What is the Future for Police Representation?

Posted on by
3

When I first became interested in policing, I became simultaneously interested in the thorny topic of police representation. I was instantly confused by the multiplicity of bodies that purported to act as representative of police officers, a sharp contrast with the much simpler structures of prison service and other emergency service unions. A recent online discussion and a visit to this week’s Police Federation Conference in Bournemouth reminded me of my initial confusion and caused me to reflect on the current situation and future possibilities.

Firstly we have the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA) which represents the interests of the most senior officers. Its role is defined as “existing to safeguard the individual and collective interests of chief police officers and senior police staff equivalents, including the consideration of matters relating to their conditions of service and the promotion of their welfare”.

Unless you are a police officer, you are rather more likely to have heard of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which is a professional body not a staff association and is currently led by the supremely political Sir Hugh Orde.

Next comes the Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales (PSAEW or “Supers”), representing the interests of Police Superintendents and Chief Superintendents, currently led by the outstanding and outspoken Irene Curtis.

And last but by no means least, there is the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW), currently led by the brave but beleaguered Steve Williams.  It is important to note that PFEW is not a union but an internal representative body, a bitter history which dates back to 1919.  PFEW represents the interests of Police Constables, Sergeants, Inspectors and Chief Inspectors but is in turn divided into the three sometimes competing strands, one each for Constables, Sergeants and Inspectors.

This Byzantine structure is further complicated by the existence of 43 different police forces and by both regional and national representation.  This fractured power base is undoubtedly one of the factors which has prevented the police from presenting a united front in the face of the current police reform agenda.

Members of CPOSA/ACPO understandably have their eyes on the prizes of heading up forces and, for a few, of future titles and seats in the House of Lords.  It is their role to interpret and implement Government policy and they also have the challenge of managing the delicate balance of power which rests between them and the recently elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC).  All of this will discourage them from openly rocking any political boats.

Meanwhile, the Police Federation has the task of defending the Office of Constable in the face of the governmental onslaught which led directly to the ballot on the question of whether to seek industrial rights. However, the Federation’s challenge is complicated by the tension that exists between the three different strands representing the different ranks.  Constables are by far the most numerous and contribute the lion’s share of the subs but sheer numbers should never be the deciding factor in a political maelstrom.  From an onlooker’s perspective, this triple structure, with its attendant contradictions and conflicts, looks like a fatal flaw.

And between the two sits the Superintendents’ Association, looking up to ACPO, threatened by the prospect of direct entry and needled from below by the Federation.

The internal power struggles within and between these bodies is almost certainly partly responsible for the easy success that the government has had in pushing through the most dramatic of its recent reforms.

I have recently been contemplating the possible impact of both modern management techniques and direct entry on the hierarchical structure of the police and it seems impossible to me that the existing rank structure has any long-term future.  Flatter management has been a reality in most of the public sector for some 20 years and it is inevitable that the police will eventually fall into step.  I understand that such a move was proposed by the Sheehy Report in 1993 but was never properly implemented.  I predict that the ranks of both Chief Inspector and Chief Superintendent will be dispensed with in the fairly near future and would suggest that the rank of Assistant Chief Constable is also open to review.  Indeed some forces have already embarked upon parts of this process.  I say this in full knowledge of the fact that Chief Inspector carries with it no more authorities than the rank of Inspector and Superintendent/Chief Superintendent is little different.

This will leave three interesting sets of questions:

What will be the role of ACPO in a world where its funding is being cut and the power and public face of individual police forces is increasingly viewed through the lens of the PCC?  Will it be reinvigorated in defence of its own position or will it wither in the face of implacable political opposition?  And how will CPOSA represent the interests of its members given these potential changes?

Is there a real future for the Federation’s three-rank structure?  Would efforts be better placed looking outward rather than inward?  Where exactly does the greatest threat lie? And what changes will ensue as an outcome of the forthcoming review and the concurrent battle for power and influence?  Should the Federation continue to represent all ranks below the rank of superintendent or would it be better for the Constables to be set free to fight their own cause?

And finally, what will be the future role of a diminished PSAEW?  Where will it sit in a world where the power struggle such as it might be takes place between a reinforced Federation and a reinvigorated ACPO?  Is it sufficient to continue bridging the gap or would it be better to take sides?  To become a junior partner in the ACPO ranks?  To become a powerful voice and leader for the Federated ranks (with or without the Constables), taking the bull by the horns and speaking out fearlessly on behalf of all those who feel that their careers and futures are being diminished by the Government’s relentless onslaught?

I am no police officer.  I am a member of the public with an interest only in the security of my community but this security relies on the existence of a resilient, flexible and responsive police force which represents itself in a mature, strong and professional manner.  I have no answers.  All I can do is ask the question: what is the future for police representation?

With thanks to @OLAdams for providing the stimulus for this post, to @BriW74 for pointing me in the direction of the Sheehy Report, to Cate_A_Moore for her observations on the Constables and to @PW0559 and others for correcting my misunderstanding of the roles of ACPO and CPOSA (for whom I cannot find a weblink – all offers gratefully received).

 

Useful links and twitter feeds:

http://www.acpo.police.uk/  @PoliceChiefs

http://www.policesupers.com/  @PoliceSupers

http://www.polfed.org/  @PFEW_HQ

http://www.polfed.org/aboutus/185.aspx  @PoliceFedICC @PFEWSergeants @TheConstables

Unusually I have taken the decision to allow comments on this post.  These comments will be unmoderated and I am not liable for the content of any comments made on this post.

 

A Duty of Care

Posted on by

The Paris Brown story is an ugly one. A young woman, barely 17, is appointed to a high-profile post, her online footprint unchecked.  A newspaper famed for wrecking lives scents a kill.  A scandal breaks, the media and public judge and the young woman is shot down in flames.

Who is responsible for this shameful incident?

It is too easy to blame Paris for tweets not dissimilar from those made by many young people.  Those of us who have adopted social media into our adult lives forget that for those of Paris’s age it is as familiar as the air they breathe.  They can no more imagine a world without Facebook than we can imagine a life without radio.  It is a forum for chatting, for socialising, for flirting, for boasting, for showing off and, more darkly, for bullying.

Of course Paris’s tweets were unacceptable.  They showed a side of her personality that does not sit comfortably with public office.  But how many adults don’t occasionally give thanks that the glaring lights of social media were not lit in their youth?  How many adults are grateful that their teenage years weren’t digitally recorded?  How appalling to think that every youthful indiscretion might be indelibly captured to haunt your adult life.

It is too easy to blame the press.  Of course the Daily Mail plays an execrable role in this sordid story but blaming the Mail for hounding a public figure is like blaming a dog for chewing a bone.  It’s in its nature.  It’s what it does.  It’s predictable.  Leveson appears to count for little when your editor is in charge of the Press Complaints Commission.

Should we not more profitably direct our gaze towards what Ann Barnes, Kent’s Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), has described as a “poor recruitment process”?

Apparently – almost unbelievably - it seems that no-one from Kent’s Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) thought to check out Paris’s online footprint. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-22062362).  The PCC says that “social networking sites are a no-go area for most of us adults” –  this from the woman who ran possibly the most high profile PCC campaign of all, via both mainstream and social media. The OPCC employs its own communications staff: is none of them charged with the management of electronic media?

As I have already said, social networking is second nature to the vast majority of teens.  Candidates’ online footprints should have been checked prior to interview and certainly prior to an appointment decision being made. I refuse to make a judgement about whether Paris’s online footprint should have barred her from the post. This was a decision for the PCC to make and I do not have sufficient knowledge to second guess.

The criminal threshold for PCCs themselves is extremely low and during the PCC campaign we saw several otherwise admirable candidates fall by the wayside because of youthful misdemeanours that would not have precluded them from becoming Members of Parliament.  However, it is generally accepted that the best people to talk about rehabilitation are those who have themselves been rehabilitated.

So, if the footprint were judged acceptable by the OPCC, one of two things should have happened:

  • Either Paris should have been advised to “prune” her footprint prior to the appointment being announced;
  • Or the PCC should have made it clear during the press conferences heralding the appointment that she was fully aware of the footprint and that Paris’s evident precocity was one of the reasons that she had been appointed. Embracing Paris’s online profile would have drawn the sting from any press attack, would have offered Paris protection and would have given both candidate and role some much-needed credibility.

Sadly neither of these things happened and, as could easily have been predicted, the press, hot on the scent, picked up the story and ran amok, damaging beyond repair the reputation and the confidence of a previously buoyant young woman.  Resignation was inevitable. The pressure on Paris and her family must have been unbearable and yet could so easily have been avoided.

The PCC says that she asked Paris whether there was anything in her history that might make her unsuitable for the post of YPCC and that Paris replied that there wasn’t.  But why place the onus for assessing suitability for such a high-profile appointment on a 17-year-old who couldn’t possibly appreciate either the political sensitivity of the post or the potential for the media to whip up a whirlwind?   Why did no-one in the OPCC take account of the fact that Paris was not an experienced professional but a naive young person embarking on her career?  Why did they not take the appropriate steps to keep her safe? And what happened to the requirement for Paris’s employer to show her a duty of care?

 

 

 

 

Imprisonment: class matters

Posted on by

In the week since Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce were given prison sentences for perverting the course of justice there has been an upsurge in interest from both media and public about the nature of prison life and what the infamous ex-couple can expect.

Much speculation has centred on whether the experience of imprisonment is, as the tabloids would have us believe, more painful for middle-class people. We have read about Chris Huhne’s fall from grace and Vicky Pryce’s vulnerability as if poorer people with a lesser sense of entitlement were somehow also less vulnerable, less sentient, more inured to loss and terror, more accustomed to being deprived of their rights and their freedoms. In contrast, I firmly believe that imprisonment is less frightening and less damaging for people such as Huhne and Pryce than it is for someone of lesser status, lesser means, lesser power.

Of course imprisonment will have come as a shock. Loss of control over what to do, what to say, what to wear, what to eat and where to go is disorientating for any first-time prisoner. You don’t know the questions, let alone the answers. Most frightening is the inability to open your own door. The experience of being locked in a cell with a blank plate where the inner handle should be is utterly terrifying, both claustrophobic and disempowering. And locked in with you is that total stranger, your cellmate. A convicted criminal. Just like you.

However, on their reception to prison, Huhne and Pryce were buoyed by money, contacts, access to the best legal advice and, unlike the vast majority of first-time prisoners, they have the security of knowing that, when they are released, they will have homes to go to, money to spend, friends and family to support them. They will not be left unemployed and destitute with nothing but the meagre discharge grant to live off until the next benefit cheque arrives.

The confidence that comes from knowing that ‘outside’ is secure makes prison a much less frightening and dehumanising experience for relatively wealthy middle class prisoners than it can be for those who have no money, no power, no external support. A first night in custody will always be terrifying but imagine how much more terrifying it is if, as a result of your imprisonment, your children will be taken into care, your pets will go hungry, your home will be lost – and with it your belongings because you have no-one to take charge of your affairs. If you were lucky enough to have a job, the one thing that stood between you and poverty, this too will disappear. And how frightening is the prospect of release if you have nowhere familiar to go and no familiar face to turn to.

Huhne and Pryce were also buoyed by the knowledge that they would soon – and rightly – be moved to more open conditions. Indeed, Pryce has already been transferred. Sentences of imprisonment are given as punishment not for punishment. The key is loss of freedom and self-determination.

‘Open conditions’ is not a reward for good behaviour. The Prison Service is obliged to hold prisoners in conditions of the lowest possible security but because of the limitations of the prison estate this is not always possible: available accommodation never perfectly matches the prison population and the culture of the Home Office is risk-averse, to protect the public but also to avoid adverse media reaction.

Don’t believe the hype: Huhne and Pryce pose no risk of abscond. Their self-control will prevent them from fleeing an unwalled prison and, if they did, a tabloid journalist would soon be on the trail. But don’t be fooled: open conditions is still imprisonment. Don’t buy into the mythology peddled by mainstream media that prisons are holiday camps or that prisoners are somehow ‘other’, somehow not ‘people like us’. There is an unacknowledged continuum between life inside and outside prison. All prisoners have lived in the community before entering prison and the vast majority will return to the community at the end of their sentence. And there but for the grace of God…..

To this extent prisoners are just like us. Remember, however, that male prisoners are 14 times as likely as the general population to have two mental health disorders while the figure for female prisoners is an astonishing 35 times more likely – see HERE. So prisoners are people like us but more vulnerable, with greater levels of need and poorer coping strategies. More than a quarter of the prison population will have been in the care of the local authority at some time before their 18th birthday: unaccustomed to forming lasting relationships, with a history of transience and of fragmented family support.

Sadly, there are a very few people for whom imprisonment is a period of respite. Those with no roots, no friends, no family, no means of support, those with acute mental illness, those who frequent homeless shelters and soup kitchens, those for whom prison provides the food, water, shelter and warmth which may be absent from their daily lives.

Don’t criticise the Prison Service for providing more comfort inside than some experience outside. Reproach rather the society that is tolerant of people living their lives in conditions which are worse than those of prison.

So whilst it will undoubtedly be a salutary experience for Huhne and Pryce, whilst it will force them to face themselves, whilst it will bring them into close contact with people with whom they are unused to socialising; neither imprisonment nor release will strike more terror into their hearts than into the hearts of many of their peers, those without the money, contacts and power enjoyed by the current first ex-couple of the state. Because when it comes to imprisonment, class matters.

This article was commissioned by and first appeared in The Justice Gap and is reproduced here with their kind permission.  You can find the article here:  http://thejusticegap.com/2013/03/in-prison-class-matters/

Follow The Justice Gap on twitter @JusticeGap

Councillors and social media: an accident waiting to happen?

Posted on by

Social media is a powerful tool in the right hands but it is a tool which can also become a dangerous weapon. The Dorset Echo yesterday revealed that Conservative Weymouth and Portland Borough Councillor Peter Chapman had made comments on his personal Facebook page which I consider to be inappropriate. I am not going to repeat those comments here: if you wish to read the article, here is the link.

 Three other councillors are also cited in the story, two of whom had commented on the Facebook page post. The third is the leader of the Conservative group, Cllr Mike Goodman. This article was spread via twitter and was quickly picked up by Political Scrapbook.

I understand that the story is going to be carried in the national press today. This issue is unlikely to enhance the already poor reputation of local government so, as a fellow Weymouth and Portland Borough Councillor, I feel obliged to express my view on the issue at hand.

Without extrapolating at length my position is as follows: Cllr Chapman criticised the performance of staff at the Costa coffeeshop in Dorchester, labelling them “bone idle bitches” who needed “a good beating”. Instead of apologising profusely for his remarks, Cllr Chapman defended himself by saying that the comment was made “in jest” and that his Facebook page was private. This has lead a local women’s group to call for his resignation.

It should go without saying that advocating violence against women can never be a joking matter. We have fought for years to make people take domestic violence seriously and such observations only serve to undermine public confidence and perception. Cllr Chapman’s comments are part of the everyday sexism against which women continue to struggle.

Moreover, Facebook, like all other forms of social media, is never private. Electronic information is easily replicated and difficult to destroy, as Cllr Chapman has found to his cost. By claiming that his Facebook page is private, Cllr Chapman is absolving himself from responsibility for what I am certain he knows are unacceptable comments.

Cllr James appears to blame the entire situation on those who sent the comments to the papers rather than on the person who made the comments in the first place. This is somewhat akin to victim-blaming and utterly at odds with Robert Francis QC’s recent comments on whistleblowing.

Cllr Goodman, leader of WPBC’s Conservative group, is quoted as having said: “Councillors are only responsible for their actions when acting as a councillor or deferring to council business.”

I find this comment quite incredible. In contrast, it appears to me that standards of tolerance in matters of comportment and transparency are quite rightly lower for councillors who have been chosen as representatives than they are for the general public and that it matters little in the public eye whether the councillor is on duty or not. What matters far more are the councillor’s core values as evidenced in everyday life.

I don’t consider it is my position to ask for Cllr Chapman’s resignation: that is a matter for his conscience, his party and for the electorate. However, I do think he should apologise to the staff at Dorchester Costa and to the female voters who make up 50% of his ward. Moreover, I think that we should ask Richard Drax MP whether he sympathises with Cllr Chapman’s views.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to recommend social media training for all elected members. With proper training this situation could easily have been avoided. Without training, many councillors’ twitter feeds and Facebook pages are accidents waiting to happen.

Localism – it’s not all it’s cracked up to be 2: Precepts and Budgets

Posted on by

This Government is cutting into local government funding more deeply and more quickly than any other part of public service.  All local authorities have suffered to a greater or lesser degree.  Weymouth and Portland Borough Council’s funding has been slashed by 38% over a three-year period, forcing the council to make unpopular cuts of its own.

These cuts are not only damaging the essential services that the council provides but are also having a direct and negative impact on the local economy. And things are likely to get worse not better.

Even local Conservative MP Richard Drax has complained about the funding of Dorset Councils and made special mention of the difficulties being experienced by WPBC (Dorset Echo, 12 February 2013)

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/10223179.South_Dorset_MP_Richard_Drax_warns_councils_in_Dorset_could__go_broke_/?ref=rss

One of the Government cuts is to reduce the support given for Council Tax Support.  Locally, the consultation on this matter was not well handled and received a poor response.

At Weymouth and Portland Borough Council’s Full Council meeting on 24 January 2013 I requested an amendment to the Council Tax element of the 2013/14 budget proposal in order to protect the most vulnerable residents of Weymouth and Portland. You can read about this issue in more detail in my previous “Localism” blog whilst the following article by Alan Stanley expresses the same opinions from a more national perspective:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/21/council-tax-benefit-cuts

You can see the summary of the debate about the amendment in the minutes of the Full Council meeting paragraphs 155-161:

http://media.weymouth.gov.uk/docstore/demdocs/Full_council/FC-M-20130221.pdf

The amendment was not supported by the majority of Tory and Liberal Democrat councillors. The brief-holder for Finance explained that he opposed the amendment largely because of the knock-on effect that such a decision would have on the budgets of the other precepting authorities and particularly on Dorset County Council’s own budget proposals (see paragraph 159). However, I suspect he may have slanted his opposition rather differently had he known what was to happen next.

On 14 February, Dorset County Council decided not to increase their precept – that is, not to increase their share of council tax. Effectively this decision means that the least-well-off WPBC residents who are now required to pay a percentage of their council tax (including the county council, police and fire elements) will be subsidising more affluent residents across Dorset.

Clearly, in future years, it would be sensible for precepting authorities which span the whole shire county (county councils, police and fire services) to set their precepts first so that borough, district and parish councils can take this information and the consequent burden on the tax payer into account when setting their own precepts and when deciding on the percentage of council tax that the very least well-off will have to pay. This is an issue that I will pursue during the coming year. More information about council tax is available here: http://www.dorsetforyou.com/384147

Meanwhile, in Weymouth and Portland, Labour councillors’ hands are tied by virtue of not having a majority.

http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/tidnews/10245107.UPDATED__Weymouth_and_Portland_budget_cuts_shake_up/?ref=rss

We do not have the power to impose the amendment or to adopt an alternative strategy.  Nevertheless, I won’t support an attack on the least-well-off in our community and I refuse to do the Chancellor’s dirty work for him.  It was for this (and for several other reasons) that, having voted in favour of handing over the Pavilion to the community, I was unable to support the remainder of this year’s budget proposal.

Localism – not all it’s cracked up to be: Council Tax Support

Posted on by

This article is primarily about the changes in Council Tax Support in Weymouth and Portland Borough Council.  However, the principles are the same countrywide.  What is your local council doing?

With effect from April 2013, the Government is abolishing the existing Council Tax Benefit (CTB) system, replacing it with a localised Council Tax Support (LCTS) scheme.  The Government has cut central funding for such schemes by 10%  leaving individual councils to make up the shortfall. Plans have to be in place by 31 January 2013.

Under the current CTB scheme, those on low incomes who are liable to pay council tax can receive relief of up to 100% of their council tax liability. CTB is not paid directly to claimants but is deducted from their council tax bill.

The Government claims that cutting funding for council tax relief will be an incentive to get people back to work.  However, we know that around 70% of people who currently claim CTB are either pensioners or are already in low-paid work so the cuts will not incentivise these people in any way.  Moreover, the Government has specifically protected pensioners and the most vulnerable groups from incurring any additional costs.

Across the country, those local authorities which collect council tax are having to decide:

  • whether to pass the impact of the cuts on to those “non-vulnerable, working-age” people who are currently eligible for 100% relief:
  • whether to absorb the shortfall into the general but increasingly stretched budget;
  • whether to ask those who are more able to pay to shoulder the burden.

None of these options has much to recommend it. The first option involves passing on Government cuts directly to those most in need of support at the same time as those earning over £150,000 per year are enjoying a 5% tax cut. The second option is complicated by the fact that the shortfall will also impact on the budgets of the other precepting bodies – the police and fire services as well as county councils in three-tier regions. The third option is made more complex by the fact that the Government has prevented local authorities from increasing council tax by more than 2% without first conducting a (very expensive) referendum.

Moreover, it is worth bearing in mind that many claimants who live in social housing will also be facing cuts in their housing benefit as a result of the simultaneous introduction of the under-occupancy penalty – the so-“called bedroom tax”. You can read more about this here:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/25/spare-bedroom-tax-contradiction-impossibility

and here http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/bedroom-tax-protest

or follow the debate on twitter via #gdnchat #bedroomtax

In December, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council’s Management Committee examined three scheme options and chose to adopt a scheme restricting “non- vulnerable working age” claims to a maximum eligible Council Tax of 91.5% of liability.  You can see the details of the scheme here:

http://media.weymouth.gov.uk/docstore/demdocs/MAN_Committee/MAN-H-20121204.pdf

and of the decision here (paragraphs 217 – 219): http://media.weymouth.gov.uk/docstore/demdocs/MAN_Committee/MAN-M-20121205.pdf

This recommendation neither protects the vulnerable (some 3000 claimants will have to find up to £200 per year) nor eradicates the shortfall (a funding gap of £30,777 remains for the borough alone even if 100% of the additional monies are collected which will not be the case)  but maintains a middle ground which singularly fails to highlight the iniquity of the Government’s approach.

Earlier this month, councillors Kate Wheller and Andy Blackwood expressed their dissatisfaction with the Management Committee proposal in the Dorset Echo: http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/10156205.Weymouth_and_Portland_councillors_criticise_changes_to_council_tax_benefit/

Let’s be clear: those who are currently eligible for 100% CTB are, by definition, the poorest in our society.  Under the new LCTS scheme they will be required to pay a contribution of 8.5% of their council tax bill.  This is money they simply do not have.  The outcome of this decision will be two-fold:

  • People who cannot afford to pay council tax will be required to do so. Being unable to make the payments will cause them distress and will push them into debt.  Many will default and some may incur convictions as a result.
  • Councils already spend significant amounts of money chasing up non-payment of council tax.  This change will increase the amount spent chasing non-payment with very little to show as a result.

Essentially we will be pursuing people who have no means of paying.  I find this morally shameful and suspect it will be financially wasteful.

On 24 January 2013, 33 of the 36 Weymouth and Portland Borough Councillors met to decide on this issue.  You can see the agenda item in question here: http://media.weymouth.gov.uk/docstore/demdocs/Full_council/FC-R5e-20130124.pdf

On behalf of the Labour Group, I proposed an amendment to the motion to restore the option of 100% support for those who are most in need of support.  After much discussion, the amendment fell 19-14.  All the Labour members present supported the amendment, as did one Conservative member, one Independent member and two Liberal Democrat members.  The vote was recorded and if you want to see how individual councillors voted, the information will be included in the minutes of the meeting (not yet published).

The substantive motion was eventually passed 20-13.  All Labour members present voted against the motion, as did one Conservative and two Liberal Democrat members.  Again the vote was recorded.

The debate was reported in the Dorset Echo and you can read the Echo report here: http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/10189136.Last_attempt_to_aid_poorer_households_with_council_tax_payments_defeated/

So the questions that now have to be asked are:

  • How much revenue should be generated by the change to LCTS?
  • How much of this revenue is actually being collected?
  • How much is it costing the council to collect this additional revenue?
  • Is it therefore sensible to continue to pursue this policy?
  • How many of the people who are having to pay Council Tax when they previously would have received 100% CTB are now claiming discretionary housing payments to help them cope?
  • How many of these people are finding themselves in worsening debts as a result of the council’s decision?

These questions are valid not only in Weymouth and Portland but across the UK.

I have asked the Citizen’s Advice Bureau to bear this change in mind when dealing with clients seeking debt advice so that we can identify the impact that this change is having on local residents.  At the same time I will be pursuing this issue on a regular basis both on my own behalf and via Scrutiny and Performance Committee to ascertain whether pursuing people who have so little residual income is indeed a financially astute move.

If you have any personal experience of this matter, please let me know.

A Perfect Storm: politics, policing and participation

Posted on by

“A member of a police force shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere; and in particular a member of a police force shall not take any active part in politics. “ Schedule 1 Police Regulations 2003

One of the great British administrative traditions is the impartiality of our public servants.  No matter the colour or hue of our political masters, those who are charged with serving and protecting the public are expected to carry out their duties in dignity and silence.

 As a civil servant in Her Majesty’s Prison Service I accepted this condition without question or hesitation.  I exercised my function to the best of my ability regardless of the political alignment of the government of the day but with my own core values guiding my conscience.

 When the political agenda began to compromise those values, when my conscience started to wake me in the night, when I started to feel nauseous at the impact of my enforced decisions, when I could no longer look my staff in the eye, I chose to leave.  It was only at this point that I joined the political party which most closely reflected those previously mentioned core values.

 However, at no stage of my public service did I feel unable to participate in the broader aspects of political life either by discussing with others the issues at stake or by carrying out the definitively political act of voting.  Indeed I encouraged others to participate in the democratic process without suggesting where they should mark their X and worked to promote remand prisoner voting in the 1997 General Election.

 There are others, however, who face a very different situation.  Police officers today face dramatic changes to the way in which they work.  The Winsor Report will change their terms and conditions; budget cuts are decimating their numbers; direct entry will impact on their promotion prospects; their pension compact has been destroyed; and the highly contentious introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners is challenging their identity. The prospective sale of iconic institutions such as New Scotland Yard and Bramshill Police Staff College is creating a sense of rootlessness and the recent decision of the Police Arbitration Tribunal to delay a decision on compulsory severance until after the forthcoming Industrial Rights ballot has added an element of coercion to the mix.   All this has served to lower morale and to destabilise an unusually close-knit community on whom we depend for our own stability and security.

But police officers are officially mute.  Their voices have been stifled.  Despite working in a highly politically-charged environment, they are unable to comment on the political aspect of their role and, indeed, some continue blindly to claim that politics has no place in policing.

ACPO regulations, based on S60 of the PCC Elections Order 2012, prevented police officers from talking to candidates for the Police and Crime Commissioner posts, from telling the people who will in future pull their strings what they think, how they feel, what’s important to them, what their hopes and fears are, what motivates them and what might cause that motivation to wane.  Not only were they not permitted to speak to candidates, they were not allowed to encourage others – officers, civilians, even their families – to vote, to exercise their hard-won franchise, to participate in the democratic process that would have such an impact on their futures. Nor even to discourage them from voting.  Sounds incredible?  Check paragraphs 13.2 and 13.3 of this document: http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/futures/2012/201207FBAGfIwPCCs.pdf and read this article from The Guardian of Sunday 11 November 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/11/gag-police-commissioner-elections-turnout

This suffocating approach had two different but symbiotic effects:

  • Candidates stood for election who had never spoken at length to a serving police officer, who had little idea of the day-to-day challenges of the job, of the delicate balancing of work and home, of service and self-preservation;
  • At the same time, police officers – particularly those who have not been politically stunted by the restrictions imposed upon them – became filled with unspoken frustration, the words burning in their brains and gagging in their mouths with no channel, no vent, no release.

Peel told us from the outset that the police are the public and the public are the police.  It therefore seems to me ironic that the regulations surrounding the introduction of a post which aims to increase public participation and accountability were, at this embryonic stage, restricting the participation of those whose lives would most immediately be affected by its introduction. This restriction reached ludicrous proportions when police officers were unable to participate in an online debate about police morale because a PCC candidate was on the official panel.

Like many large and largely sluggish organisations in the 21st century, police forces across the country struggle to cope with the impact of social media and the opportunities that social media affords to staff to express their opinions in a public forum.  Many forces appear to fear the impact of those opportunities and are tempted to restrict them whenever they challenge the orthodox approach.

DCC Gordon Scobbie (@DCCTayside), who speaks for the police on social media, has previously pointed out that forces need to avoid looking out of touch and heavy handed and has suggested that if officers are trusted with taking away someone’s liberty, they should be trusted with a twitter account.

On 12 December, he also tweeted a promise that soon “more senior people will have strategic understanding of SM”.  This is an admirable ambition and it is to be hoped that the “round table” planned for January will continue this much-needed work.

However, national guidance is currently implemented differently in each of the 43 forces and there is little continuity, particularly in relation to what individual forces will tolerate. Many official twitter accounts suffer from lack of structure and support and are sometimes closed down with little reason  Some  (eg @DorsetPolice) are relatively dry and bland,  tweeting proclamations and pronouncements in the manner of a tannoy with little or no public engagement, something that has been referred to as “vanilla tweeting”.  Others (eg @TVP_Witney, @BridPoliceSNT) are more relaxed and engaging.  A recent BBC study indicated that the latter approach is far more popular with the public  and indeed @SolihullPolice has received particular recognition for its engagement strategy and was the recent winner of the  “Golden Twit” award for public service tweeters.

 Nevertheless, there is real inconsistency in the management of official accounts.  Some, such as @SurreyPolice get away with tweeting Christmas-cracker style jokes while other tweeters appear to be closed down for similar joviality. This inconsistent approach places an undue burden of responsibility on staff and simultaneously makes it easier for management to apportion blame.

Meanwhile, unofficial or off-duty police tweeters are very often anonymous. The purpose of this anonymity is generally to protect the officer’s privacy (usually from potential disciplinary action by his or her own force) and this is a reasonable step for an officer to take.  However, the impact of that anonymity is often that the officer then feels at liberty to behave in a juvenile or otherwise irresponsible manner and to make comments that they would never make if they were identifiable.  This in turn confirms the management view that police tweeters and bloggers are a liability when in fact they should be supporting the increased engagement with the public that could have such a positive impact. This kind of vicious circle needs to be broken and the onus may well be on officers to take the lead. For a serving officer’s perspective on many of these issues, I recommend a recent blog by @NathanConstable: http://nathanconstable.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/to-tweet-or-not-to-tweet/

In a recent Guardian Public Leaders debate, I expressed the hope that the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) might alleviate this situation.  PCCs should be the gateway to better communications, not only within and between police forces but also between the police and the media; between the police and the community safety sector; between the police and other emergency services; and most importantly between the police and the public. PCCs have the capacity to engender a culture of openness and transparency by listening to and taking on board the views of officers and staff at all levels, by welcoming constructive criticism in a way that existing police leaders would do well to emulate and by encouraging responsible engagement via social and other forms of media.

This hope was uncharacteristically optimistic: unfortunately, it appears that regulations have had and are still having the opposite effect as in recent weeks several official and unofficial tweeters and bloggers have been silenced.

 And in a post-Leveson world it seems ever more likely that officers who talk off-the-record to the media will suffer severe consequences.  

Moreover, a recently published HMIC report has recommended further suppression of police use of social media because of concerns about offensive language, comments on police procedure, negativity towards work and extreme opinions on government (see page 23). This controlling approach contrasts with the Director of Public Prosecutions somewhat vague attempt to clarify the law relating to online posting in order to “strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the need to uphold the criminal law”.

The HMIC report recommends that forces and PCCs “should assure themselves that there are appropriate mechanisms in place to monitor and manage the reputational risks presented by the inappropriate use of social media”. Such has been the public controversy surrounding the introduction of the post that PCCs, elected on a low turn-out and with little voter engagement, are likely to be feeling vulnerable both to public critique and to internal criticism.  My early optimism has been replaced by a fear that, far from encouraging the responsible use of social media, of supporting staff to make constructive criticism of policy and practice, of trusting officers to use their judgement and their vast experience to improve both public relations and public safety, there is now a risk that PCCs might view all criticism with extreme suspicion and clamp down hard on any perceived challenge to their authority.

I believe that such an approach would be a huge mistake, one which would serve only to frighten some dissenting voices into silence while driving others underground, into subterfuge, into a position where, instead of being a force for openness, for transparency, for accountability, they warp into a malign force at the eye of the perfect storm.

Privatisation

Posted on by

I have stated publicly on many occasions that I am against privatisation of the police and firmly believe that policing should be a public service, not for profit.  I am similarly committed to public service prisons – I find it less than ethical for the state to take away a person’s liberty and then allow a private company to make a profit from incarceration.

However, the Government’s 20% cuts to policing are well in excess of the 12% that HMIC said was feasible.  I am therefore suspicious that the Government’s aim is to enforce the privatisation of core services and to pressurise even the most pro-public service candidates (of which I would be one) to make near-impossible decisions.  However, my commitment will always be to publicly accountable in-house police services other than for areas where it is sensible and logical to contract out – fleet management, uniform suppliers and IT/telephone infrastructure for example.

I was interested to hear at Labour Party Conference in early October that even G4S don’t think the private sector have a place in core policing tasks such as patrolling. They want to run custody services, but in my opinion it is much better to run such services in-house with directly employed public servants. 

I do not have any connection with any companies that might be interested in police contracts.  Since I was selected as a candidate I have received letters from companies that would fit that criterion and have attended seminars and conferences where such companies have also been present.  In order to be as open about these contacts I have published a full list on the Transparency page of my website: http://www.rachelrogers.net/  A copy of the G4S letter can be found here.

You may also have seen that Yvette Cooper MP, the Shadow Home Secretary, has recently issued a challenge to the Home Secretary in respect of this element of transparency:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/09/yvette-cooper-labour-police-chiefs

I hope that makes my position on this matter clear.

NB Tal Michael, Labour’s candidate for Police and Crime Commissioner in North Wales has written extensively on this matter.  I agree entirely with his position so for further information I would refer you to his article (he has given me permission to share this link) :

http://talmichael.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/how-should-labour-commissioners-deal-with-the-governments-privatisation-agenda/

Police officers and elections for Police and Crime Commissioner

Posted on by

Several months ago ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) published guidance on the way in which police officers engage with the elections for Police and Crime Commissioners. The guidance was reiterated in the summer and can be found at http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/futures/2012/201207FBAGfIwPCCs.pdf

While much of this guidance is sensible and practical – it is of course essential for serving officers to remain untainted by political bias and the police are of course responsible for policing the elections themselves- I have long been concerned about the advice in respect of encouraging informed decision making and participation in the electoral process.

In paragraph 13.3, the guidance suggests that a well-meaning officer who says to people “make sure you use your vote”, thus encouraging participation and democracy, could be guilty of an offence. This seems to me to be over stretching the point of the secondary legislation, which was surely intended to mean that officers could not encourage voters to support or not to support a particular candidate.

Tal Michael (Labour’s PCC candidate in North Wales) and I raised this issue with David Hanson MP, the shadow policing minister, and as a consequence he wrote to the Minister Damian Green MP to seek further clarification on this point. In the letter dated 18 September David Hanson writes:

“I have had some points raised with me regarding ACPO advice on the forthcoming PCC elections. You will know that Section 13.3 of the advice states:

13.3 At its most literal, this could mean that any well-meaning Officer who encourages the electorate to become involved in the elections would be acting contrary to this law, and liable to prosecution, regardless of the fact that they are not endorsing any political position.

I would welcome your interpretation of this, as I have concerns that this could apply to officers who are encouraging individuals to vote, without expressing any political opinion at all. Would you expect prosecutions on the basis of officers trying to increase turnout being possible?”

Damian Green’s reply is dated 25 October. Mr Green states that “the PCC election is no different to any other election” and that he is “confident” that the guidance “does not prevent police officers talking about PCCs or the effect they will have”. A copy of the letter is available for you to read. As the reply appears to contradict the ACPO guidance, Tal Michael and I have asked David Hanson to pursue the matter further.