stuff even coming into our border zone and by my surveillance
teams keeping some of the most dangerous people under 24-hour
cover.
Q91 ALUN MICHAEL:
The Home Secretary in the document yesterday and the Police Minister
today have quoted and reinforced Sir Robert Peel's statement which
is: "The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent
crime and disorder." Do you accept that that needs to drive
everything that ACPO does?
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
One could argue that Sir Richard Mayne said the primary logic
was to preserve life. The key issues are to keep people safe
be it from crime or from threat.
Q92 ALUN MICHAEL:
But does it drive everything that you do in ACPO?
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
It drives a huge amount of what we do and rightly so. I am
at one with it. I cannot think of a chief constable who does
not take crime as the top end. That is why we join; we join to
fight crime and arrest people and keep people safe.
Q93 ALUN MICHAEL:
It is more specific than fighting crime; it is about reducing
crime.
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
You keep people safe by having less crime. I am a big fan
of reducing crime not increasing clear-up rates. You should do
both but less crime is far better because you have fewer victims.
Of course there are all sorts of other issues that the police
have to deal with. Whether we like it or not is not an issue;
we are a 24-hour service. Our officers respond to calls for help
24 hours a day when many other agencies simply are not there.
One mentioned Greater Manchester, which I know the Minister visited,
and the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester said quite recently,
"If I had more money I would employ more mental health nurses
not more cops."
Q94 ALUN MICHAEL:
That is understood and that leads very nicely to the fact that
ministers at the dispatch box have waved the Justice Select Committee's
report on justice reinvestment at Members on a couple of occasions
recently and Sir Paul Stephenson referred to it in his evidence.
Have you got your copy with you to wave at us? Have you read
it, marked it and does it now drive ACPO's thinking?
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
If you are talking about the joined-up approach to keeping
people safe through the criminal justice system ---
Q95 ALUN MICHAEL:
It went a little deeper than that.
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
We had the expert. Tim Godwin has driven this on behalf of
ACPO as well as doing his day job. That is how ACPO operates.
I am not in the business of waving things. I think our job is
so complicated now our task is clear: we keep people safe as best
we can with the resources that we have got.
Q96 ALUN MICHAEL:
Have you studied those recommendations?
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
Not in detail, no, I am afraid. It will be Tim's piece of
business and he would be delighted to give you more detail.
ALUN MICHAEL:
Can I urge you to do so.
Q97 CHAIR: We
will send you a copy.
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
I have a copy.
CHAIR: Autographed
by Mr Michael. It is one of his reports.
Q98 MR BURLEY:
The Home Secretary told us earlier this month: "There is
an appetite in ACPO to look at their role and what would be appropriate
for their role in the future." Can you explain to the Committee
this morning what ACPO's role actually is? Is it a mechanism
to promote best practice within the police or is it a union designed
to protect its members because I put it to you that it cannot
be both?
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
No, you are absolutely right and if you had read my evidence
to this Committee when the Chairman kindly invited me on taking
over, you would know my view on ACPO. I stated clearly then and
I repeat it now for those that have not bothered to read it, I
am deeply uncomfortable with being a public limited company.
I always have been. It is not the place ACPO wants to be and
we were looking for some political leadership to get us out of
that position. I think we now have a clear understanding from
the Secretary of State and the Minister that there is a better
way forward which they will support. Although not clearly articulated
in here, it does not need to be: we need to move towards a chartered
institute. If we can achieve that then there are the issues around
best practice and evidence-based policing which you were talking
about. I was at that conference and it is exactly where we need
to go and ACPO could take that role on in a far more organised
way than we currently have it. I have no difficulty with that
at all. We are not a union. There is a staff association, as
you will be aware, it is called the CPOSA - Chief Police Officers
Staff Association and it is entirely distinct from ACPO. ACPO
has grown over time and again if one had looked at the - and I
will happily send you a copy - 1988-1989 Select Committee view,
Lord Hurd made this point when he realised in the late 1980s that
ACPO was gaining more responsibility because someone had to do
the work. He made the point that it needed greater secretarial
support, et cetera. If I can just nail once and for all
the ACPO limited bit because, frankly, it is a little tiresome.
We have to be something. We have to rent a building - and you
are welcome to visit it and I am happy to brief anyone who is
interested on what we do, it is just up the road - we have to
hire people, we need to be a legal entity to publish our accounts.
I know that some of you will be aware that we have clearly articulated
our desire to be part of the FOI. Indeed, the last Government
had it scheduled, if I remember rightly, for legislation in October
2011. We answer every question we receive as an FOI albeit we
are not bound by the current regulations (not through our choice)
and if anything goes out to the forces such as Tim's work it is
FOI-able anyway so we are not secret. I see its role as the voice
of the profession; pure and simple. I see a new role now that
National Crime Agency - NCA is going to take up a leadership agenda
and take on the best practice and the evidence-based policing
agenda and drive the future leaders of the service.
Q99 MR BURLEY:
There has been lot a discussion this morning about police numbers.
If there are going to be potentially big cuts in officer numbers
do you think that there should be a compulsory redundancy scheme?
Given it is not currently possible to sack police officers or
make them redundant other than for gross misconduct, does ACPO
feel that chief constables should be able to sack officers?
SIR
HUGH ORDE:
I will ask Tim to explain from an operational perspective
the challenge he faces but very briefly our submission did ask,
and it has been fully accepted, to have a full review of pay and
conditions and the whole deal about being a police officer. My
caution would be around the fact that it remains a vocation.
Officers must have some protection. They cannot strike. They
are in a unique position and, again as Paul pointed out, he is
appointed by the Queen, officers are not employees, they are appointees,
so we need to protect that but we do need to rationalise and review
and face the new reality. The new reality is that we have a lot
less money and 83% of our budget is people, but I will ask Tim
to comment on the impact at his end.
MR
HOLLIS: As an
operational police force we have already started some time ago.
My police authority identified that we were going to have to
reduce our costs, so 18 months ago I started taking £15 million
cash out of the £186 million budget over five years. This
year I have taken £1.8 million cash out of the budget currently.
We are looking at workforce modernisation so my police authority
four years ago, potentially controversially, agreed to reduce
my police officer numbers by 300 in order to increase my police
staff numbers by 450 in order to get a greater capacity by having
police officers where you need warrant powers and police staff
support behind that. The dilemma that I have now, as I am now
looking at potentially 20-25% budget cuts on top of what has already
gone, is that you get into the numbers, and of course at the minute
I can lose police community support officers, who are very much
treasured by the local communities, much more easily than police
officers. I am reliant on police officers leaving as a result
of finishing their time and retiring, so it is a bit of a limitation.
| 
