WE NEED A ROYAL COMMISSION ON POLICING FAST!

We need a Royal Commission!

The service is now facing its biggest overhaul in decades, after more than 40 years of piecemeal reform. Jon Gilbin, Chairman of the Sergeants' Central Committee, explains why a Royal Commission into policing is now needed more than ever.

The Police Federation of England and Wales has been calling for a wholesale root and branch review of policing for over ten years, as a consequence of the piecemeal and disparate approaches to reform that have characterised these past decades.

These changes have invariably created more problems than they have solved. We are long overdue a review of the way England and Wales are policed.

The last such review took place in 1962 and a lot has changed since then. Now, nearly 50 years on, the climate is such that there has never been a better time to undertake a fundamental and holistic review, by way of a Royal Commission, into all aspects of policing in England and Wales.

"The Hutton review on police pensions, the Winsor review on police pay and conditions, the Neyroud review of leadership and training – are all indicative of this piecemeal, disjointed and reactionary approach that addresses only part of the problem".
                                                                                                                             

The Hutton review on police pensions, the Winsor review on police pay and conditions, the Neyroud review of leadership and training – these are all indicative of the piecemeal, disjointed and reactionary approach that addresses only part of the problem, not the whole problem.
                                                                                                                             
The Police Reform Act 2002 set the scene and prepared the way for a myriad of inquiries, reports and reviews into the way Britain should be policed at the commencement of the 21st century. At its heart was a complete re-engineering of policing, with the focus being on increased performance, efficiency, flexibility and citizen-focused policing of diverse neighbourhoods, but there was to be no Royal Commission.

To contact your MP, go to www.polfed.org/mediacenter/get_involved.asp and insert your postcode in the box provided.

However, no one appears to be providing the level of detailed, independent and objective assessment of what the police service and community really need. The lack of recognition of the role and skills of a police officer, and in particular the uniqueness of the office of constable, is deeply disturbing and worrying.

While administrative tasks have increasingly been undertaken by non-sworn staff, more and more operational roles are now being carried out by them too. Little or no consideration appears to have been given to the impact this will have on policing as we know it in the medium to long term.

"We are witnessing a fragmentation of the police service, characterised by a lack of standardisation, consistency and clarity of roles and responsibilities. This has been compounded by increased financial pressures for forces and concerns around resources, capacity and resilience".

We are now witnessing a fragmentation of the police service, characterised by a lack of standardisation, consistency and clarity of roles and responsibilities. This has been compounded by increased financial pressures for forces and concerns around resources, capacity and resilience. Quite understandably this has raised concerns as to the confused and dysfunctional nature of the current state of policing as a consequence of political interference.

A Royal Commission, much along the same lines of that of 1962, is desperately needed.

So, why was there a Royal Commission in 1962 and how did it come to manifest itself in the Police Act 1964? The early 1960s were years of uncertainty for the police service and for the organs of central and local government which administered it.

For the first time since the ‘new Police’ were created in 1829, a Royal Commission was appointed in January 1960 with terms of reference sufficiently wide ranging to require it to examine afresh the fundamental principles on which the service relied.

At the same time the Commission was asked to review the principles governing police pay. It was also to inquire into relations between the police and the public and the manner in which complaints were dealt with. As a result 111 recommendations were drawn up by the Commission and the final report was published in May 1962. The estimated expenditure of the Commission was £49,370. Not surprisingly, it discovered a great deal that was out of date. Many of those original recommendations remain today, including the role of the constable, HMIC, and police authorities. The Bill received Royal Assent in June 1964.

Fifty years have elapsed since the last Royal Commission. I would argue that just as in 1962 we are at a pivotal point in our history, that society has changed immeasurably since the 1960s and the police service must change with it. The only way that can be achieved is through a far-reaching independent approach – a Royal Commission.

If a Royal Commission were to examine the police service today, I have no doubt that it would reveal that its current structures and practices are out of date. It is time to be bold.

FEDERATION AND ACPO SLUG IT OUT

As regular visitors to these pages will know, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have, by their arrogance and prior actions, provided plenty of negative fodder for the media machine. To see our previous articles simply type ACPO in the search box above. It will not surprise many to hear that the ACPO articles are the most read on these pages. 

Following in the wake of the police federation conference, ACPO have yet again missed a vital opportunity to forge closer bonds with the rank and file officers they are meant to lead. In these difficult times, one would ave thought that common sense and the desire to protect the service as a whole would have been in evidence from the illustrious leaders. Sadly, yet again, they have shown what a self serving, arrogant bunch they are. No slight is intended against any individual chief, no doubt many perform a valuable function for their respective forces. Ask them to comment or contribute as a group and it all goes pear shaped.

Such is the rank and file anger and discontent with ACPO, that a no confidence motion was tabled at the conference, spearheaded by the Metropolitan Police Federation.

An open letter has been sent to Sir Hugh Orde, the President of ACPO, to express concern at his non-attendance at the Police Federation Conference in Bournemouth, passing the opportunity to listen and respond to officers and representatives of the government.

Conference passed an emergency motion instructing the Joint Central Committee of the Police Federation of England and Wales to write this letter to the Association of Chief Police Officers stating that the Police Federation of England and Wales has no confidence in ACPO acting in the best interests of British Policing.

An open letter to the professional body from Fed Chairman Paul McKeever and General Secretary Ian Rennie said members were disappointed by the President's (Sir Hugh Orde) lack of show – particularly at such a tough time for policing.

The letter, which followed a motion of no confidence in ACPO from conference delegates, also accuses the professional body of being "in thrall to the government".

And it adds that certain ACPO members seemed unwilling to directly challenge ministerial assertions that 20 per cent cuts to policing are manageable.

In pressing home their attack in the letter, the senior Fed officials said there had been "dissatisfaction and anger" in the Federated ranks during the conference.

The letter added: "It was clear that officers believe that ACPO is in thrall to this government and certain members appear unwilling to endanger their future prospects of employment by challenging the government's contention that 20 per cent cuts in the policing budget are perfectly manageable.

"Disappointingly, ACPO seem intent on supporting the reduction in police officers' pay and conditions which has provided them with the most flexible workforce in the country.

"We currently have the perfect storm in policing resulting from Winsor's attack on pay and conditions, Neyroud's proposals on promotion and leadership and Lord Hutton's proposals on pensions. Policing and Crime Commissioners will potentially change the political dynamics in the Service and there is a move to remove police officers from the protection of health and safety legislation.

"Regrettably, it is being left to the Police Federation to voice the concerns that should be raised by senior officers in the Service and, in particular, by you as the President of ACPO."

http://www.polfed.org/Open_letter_to_SirHughOrde_240511.pdf

The response from Sir Hugh will have disappointed the Federation and their rank and file membership for its arrogance and lack of real empathy for the plight of the junior ranks. 

27 May 2010
 

Paul McKeever
Chairman
Police Federation
Federation House
Highbury Drive
Leatherhead
Surrey
KT22 7UY

Dear Paul and Ian,

The strength of ACPO lies in the collective knowledge, experience and endeavour of the leadership of the police service, across all forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Your role is to represent your members – ours is to lead. I can say with absolute certainty that every chief officer team is working tirelessly within their force, bearing in mind the very difficult financial situation we are presented with, to cut budgets while preserving the critical service we deliver to the public.

The reality is that this is extremely challenging: and a number of forces have had to take drastic action to balance budgets. We must be entirely clear about this with our public, with government and with all those who work within the service. Each force is impacted in different ways and many chiefs have articulated this both in public and in private. Without question, the service overall will suffer and reduce. As chief officers our job is to lead policing through these difficult times, remaining focussed on keeping communities safe from harm.

We all share a passion for the British model of policing, admired and imitated across the world; it is a model you and I seek to preserve. With this in mind we continue to inform and engage during the passage through Parliament of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. In our professional view, clear and strong checks and balances are a crucial element of any reform, in order to preserve impartiality, the freedom to deliver policing without political interference, and the Office of Constable which we consider so precious.

We are mindful always of the painful impact of budget cuts on our workforce. The Winsor, Neyroud and Hutton recommendations are all subject to consultation and we are determined that the outcomes of these processes should recognise and reward officers fairly for the difficult, dangerous and critical job that they do. I feel we can best do this by recognising our different roles but more importantly reinforcing our desire to serve our communities.

ACPO was very strongly represented at your conference by Peter Fahy, Mick Creedon, Adrian Lee, Phil Gormley, Francis Habgood and Nick Gargan on the agenda and many others in attendance. In our many conversations beforehand, in response to my question, you clearly indicated that my own unavailability was not of particular concern to you. Having had the privilege to stand toe to toe with the outstanding members of the Service I led in Northern Ireland, I find some of your personal comments disappointing and unnecessary. As President, I have never declined an invitation when possible to meet and engage with you and your members, and I restated that commitment in my letter to you of 12 May, which I requested that you share with your members.

I therefore repeat the suggestion I made then of an early meeting, with you and as many of your colleagues as you would like to be present.

I have shared this letter with chiefs and commissioners across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, who have elected to add their signatures. We speak with one voice, and will continue to lead this great institution with huge pride.

Yours sincerely

Sir Hugh Orde OBE, QPM

President of ACPO

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/Hugh's%20Speeches/Letter%20to%20the%20Fed__Final%201.pdf



Signatories to Sir Hughs' ACPO Response




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"The strength of ACPO lies in the collective knowledge, experience and endeavour of the leadership of the police service, across all forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Your role is to represent your members – ours is to lead".


Am I the only one who thinks this sounds condescending and patronising? An unwarranted slap-down even? Your role etc etc ... completely ignores the comments made by Paul voicing the concerns of the members. Yes, I'm pretty sure Paul is fully aware what his role is, it would just make a nice pleasant change, for once to receive a reply that even hints at the ACPO oligarchy being genuinely albeit slightly interested in the rank and file, their fears and concerns at this difficult time.


The remainder of the letter comes across as insincere platitudes. Only yesterday, we posted an atricle about how Whitehall Civil Servants have created a tangled web of self protecting, self serving policies, procedures and contrary edicts that obfuscate and obstruct well intended ministers from achieving much needed reforms as well as forging a culture of selfish protectionsim.


ACPO as an organisation seems cast from the same mould as these manipulative Whitehall departments. One only has to remind ourselves of a few of the Yes Minister favourite scripts to put us in mind of how the ACPO oligarchy has in itself become a vast political animal. As Paul Mckeever rightly put it: "Officers believe that ACPO is in thrall to this government and certain members appear unwilling to endanger their future prospects of employment by challenging the government's contention that 20 per cent cuts in the policing budget are perfectly manageable".


References to "Politician" have been exchanged for "Chief Officers" , "ACPO" or policing equivalents. See how well the substitution works wihout distorting any of the original meaning....


"ACPO speeches are not written for the audience to which they are delivered. Delivering the speech is merely the formality that has to be gone through in order to get the press release into the newspapers."
 
"It is axiomatic in policing that hornets' nests should be left unstirred, cans of worms should remain unopened, and cats should be left firmly in bags and not set among the pigeons. Chief Offficers should also leave boats unrocked, nettles ungrasped, refrain from taking bulls by the horns, and resolutely turn their backs to the music."
 
"Policing is about principles. And the principle is, never act on principle."
 
"A Chief Officers dilemma. He must obviously follow his conscience, but he must also know where he's going. So he can't follow his conscience, because it may not be going the same way that he is."
 
"Police strategic management could be defined: Manipulation, Intrigue, Wire-pulling, Evasion, Rabble-rousing, Graft."
 
"Wearing two hats is not difficult for those who are in two minds. Or have two faces."
 
"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless."



"We dare not allow politicians to establish the principle that senior police officers can be removed for incompetence. We could loose dozens of our chaps. Hundreds maybe. Even thousands."


Asking Police Chiefs to abandon Bureaucracy and obfuscation will be like asking a mother to abandon its child.


ACPO as an organization is in on the ropes, both financially and in terms of its integrity as a so called professional body. The rank and file have lost all confidence in them. The public and media mistrust them. Accusations of scurrilous disloyal conduct have been too many and too visible to ignore. The Coalition merely tolerate them. The Conservative Shadow cabinet under David Camerons direction accused ACPO of giving “political cover to the Labour Government repeatedly and consistently” and engaging in “gratuitous photocalls” with Gordon Brown and other ministers. It went on to say it “showed almost no criticism of the current Government”.

ACPO ARE SELF SERVING, DECEITFUL, SECRETIVE AND DISLOYAL TO THE ROOT AND BRANCH OFFICERS THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO LEAD WITH HONOUR. IT IS HIGH TIME THIS BOYS CLUB WAS DISBANDED SO THAT CHIEF OFFICERS CAN RETURN TO WHAT THEY ARE PAID FOR, WHAT THE PUBLIC EXPECTS OF THEM, TO LEAD THEIR OFFICERS AT FORCE LEVEL, FROM THE FRONT, WITH HONESTY, RESPECT, INTEGRITY AND LOYALTY, QUALITIES THAT HAVE BEEN SADLY LACKING.

It should not be down to the Federation to be the only voice of sense in this malaise. Whilst ACPO is allowed to continue, despite their weak protestations to the contrary, the "Us and Them" culture will pervade. Many times this has been evidenced in the private sector, where powerful Governing bodies have been able to "divide and conquer" opposing views from organisations. The police service is no different. Whilst ACPO play the political game, (yet all the time insisting they want to rid the service of politicisation), every Government will use the division between the ranks as a lever to extract what THEY want from the situation. Only when the division no longer exists and the service is once again united, will it regain its strength and bargaining power.

Other popular ACPO articles:

http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/12/come-in-acpo-your-time-is-up.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/11/top-cop-pay-bonus-scandal-chiefs-still.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/09/should-federation-have-parity-with-acpo.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-against-acpo.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/08/disgraceful-acpo-betray-frontline.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/06/20-things-you-wont-hear-at-acpo-this.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/05/too-many-chiefs-part-3-full-report.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/04/criminal-justice-uk-police-part-2.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/02/chief-police-officers-and-home-office.html

WINSOR REVIEW - HOW WILL IT AFFECT YOU? - PC to CHIEF INSPECTOR? FIND OUT HERE

The Winsor Review team has produced a ready reckoner to show how much you could be winning or losing from its recommendations.

We have uploaded the ready reckoner from the site for you. To access or download it for yourself click here or directly via the Winsor Review site.

The 'ready reckoner' for Constables, Sergeants, Inspectors and Chief Inspectors enables you to click on your current role and circumstances and it will give you an indication of how much more or less you would earn in the future.

Many reports have caused considerable concern for police officer and staff salaries. Many officers will actually benefit from the changes, the review claims. If you are a federated rank - from PC to Chief Inspector - and want to know how the proposals affect you, go to the ready reckoner to show how your income, including allowances and overtime, will change if the recommendations are implemented.

Click on the image to see it larger. To see how the review will affect you click here.

The Winsor Review site

WINSOR REVIEW - PAY LOSS CALCULATOR - LETTER FROM GENERAL SECRETARY
Friday 18th March 2011

Dear Colleague,

I would like to draw your attention to the following website which shows the effect on an officer’s income of the Winsor recommendations:
http://review.police.uk/publications/review-recommendations

After inputting the required information, many members will find that their pay falls as a result of these changes.

Even for those whose pay appears to rise, it is important to remember that these calculations only show changes to income in cash terms.

Inflation is currently running at 5% and is forecast to be close to this level for at least the next 12 months, so the value of basic pay will fall as a result of the two-year pay freeze which the Government wishes to impose upon us.

These calculations also take no account of the fact that under the Winsor recommendations officers will not move up their pay increments. This means that if an officer is not at the top of his or her pay scale, their pay will actually be lower than it would otherwise have been, despite any increases that result from Mr Winsor’s recommendations.

I should also point out, for your information, that while Mr Winsor factors in pension contribution increases, these have yet to be discussed by the Police Negotiating Board, and we have been assured that discussions will take place there before any increases are implemented.

In common with all other employees, though, from April 2011 there will be several changes to the income tax and national insurance regimes. In particular:

• The income tax personal allowance will rise to £7,475, but the salary level at which employees begin to pay the higher rate of income tax (40%) will fall from £37,400 per annum to £35,000 per annum.
• Employee national insurance contribution (NIC) rates will rise from 11% to 12% for those who earn between £139 a week and up to £817 a week and from 1% to 2% for those who earn anything over £817 per week.

The effect of this is that employees with total earnings of more than £35,000 a year will find themselves paying more in income tax and national insurance contributions.

I hope that you find this information helpful to understand the true impact of the Winsor recommendations on your take home pay. The PFEW will engage fully on negotiations over these recommendations, but we have no intention of agreeing to any changes which would see a fall in our members’ pay and conditions of service. As I have tried to do throughout this process, I will continue to keep you updated on developments.
Regards

Ian Rennie

General Secretary
Police Federation of England and Wales
www.polfed.org
See source document

The Winsor Review - The effect on pay and conditions - 21 March 2011


To see source file on http://www.polfed.org/ click here

Dear Colleagues

On Friday 18th March 2011, we became aware of the circulation of an e-mail communication from Tom Winsor to Chief Constables requesting their urgent assistance and co-operation in ensuring that their police officers and staff are properly informed about the likely effects of the implementation of his review of pay and conditions. He asked them to circulate a letter and a ready reckoner that is also available on his review website, which he states officers and staff can use to dispel misleading information about the effects that his proposals will have on police pay.

This resulted in my communication above, from which it is clearly evident that Tom Winsor is being selective as to the information he wants officers to focus on and is a blatant attempt to generate support for his proposals by creating uncertainty and division between officers. This is particularly disappointing considering that the Home Secretary has yet to inform the Police Negotiating Board as to which of his proposals she considers should be the subject of negotiation. The adoption of this strategy by Tom Winsor clearly shows that his review, which proposes to remove almost £500M from police pay, can now be seen for exactly what it is, a cynical attack to reduce police pay and conditions.

It is important that you are aware of the full facts and not fooled by this misleading information provided by Winsor. I have therefore asked your local Federation to bring this information to the attention of your Chief Constable, requesting that they give my communication equal prominence with that of the Winsor Pay Calculator in any of their communications, including the force website. I would hope that as good employers and leaders of the service, Chief Constables would want to ensure that their officers are aware of the full facts. I await confirmation of their support and will keep you informed of their co-operation, however it would be inappropriate not to congratulate Simon Ash, the Chief Constable of Suffolk, who I understand is the first to refuse. We can only hope that this is not an indication of his support for the Winsor proposals, particularly as he represents ACPO on the Official Side of PNB, although one would hope that he would represent the views all the Chief Constables not just his own.

To ensure that you are fully informed, I also include my earlier communication of 11th March that includes previously circulated information identifying the detrimental impact the Winsor proposals will have on officers’ pay and conditions.

We are grateful for your continued support during this difficult time for policing.
Regards

Ian Rennie

General Secretary
Police Federation of E&W
Federation House
Highbury Drive
Leatherhead
Surrey KT22 7UY

We would urge all Federated ranks to read Ian Rennie's detailed comments about the review.

To read or download them now click here.

To see Paul McKeever's latest address to the membership click below.

POLICE MAGAZINE FEATURES THE THIN BLUE LINE

Following our recent articles summarising the responses from the police pay and conditions review, we were delighted to be asked to contribute to the November issue of the Police Federation magazine "Police".

The independent review of pay and conditions of service for police officers and staff began on 1 October 2010 with the opportunity for officers and staff to voice their views and concerns up until 29th October 2010. The deadline has now passed and we have collected all the comments which will be available on these pages shortly. A massive 7,102 comments were received in response to the seven questions asked on the Home Office site http://review.police.uk/index.php

To read our article in the Police magazine click here.

"CHRISTMAS FOR CRIMINALS" - AN IMPASSIONED PLEA FOR THE FUTURE OF POLICING BY PAUL MCKEEVER - CHAIRMAN OF THE POLICE FEDERATION OF ENGLAND & WALES

Paul McKeever - Chairman Police Federation

of England & Wales

As supporters of the front line police officers in the UK, we are in total support of the efforts of Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation of England & Wales. Paul is not afraid to put his head above the parapet and stand up for the rank and file officers when it is clear that their position is being unfairly compromised or threatened.

Paul and support team, together with Federation representatives from forces all around the country were aghast recently, when the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), in a digraceful act of betrayal to their junior colleagues, compiled and forwarded a secret document to the Home Office, making 49 recommendations that included drastic slashing cuts to the pay and conditions of federated ranks. In a totally self serving and deceitful act, the Police chiefs submitted the secret document to the Home Office ahead of severe public spending cuts, suggesting that hundreds of millions of pounds could be saved. No recommendation was made by ACPO to accept any reductions to THEIR numbers or conditions.

ACPO have courted contraversy all too often in recent years, with many examples of profligate spending and nefarious activities with a shameful disregard for the rank and file officers who actually police our streets and keep us safe.

We are pleased to reprint here, an informed and impassioned plea from Paul McKeever, regarding the proposed budgetary cauts to UK policing, asking why other areas of the public sector are ring fenced, yet policing, which affects the quality of all of our lives, every day, looks set to face fiscal cuts that will impact on us all. To download the full transcript click here. Alternatively, click on the images below to enlarge.

Over to you Paul ....

SHOULD THE FEDERATION HAVE PARITY WITH ACPO ON POLICE REFORMS?

WE MAKE NO APOLOGY FOR THE LENGTH OF THIS ARTICLE.

ITS CONTENT IS IMPORTANT TO EVERY RANK AND FILE POLICE OFFICER.

We have all witnessed the ACPO leaking of the "Secret Document" to the Home Secretary suggesting, among forty-nine recommendations, that the pay and conditions of the federated ranks be dramatically slashed. Police chiefs submitted the secret document to the Home Office without reference to the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) and without reference to the Federation and oblivious to the rights of rank and file officers.

We wrote about it first on Thin Blue Line and then in our article "The case against ACPO"

Readers may recall it was ACPO that conveniently didn’t tell the Police Federation that they had done it. It was ACPO that met with the Police Federation and the Superintendents’ Association, pleading for unity to resist the Government’s plans for elected commissioners to replace police authorities – after they had submitted their plans.

In response to hearing of the leaked document, Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: "We are extremely disappointed that such an important paper has been leaked into the public domain, causing much anger and distress amongst police officers throughout England and Wales."

It is time that the rank and file officer was given a voice and the recognition the role and the experience deserves. In any future reforms, the Federation should take its place alongside ACPO in any negotiations and consultations with the Government and elected officials over police reform. The front line should not be placed lower down the priority list, it should be up there, with equal ranking to ACPO with an equal voice, presented in unison, as one body. The current state of affairs, where ACPO have all the power, authority and political interference cannot be satisfactory.

Senior Officers and the rank and file must be reconciled as one service. It cannot not be acceptable that the Federation hear about important decisions from leaked documents or other sources. They must be a visible part of the process, not merely an afterthought This will take a monumental shift of culture from the Chief Officers, to accept that this is an essential element in achieving reforms that will last. If they fail to do this, this Government will spend its administration umpiring the contrary view of ACPO and the frontline.

We have posted an article to the forum pages of Police Oracle and to the Police Debate Group on Linked In.

On prior track record, at the very least ACPO have shown themselves to be self serving, manipulative, deceitful and disloyal to the rank and file whose trust they should be looking to rebuild. If the federation were granted parity with ACPO in any future negotiations, there might be a chance of some fair play being dished out when the reform proposals are presented.

As a result of our article on the Oracle Forum there are some serious irregularities that raise considerable cause for concern about the structure and membership of the PNB.

The Police Negotiating Board

According to the PNB website "The Police Negotiating Board (PNB) was established by Act of Parliament in 1980 to negotiate the hours of duty; leave; pay and allowances; the issue, use and return of police clothing, personal equipment and accoutrements; and pensions of United Kingdom police officers, and to make recommendations on these matters to the Home Secretary, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers. It is governed by a Constitution ".

Section 61 of the Police Act 1996 states:

The Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom

(1) There shall continue to be a Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom for the consideration by persons representing the interests of—
(a) the authorities who between them maintain the police forces in Great Britain and the Royal Ulster Constabulary,
(b) the persons who are members of those police forces or of that Constabulary or are police cadets,
(c) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and
(d) the Secretary of State,

of questions relating to hours of duty, leave, pay and allowances, pensions or the issue, use and return of police clothing, personal equipment and accoutrements.


The latest constituents of the PNB are:

Official side (Full PNB): 

Secretaries of State (Home Secretary, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Scottish Ministers)
The Association of Police Authorities of England and Wales (including one member representing the Metropolitan Police Authority)
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
The Northern Ireland Policing Board
Association of Chief Police Officers (to include the Metropolitan Police Commissioner) -ACPO
Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland - ACPOS


Staff Side (Full PNB)


Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (England and Wales) - CPOSA
Scottish Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association - SCPOSA
Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales
Association of Scottish Police Superintendents
Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland
Police Federation of England and Wales
Scottish Police Federation
Police Federation for Northern Ireland

Now, according to the The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) own website,

"ACPO is not a staff association (the separately constituted Chief Police Officers' Association fulfils that function). ACPO's work is on behalf of the Service, rather than its own members. The Association has the status of a private company limited by guarantee. As such, it conforms to the requirements of company law and its affairs are governed by a Board of Directors."

The 'separately constituted Chief Police Officers' Association', however does not appear to have its own website and we can find very little information about them.

Similarly ACPOS state on their website "We are an independent organisation registered in Scotland with Companies House (company number SC310956) as a company limited by guarantee. We are also a charity registered in Scotland (no. SC039323)."

Again the SCPOSA does not have its own website and we can find very little information about them.

Section 64 of the Police Act 1996 states

Membership of trade unions :

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a member of a police force shall not be a member of any trade union, or of any association having for its objects, or one of its objects, to control or influence the pay, pensions or conditions of service of any police force.

(3) If any question arises whether any body is a trade union or an association to which this section applies, the question shall be determined by the chief registrar of friendly societies.

(5) Nothing in this section applies to membership of the Police Federations, or of any body recognised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section as representing members of police forces who are not members of those Federations.

ACPO’s objectives are stated on their website:

"ACPO's objectives do not include “to control or influence the pay, pensions or conditions of service of any police force.”

All of this raised some questions:

(1) If ACPO's objectives are not "to control or influence the pay, pensions or conditions of service of any police force.” then what purpose, role or use do they have in sitting on the Official Side of the PNB? As far as I can see they cannot make any contribution to negotiations without their members being guilty of contravening Section 61(1) of the Police Act 1996.

It seems abundantly clear that by virtue of these submissions, ACPO are proposing to control and influence the pay pensions and (in other sections) the conditions of service of police forces. Albeit that they may say that these were submissions to the Home Office only, by failing to include the other members of the PNB they have acted in isolation which suggests they are more concerned with satisfying political masters than abiding by police protocols. Without scanning the full constitution of the Police Act, (which I will leave to the federation) I could not confirm that a prima facie contravention has occurred. On the face of it though, it appears most likely.

(2) In any case how can Chief Officers sit on both the Official Side (as ACPO) and the Staff Side (as CPOSA). Is there not a conflict of interest there? Which is the subgroup of the other? Is ACPO a subgroup of CPOSA or is it the other way round? Who controls who? Either way there must be partiality involved. Why for instance can't a subgroup of Superintedents, or a subgroup of the Federated Ranks, also sit on the Official Side?

We have not been able to locate any official trace of the constititional format of CPOSA. Companies House searches, Trade Association directory searches have proved fruitless. We find references to Senior Officers being the regional respresentative for CPOSA but to date we've been unable to get any further. Again, this is a question we will put to the federation. They must have some constitutional information so we can check if there is a conflict issue, which it would seem there is. It seems rather pointless having a staff side and an official side if both sides can have representatives and if it is correct that federated ranks can only sit on one side yet Senior Officers can sit on both reveals yet another anomoly.

(3) If a group of Chief Officers have decided to form a private company, why is that company allowed to take part in any negotiations involving the terms and conditions of police officers who are public servants?

The decision to form a private company would have had a degree of appeal only if the intentions were to disguise or conceal some of its activities as far as we can see. This is clearly the allegation that is facing ACPO and there may well be substance to the allegations. The evidence revealed in the media and as per our reports certainly seems to support this suspicion. (The uncontrolled and unaccountable spending is just one example). The present format of the PNB seems to allow for ACPO to be represented. but their status does present a serious cause for concern and potential embarrassment for them.

(4) Which Home Secretary actually authorised the membership of ACPO on the Official Side in the first place?

The first annual report of the PNB covers the period 11 February 2000 to 4 April 2001. The Home Secretary from 2 May 1997 to 8 June 2001 was Jack Straw under Tony Blairs Labour administration.

(5) If Chief Officers sit on both the Staff Side as CPOSA and the Official Side as ACPO, how can any discussions between the Staff Side members, ie the Federation, the Superintendents and Chief Officers be conducted in confidence? !!!!

In our view, they can't.

No doubt the abuse of these principle are what Paul McKeever is most aggrieved with.

THE SECRET ACPO DOCUMENT
A major cause for concern we would say is Recommendation 26:

"There are real concerns that the antiquated manner of operating that exists within PNB at the current time will not be capable of delivering at speed and thus will inhibit the ability of the Service and government to rectify existing issues and ensure the necessary flexibility that will be required to manage the workforce through this difficult and challenging period of critical workforce reform".

Recommendation 26 : ACPO accordingly urges the replacement of PNB with a pay review body.


Our fear for the rank and file here, is that the PNB may indeed be antiquated, but specifically, why would it not be capable of delivering at speed etc etc? This whole section stinks to high heaven of a "rush through" job to show the Government how powerfully and effectively ACPO can effect required cuts. However, this is at the expense of the federated ranks and the non federated ACPO ranks remain unaffected and ring fenced. Rushing through a replacement review body suggests the PNB doesn't permit the flexibility that ACPO would want with engineering cuts to federated pay, and by replacing it with a pay review body where they would wish to exercise tighter controls.

One industrious and keen officer over on the Oracle forum has dug his heels in ans contacted the PNB for clarification of some of these issues. Here is an extract:

THE POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD (PNB)

From: XXXX
Sent: 26 August 2010 12:19
To: Blase Bill (OME)

Subject: Enquiry re constitution of PNB

Dear Sir,

I am interested in the history and constitution of the Police Negotiating Board and have downloaded your first Annual Report 2001 which includes Appendix E Short History of the Police Negotiating Board and also PNB Circular 01/19 which provides the revised Constitution published in August 2001. I was hoping you could clarify a couple of points:

I have noted that in the revised Constitution, the list of members of the Official Side (Full PNB) includes the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (incl the Met Pol Com) and Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS).

I have also noted that the list of members of the Staff Side (full PNB) includes the Chief Police Officers Staff Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.

According to the The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) own website,

"ACPO is not a staff association (the separately constituted Chief Police Officers' Association fulfils that function). ACPO's work is on behalf of the Service, rather than its own members. The Association has the status of a private company limited by guarantee. As such, it conforms to the requirements of company law and its affairs are governed by a Board of Directors."

The 'separately constituted Chief Police Officers' Association', however does not appear to have its own website and I can find very little information about them.

ACPOS similarly state on their website "We are an independent organisation registered in Scotland with Companies House (company number SC310956) as a company limited by guarantee. We are also a charity registered in Scotland (no. SC039323)." There does not appear to be a separate 'Chief Police Officers' Association in Scotland'.

Can you clarify why ACPOS in particular (because their specific name appears) can sit on both the Official Side and the Staff Side of the PNB ? Is there not a conflict of interest there? Also if a group of Chief Officers have decided to form a private company, why is that company allowed to take part in negotiations involving the terms and conditions of police officers who are public servants?

Can you also clarify whether the Chief Police Officer's Association and the Chief Police Officers' Staff Association are one and the same or different entities ? I can understand the presence of this body on the Staff Side but can't understand why a subgroup, or perhaps all of them, would want to form a private company called ACPO or ACPOS, and be given the right to sit on the Official Side also.

I hope you can throw some light on this area for me.
Thank you

And this is the reply that was received:

Dear Mr X

The Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA) is constituted separately from ACPO. The Chairman of CPOSA is Paul West (Chief Constable of West Mercia Police), and any enquiries about the association should be directed to him.

Concerning ACPOS, to the extent that there is any potential for a conflict of interest, it is for the Independent Chair of the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) to manage this in a way which upholds the public interest.

Any representative body needs to have legal personality to operate effectively. The structure of a company limited by guarantee is used by many charitable and other organisations for this purpose.

Yours sincerely

Bill Blase
PNB Independent Secretariat

First impression? What a fudge of an answer. Did you think the same?

Until they show that CPOSA is a formally structured entity, to outward appearances it just seems like a bunch of Chiefs who have gathered together in an unofficial club with an official sounding name. Who could blame anyone for supposing this, when there is no website, no trace of them on companies house and no open declaration of their status.

This raises the question.... If they have no legal status what the heck are they doing on the PNB staff side? Indeed, what is the justification for their presence on either side of the PNB as a persona non grata group? Call me a suspicious cynic (wouldn't be the first time) but it looks like a surreptitious ploy to place a set of spying representative eyes within the camp of the staff side.

Interesting that he should direct the writer to Paul West, a Chief Constable for clarification. Perhaps it is hoped that this will discourage the majority from asking the awkward questions that need to be asked.

John Randall is the Independent Chair of the PNB. The Chairman is appointed by the Prime Minister. The role of the Chair is to to "supply a neutral, independent voice in the negotiations and to assist in bringing the parties to agreement, through support, informal mediation and conciliation". As best as we can make out from the site, he has been Chair for 6 years (2004). He is a member of the Labour party. Our guess is that he might obfuscate when confronted with the conflict of interest question.

We hope we're wrong, but let's think this one through. He was appointed by Tony Blair whilst labour were in power. Randall is a member (not merely a voter) of the labour party. This is the labour party who are under such attack for the manner in which they have let policing deteriorate and elitism (ACPO) proliferate. We would be surprised if he could ever be classed as politically independent and would expect him to be defensive about having allowed CPOSA to remain on the PNB under his watch. Perhaps the question we should be asking is how a paid up political member can ever be viewed as independent? We know that ACPO and their ilke have been party politically biased toward Labour (I have written about their allegiances previously) mainly because their self serving interests were best served under Labour, whereas they were treated with an indifferent political attitude by prior administrations.

An independent status that is suspect is hardly in the public interest as Blases' second paragraph suggests.

Yes "Any representative body needs to have legal personality to operate effectively. The structure of a company limited by guarantee is used by many charitable and other organisations for this purpose".

Quite right. So shouldn't CPOSA have a visible legal personality to back this up? Otherwise, we must question their integrity and motives for having a presence on the PNB. With regard to the reference to a company being limited by guarantee (ACPO), this is nothing more than a smokescreen to disguise activities. Otherwise, they would be open to freedom of information requests, which up until recently, they have resisted. Indeed, Heather Brooke, the journalist who broke the MP scandal and Sean O'Neill (Times Crime Editor) had their FOI requests about Chief Officer bonuses blocked by ACPO. My guess is that they felt the hieracrch of the police was too powerful an animal to take on. However, the Telegraph were more successful, but only when it became clear that labour were on their way out. Again, we have written about this on this site and in our reports.

All in all, this is a very sordid and clandestine arrangement.

A few final summary points to consider:-

1. It is time that the Police Federation were granted full parity with ACPO on matters as sensitive as Police Reform, pay and pensions
2. ACPO should not be permitted to submit proposals to the Home Secretary on matters relating police pay, pensions and even reforms, without the prior input of the federated rank and file representation.
3. The status of ACPO as a company limited by guarantee MUST be questioned and sorted
4. The constitutional and legal status of CPOSA must be confirmed, transparent and legal
5. The PNB should not be chaired by an individual who is a paid up member of any political party. The chairman must be totally INDEPENDENT.
6. There should be distinctly separate sides on any board that negotiates pay. There should be a "Staff" side and and "Official" side, whose members are truly representative of the bodies they are accountable to.
7. It cannot be right that CPOSA (representing Chief Police Officers) have a presence on the staff side of the PNB.
8. Private companies and groups of individuals without a visible legal entity or formal constitution have no proper place in these discussions.

Until these fundamental principles are corrected, the interests of rank and file officers will be compromised.

We will be asking the Police Federation to contribute their views on the matters contained within this article and to the Police Reform Debate.

In the meantime, what are your views? For matters that affect the rank and file officer, isn't it time the Police Federation were given equal parity to ACPO so that a balanced and collective police voice is presented?

POLICE FEDERATION DECLARES PCSO's ARE A "CON"

Article reprinted from http://www.esnews.co.uk/ Emergency Services News, a great site that delivers what it says. A link to the regular news articles from E S News now appears in the side bar on this site.

The public are being conned through the use of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) in a failed government ‘experiment’, according to the Police Federation.

Paul McKeever, chairman of the federation, said: “They were brought in for best of reasons…but I think it was a deeply flawed experiment.”

He also said that the hundreds of millions spent on the scheme could have paid for 12,000 extra police officers.

“If you are, in effect, conning the public by putting people in uniform who the public believe have powers they don’t possess, why are we employing them?”

McKeever made the comments during in interview with Channel Four’s ‘Dispatches’ programme, due to air tonight at 8pm.

Crime Analyst Team
Nice 1 Limited

POLICE FEDERATION BLAST LIBYA POLICE TRAINING AS NAIVE

The decision to send UK police officers to train their counterparts in Libya was "naive and insensitive", the chairman of the Police Federation said.

Paul McKeever said the scheme would spark anger over the killing of Pc Yvonne Fletcher.

She was shot 25 years ago outside the Libyan embassy but the Government has allegedly agreed her killer would not be tried in Britain.

He said: "Whilst it may be customary for countries to look to the UK police to provide expertise and training I find it incredible that the Foreign Office has been so naive and insensitive imposing this particular request on the National Policing Improvement Agency.

To read the full press association article click here.

Crime Analyst Team
Nice 1 Limited