House of Commons - Reform of the Police Federation

Reform of the Police Federation - Home Affairs Committee Contents

INTRODUCTION

1. The Police Federation of England and Wales was established by Parliament in 1919, following the police strikes of 1918 and 1919, "for the purpose of representing members of the police forces … in all matters affecting their welfare and efficiency", except for questions of promotion and discipline affecting individuals.[1] The creation of the Federation was intended to balance the other major provision of the 1919 Act—the prohibition on police officers joining a trade union or similar labour association—by providing an alternative, formal structure for the representation of their views and interests.[2]

2. Membership of the Federation is automatic for all police officers up to and including the rank of Chief Inspector, although payment of the subscription is voluntary. In 2012, the Federation received more than £200,000 of funding from the Home Office, plus another £134,000 in relation to its role in providing representation of police officers in the staff side of the Police Negotiating Board and Police Advisory Board of England and Wales.[3]

3. Police officers have every right to expect strong, effective representation at both national and local level. It is in the interests not only of serving officers, but of the wider public, that proper attention should be paid to the voice of rank-and-file officers when major decisions about policing are being taken, whether by the Home Secretary, by Police and Crime Commissioners, or by forces themselves. The Federation, as the only body which, by law, is able to give that voice to police officers, must play a central part in any decision-making about the future of policing.

4. The last few years have been a period of significant change for British policing, including the introduction of elected Police and Crime Commissioners, the establishment of the College of Policing, the effects of cost savings on the delivery of police services, and the impact of changes to pay, pension and employment arrangements on officers themselves. Against this background, when effective representation of ordinary police officers' interests is particularly important, the Federation has been the subject of some severe criticism. The Federation is entitled to uphold the right of officers to publicly oppose measures which they believe are detrimental to the police and the public good. However, rather than trying to engage with and influence these changes, the Federation has been accused by some of adopting a politicised, oppositional approach which has left ordinary officers marginalised. The behaviour of some Federation representatives following the "Plebgate" incident in Downing Street has resulted in an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The Federation has been accused of extravagant spending during a time of austerity, both on its new Headquarters in Leatherhead and on expenses for senior officials.

5. Most tellingly, the Police Federation does not command the confidence of its own members. The Federation commissioned an Independent Review of its operation and structure in March 2013, chaired by Sir David Normington GCB, a former Home Office Permanent Secretary.[4] As part of the Review, Ipsos Mori conducted a survey of 12,477 Federation members, which found that:

a) 57% of respondents thought the Federation did a poor job of explaining the value of police officers to the general public,

b) 68% were not satisfied that the national leadership was adequately safeguarding their interests,

c) 74% thought the Federation did poor job of negotiating pay and conditions on members' behalf, and

d) 91% agreed with the statement that "the Police Federation should change", but only 29% agreed that "the Police Federation [is] able to change".[5]

THE CASE FOR CHANGE

6. The Final Report of the Independent Review found overwhelming evidence of the need for the Federation, whose structure and operation have changed little in the century since its inception, to change and reform.[6] The Chair of the Police Federation, Steve Williams, told us that he had recognised the need for reform as soon as he took up his post and, with the backing of the Joint Central Committee, one of his first acts as Chair was to initiate the Independent Review.[7] WE WELCOME THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE POLICE FEDERATION. WE COMMEND THE OUTGOING CHAIR OF THE FEDERATION, STEVE WILLIAMS, FOR INITIATING THE REVIEW, WHICH HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME THE SPRINGBOARD FOR FAR-REACHING REFORMS WHICH WILL BENEFIT BOTH THE FEDERATION'S MEMBERS AND THE WIDER COMMUNITY OF POLICING. We further consider the benefits of implementing the Review recommendations below.

BETTER FINANCIAL GOVERNANCE

7. Although the Federation's overall financial situation is now healthy, following a 23% increase in subscriptions in 2011, its financial governance is weak. The system for collecting and distributing subscription revenue is convoluted: subscriptions are collected by branches, and 70% of the revenue is passed on to the national rank committees, which each retain a percentage and pass the remainder to the Joint Central Fund. At national level, the Federation holds reserves of £29.5 million, and is operating with an annual surplus of £4.7 million. At local level, the branches' visible accounts show reserves of £35 million, although the distribution between branches is very uneven.[8]

8. Some branches raise additional revenue from commission on the sale of financial products to members, which is poorly accounted for. Martin Mordecai, the Federation's National Treasurer, told us that 15 branches held "No. 2 accounts" in which non-subscription revenue, such as commission, was held. It appears that the funds in these accounts might be technically exempt from the Federation's own accounting procedures,[9] although, as the Normington Report pointed out, even if they are not covered by the letter of the regulations

Mr Mordecai told us that some branches had reported the sums held in their No. 2 accounts to him, but three others—Derbyshire, Leicestershire and North Yorkshire—had declined to do so.[11]

9. Those branches have since contacted us to explain their positions. Derbyshire's view is that "accounts that derived income from memberships not made up entirely of federated members did not fall under federation fund rules" and that, since the No. 2 Account included income from officers of non-federated ranks, police staff, retired officers, and the spouses of those groups, it was not covered by the rules.[12] Leicester Police Federation told us that they operate a group insurance trust and a medical trust which receive no public funding and no funding from the Federation. They were originally set up for Federation members, who could choose to join or not to join, but membership had been extended over the years to include more senior officers, civilian staff and others to the point where Federation members were the minority of members in each trust. John Hughes, Chairman of Leicestershire Police Federation, told us that

North Yorkshire also took the view that its member services fund, which derived income from the provision of services to both members and non-members, was governed by a separate trust and did not constitute Police Federation funds.[14]

10. The financial governance of the Federation was subject to significant criticism in the Normington Review. The Report recommended that all accounts, including No. 2, group insurance and member services accounts, should be published, and that branches should seek to reduce the cost of members' services by making collective provision between groups of branches. It further recommended that subscriptions should be paid directly to Headquarters and funds should be devolved down to branches, with some additional support given to smaller branches. The national rank committees' separate budgets should be abolished and some of their surplus should be returned to members as 25% reduction in subscriptions.

11. THE FEDERATION, AT NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEVEL, IS NOW SITTING ON SOME £70 MILLION OF ITS MEMBERS' MONEY. THIS LEVEL OF RESERVES IS FAR IN EXCESS OF THE FEDERATION'S OPERATING COSTS. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE MONEY HELD BY THE NATIONAL RANK COMMITTEES AND THE JOINT CENTRAL COMMITTEE BE RETURNED TO MEMBERS AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY AS A SUBSCRIPTION REBATE, WITH SUBSCRIPTIONS FROZEN FOR NEXT YEAR AND FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN FUTURE YEARS. THE FEDERATION SHOULD RETAIN ONLY A PRUDENT LEVEL OF RESERVES IN RELATION TO ITS OUTGOINGS. IF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEES WERE TO REDUCE THEIR RESERVES BY AROUND 50%, THIS WOULD ADD UP TO A REBATE OF NEARLY £120 PER MEMBER.

12. WHETHER OR NOT THE MONEY HELD IN THE SO-CALLED "NO. 2" ACCOUNTS" IS TECHNICALLY POLICE FEDERATION MONEY OR NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACCOUNTING RULES, WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE FEDERATION TO BE FULLY OPEN WITH ITS MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT ALL ITS SOURCES OF REVENUE. WE THEREFORE RECOMMEND THAT ALL ACCOUNTS OF MONEY HELD AND CONTROLLED BY THE POLICE FEDERATION AND ITS BRANCHES SHOULD BE PUBLISHED ON THEIR WEBSITES BY THE 18 MAY 2014 SO THAT MEMBERS CAN HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE FEDERATION'S FINANCIAL POSITION. THIS SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY A LETTER TO EACH MEMBER OF THE FEDERATION ENCLOSING A COPY OF ALL ACCOUNTS, INFORMATION ON THE FREEZING OF SUBSCRIPTIONS AND REDUCTIONS IN FUTURE YEARS, AND THEIR RETURNED SUBSCRIPTION. WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT ALL ACCOUNTS HELD BY THE FEDERATION, INCLUDING "NO. 2" ACCOUNTS, SHOULD BE AUDITED AND AUDIT CERTIFICATES PUBLISHED ALONGSIDE THE ACCOUNTS ONLINE.

HIGHER STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONALISM AND CONDUCT

13. We heard alarming allegations of bullying and unprofessional conduct within the Federation, particularly at Headquarters. Indeed, the Chair of the Federation described his own treatment at the hands of colleagues, in a letter intended for Joint Central Committee members which was drafted but never sent:

It is a matter of fact that for well over a year now from many quarters within the organisation, I have continually been criticised, ridiculed and verbally attacked for my standing in relation to the Independent Review. During our JCC networking meeting this week I was once again subject to a lengthy sustained attack and some of you made it very clear that you questioned my ability, my performance, my integrity and indeed at one point called for my resignation. […]

Sir David Normington and Martin Mordecai both suggested to us that the late Paul McKeever suffered similar treatment during his tenure as Federation Chair.[16]

14. Fiona McElroy, who worked as the Federation's Head of Communications from November 2013 to February 2014, described "an unhappy work situation" in which business matters were sometimes discussed aggressively, in public "at 10 o'clock at night after a considerable amount of alcohol [had been] consumed",[17] as well as abusive e-mails and staff members being threatened with summary dismissal.[18]

15. REPORTS OF SYSTEMATIC BULLYING WITHIN THE SENIOR ECHELONS OF THE POLICE FEDERATION ARE SHOCKING. THE POLICE OFFICER'S DUTY TO ACT WITH FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, DILIGENCE AND IMPARTIALITY, UPHOLDING FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND ACCORDING EQUAL RESPECT TO ALL PEOPLE, APPLIES EQUALLY TO THOSE WHO SERVE THE POLICE FAMILY AS OFFICERS OF THE FEDERATION, YET IT APPEARS THAT STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOUR WITHIN THE FEDERATION HAVE CONSISTENTLY FALLEN WELL SHORT OF THOSE THE PUBLIC, AS WELL AS THEIR FELLOW OFFICERS, ARE ENTITLED TO EXPECT FROM POLICE OFFICERS.

16. More widely, there has been evidence that some Federation representatives have personally targeted public figures, including successive Home Secretaries, Tom Winsor (in relation to both his review of police officer and staff remuneration and conditions and his subsequent appointment as HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary), and Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP, the former Government Chief Whip. The decision to fund a £15,000 a month contract with a PR company, Gaunt Brothers, to use "blitzkrieg" and "guerrilla" tactics is a further, specific example of the Federation failing to act in the best interests of both its members and the general public.[19] We note that Mr Gaunt told us that it was the idea of the present Chairman of the Federation, Steve Williams, to employ him for this campaign.[20] We also note that the late Paul McKeever, the previous Chairman, having signed the contract with Mr Gaunt's company, terminated it after two months, urging local Federations to reject his personalised style of campaigning.[21] Mr Gaunt explained that this campaign included the placing of unattributable stories in the media on behalf of local Federations, and admitted quite freely that he saw the "Plebgate" affair as an "absolutely fantastic" opportunity which the Federation could exploit to promote its political ("with a small P") agenda.[22] MR GAUNT CYNICALLY SOUGHT TO EXPLOIT THE "PLEBGATE" INCIDENT—OVER WHICH, SO FAR, ONE OFFICER HAS BEEN SENT TO JAIL AND THREE OTHERS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED—AS PART OF A MANIPULATIVE MEDIA STRATEGY WHICH INCLUDED WHAT HE DESCRIBED AS "BLITZKRIEG" AND "GUERRILLA" TACTICS. THREE OF THE OFFICERS WHOM MR GAUNT ADVISED ARE NOW UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE IPCC AS A RESULT OF THEIR ACTIONS. THIS ENTIRE EPISODE DOES THE FEDERATION NO CREDIT AT ALL. IT MUST THINK MUCH MORE CAREFULLY IN THE FUTURE ABOUT THE NATURE OF ITS PUBLIC CAMPAIGNING AND ITS PUBLIC RELATIONS ADVICE. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS CONTRACT WAS APPROPRIATE, AND DO NOT THINK THE WORK OF THE GAUNT BROTHERS HELPED THE POLICE. INDEED, THE CONSEQUENCE WAS A LOWERING OF THE REPUTATION FOR THE POLICE.

17. The Normington Report recommended better training and career development for workplace representatives, accompanied by a role description, a national member service commitment and a professional code of standards and conduct. It recommended that, at national level, the Federation should adopt a structure more like that of many trade unions, employing more professional staff, appointed for their professional skills and experience—including a Director of Finance, a Director of Policy and a Director of Equality and Diversity—and that there should be a much clearer distinction between the role of elected officers, who should set overall policy and exercise oversight, and the role of professional staff, employed for their expertise.[23]

A NEW CORE PURPOSE

18. As we have already noted, the purpose of the Police Federation, as set out in statute, has remained substantially unchanged since 1919. The Normington Report recommends the adoption of a new core purpose, as follows:

"In fulfilling its statutory responsibilities for the welfare and efficiency of its members the Federation at all levels will:

ensure that its members are fully informed and that there is the highest degree of transparency in decision-making and use of resources;
maintain exemplary standards of conduct, integrity and professionalism;
act in the public interest, seeking to build public confidence in the police service and accepting public accountability for its use of public money;
work together within the Federation and in partnership with others in the policing world to achieve its goals".[24]

19. The Normington Report suggests that the new core purpose could be adopted, as part of the Federation's statement of objectives, as early as the annual conference in May 2014. In the longer-term, it should be incorporated into the Federation's statutory purpose. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FEDERATION LEADERSHIP BRING THE REVISED CORE PURPOSE BEFORE THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN MAY THIS YEAR OR, IF THIS IS NOT PRACTICAL, TO CALL A SPECIAL CONFERENCE FOR THIS PURPOSE NO LATER THAN THE END OF JULY.

A MORE UNIFIED, STREAMLINED STRUCTURE

20. The structure of the Police Federation is based on equal representation for all three ranks—constables, sergeants, and inspectors and chief inspectors—at every level, despite the fact that the vast majority of members are constables. There are several drawbacks to this arrangement, notably that the three separate rank committees at national level operate autonomously with their own officers, support staff, budgets and decision making powers. The Normington Report commented that "this resource and power has too often been used in a divisive rather than unifying manner".[25] The Review recommended the replacement of the national rank committees and the Joint Central Committee with a new National Council of branch chairs and secretaries, and a new National Board to lead and run the organisation and be its strategic driver, replacing the JCC. The National Board will still have regional representation, some rank representation and better representation of groups with protected characteristics, and it will derive its authority from the National Council, to whom it will be accountable.

21. One of the most important recommendations of the Normington Report is that the National Chair should be elected by the whole membership of the Federation.[26] THE TREATMENT BY SOME ELEMENTS WITHIN THE POLICE FEDERATION OF SUCCESSIVE NATIONAL CHAIRS HAS BEEN QUITE DISGRACEFUL. STEVE WILLIAMS' TENURE HAS BEEN CHARACTERISED BY PERSISTENT ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE AND DESTABILISE HIM BY BULLYING AND PERSONAL ATTACKS, AND IT SEEMS ON THE BASIS OF OUR EVIDENCE THAT PAUL MCKEEVER, WHO DIED IN OFFICE, WAS PROBABLY SUBJECT TO SIMILAR TREATMENT. THIS UNDERMINES THE CHAIR'S ABILITY TO ACT AS A STRONG, SINGLE VOICE FOR POLICE OFFICERS. IN RECENT YEARS, SUCCESSIVE CHAIRS SEEM TO HAVE BECOME ENMIRED IN INTERMINABLE, INTERNECINE POWER-STRUGGLES WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OUT OF PLACE IN A MEDIEVAL COURT. RE -ESTABLISHING THE POST OF NATIONAL CHAIR WITH THE UNASSAILABLE AUTHORITY THAT WOULD COME FROM DIRECT ELECTION BY THE WHOLE MEMBERSHIP OF THE FEDERATION IS ESSENTIAL IF THE CHAIR IS TO BE THE CREDIBLE, AUTHENTIC VOICE OF RANK-AND-FILE OFFICERS. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FEDERATION SHOULD SEEK TO HOLD A FULL ELECTION FOR THE POST OF NATIONAL CHAIR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE 2014 CONFERENCE, IF NECESSARY AT A SPECIAL CONFERENCE IN JULY 2014.

22. One obstacle to the direct election of the Police Federation Chair is the fact that the Federation does not have a national membership database, nor does it have any way of communicating directly with its membership, other than through branches. In some cases, even branches do not have comprehensive local databases of members. WE FIND IT ASTONISHING THAT THE POLICE FEDERATION HEADQUARTERS HAS NO NATIONAL DATABASE OF MEMBERS AND THEREFORE NO WAY OF COMMUNICATING DIRECTLY WITH ITS MEMBERSHIP. THIS MUST BE REMEDIED IN THE NEAR FUTURE AND, GIVEN OUR EARLIER RECOMMENDATION THAT EACH MEMBER SHOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR OVERPAID SUBSCRIPTIONS, THE FEDERATION SHOULD ENSURE THAT ALL MEMBERS SEND IN THEIR CONTACT DETAILS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE CORRESPONDENCE.

CONCLUSION

23. The Home Secretary told us that she hoped that she would see the Police Federation Independent Review's recommendations implemented in full.[27] However, she emphasised that the decision on implementation was the responsibility of the Federation itself.[28]

24. THE CASE FOR REFORM OF THE POLICE FEDERATION HAS BEEN POWERFULLY MADE. THE NORMINGTON REPORT PRESENTS A SENSIBLE, BALANCED AND PROPORTIONATE PACKAGE OF REFORM WHICH, IF IMPLEMENTED, WILL HELP THE ORGANISATION TO MOVE FORWARD, TO RESTORE ITS DAMAGED REPUTATION, AND TO RE-FOCUS ON THE CORE BUSINESS OF REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF ITS MEMBERS. WE COMMEND IT TO THE 2014 POLICE FEDERATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE.

25. IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO MOVE QUICKLY WITH IMPLEMENTING THESE REFORMS AND, TO THAT END, THE NORMINGTON REPORT HAS RECOMMENDED THAT MANY OF THE CHANGES SHOULD BE INTRODUCED IN THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS WAY POSSIBLE, WHETHER BY EXECUTIVE ACTION OR BY DECISIONS OF THE CONFERENCE OR JOINT CENTRAL COMMITTEE. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO PLACE THE REFORM ON A SECURE FOOTING FOR THE FUTURE, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR SOME OF THESE CHANGES TO BE INCORPORATED INTO STATUTE. WE RECOMMEND THAT, FOLLOWING THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN MAY 2014, THE HOME OFFICE WORK CLOSELY WITH THE POLICE FEDERATION TO ESTABLISH WHAT CHANGES TO STATUTE WILL BE REQUIRED TO EMBED THE NEW REFORMS. MUCH OF THIS CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SECONDARY LEGISLATION, AND ANY PRIMARY LEGISLATION WOULD BE LIKELY TO BE SHORT. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE GOVERNMENT FIND TIME FOR PARLIAMENT TO CONSIDER THE NECESSARY LEGISLATION DURING THE 2014-15 SESSION.

26. THE POLICE FEDERATION IS, AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED, A STATUTORY BODY CREATED BY PARLIAMENT. ITS MEMBERSHIP, WHOM IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY SERVE AS WELL AS IT COULD, DO NOT JOIN VOLUNTARILY BUT BECOME MEMBERS AUTOMATICALLY ON TAKING UP THE OFFICE OF CONSTABLE. WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE BEST FOR THE FEDERATION TO REFORM FROM WITHIN, WITH THE SUPPORT OF ITS MEMBERS, ON THE BASIS OF THE NORMINGTON PROPOSALS. HOWEVER, IF THAT REFORM IS NOT TAKEN FORWARD, IT WOULD BE DERELICT OF PARLIAMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT TO STAND ASIDE AND WATCH THE FEDERATION CONTINUE TO LET ITS MEMBERS DOWN. WE HOPE THAT, UNDER NEW LEADERSHIP, THE FEDERATION WILL AGREE TO THE CHANGES AS SET OUT IN THE NORMINGTON REPORT OF ITS OWN ACCORD. IF THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN, THE HOME SECRETARY SHOULD COMPEL THE ORGANISATION TO DO SO THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW STATUTORY FRAMEWORK.