Consultations

Metropolitan Police Federation response to Government draft legislative programme July 2009– Policing, Crime and Private Security Bill

Any move to reduce bureaucracy to strictly necessary levels is to be welcomed. However, the Police, Crime and Private Security Bill, as outlined in the Government document 'Building Britain's Future', would appear to negate the advantages that any such reduction would bestow, at least as far as Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) are concerned.

The Document states (section 5, para 13) that the public has "a right to police on the beat – with neighbourhood teams spending over 80 per cent of their time on the beat".

This goal, while laudable, is difficult to reconcile with the new duties which the proposed legislation would impose on the teams.

For example, the document envisages the teams liaising with schools, youth workers and justice agencies over issues around crime and anti-social behaviour.

There would be (para 18) more intelligence sharing with the Probation Service and other, unspecified, local agencies.

The proposed new burglary prevention initiative (para 18) would involve neighbourhood police teams working closely with the insurance industry and DIY retailers to provide advice packs and support.

In addition, they would (para 16) be encouraged to generate additional initiatives – the document gives, as possible examples, the project-management of public e-mail groups, the operation and staffing of premises where the public "can drop in and talk to the police and get crime prevention advice" and the provision of protective escort services for nervous travellers.

The document suggests that police should be held to account by the public at monthly beat meetings (we have further comments below on this topic), for which SNT officers will presumably have to gather facts and figures and prepare presentations.

We would remind the authors of the proposed legislation that in London (we obviously cannot speak for elsewhere in the country) a typical SNT comprises just one sergeant, two constables and three civilian support officers (CSOs) who work 40 hours a week. Their capacity to handle all the proposed duties above is handicapped both by their level of training and the duty time available to them.

Police are already held to account at local level by Police Community Consultative Groups (PCCGs). The proposed 'beat meetings' would therefore seem to be superfluous unless, of course, it is proposed to axe the PCCGs.

The experience of many PCCGs is that, on the public side, the proceedings are dominated by a handful of individuals, often with personal agendas. There is no reason to suppose that 'beat meetings' would be much different.

The document advocates (para 9) giving residents the facility to express their views on prosecuting and sentencing cases. The power to charge was taken away from the police and given to the Crown Prosecution Service. It is hard to believe that the public has greater competency in this area than the police.

The process of liaison between police officers and CPS lawyers when a case is being considered for prosecution is probably most kindly described as "exacting". How the CPS will manage the additional burden of dealing with suggestions from an untrained public frankly stretches the imagination.

If the public make suggestions, they will need feedback on what happened to those suggestions and why. Who will deal with this? Are the police to be the link between the two? If so, a new bureaucratic function will have been introduced.
The document promises (para 15) that the White Paper "will respond to concerns over the policing of protests, emphasising the need for transparency and accountability in cases of alleged misconduct…".

The Independent Police Complaints Commission will doubtless be intrigued by the implication that it is failing to ensure accountability. The same paragraph talks of the need to for "a clear commitment to proportionate public order policing". If this is what the ensuing legislation demands, then the legislators must define without ambiguity exactly how the police should deal with public disorder of every different type and scale. We await their wisdom and guidance with interest.

In the light of the document's reference to early warning signs of criminal behaviour, we are surprised it does not address the recommendations of the Bradley Report on people with mental health problems or learning disabilities in the criminal justice system. Perhaps Lord Bradley is not seen as suitably 'tough'.

As we hinted at above, a public which is going to become an active player in the pursuit and administration of criminal justice must, of necessity, be better educated about the CJS. We wonder how this might best be achieved. The time available to compose this response necessarily limits the amount of comment we are able to make and should not be taken as the totality of our views on the proposed legislation.

We would like to conclude by observing that the past decade has produced a torrent of police 'reform' and 'modernisation', each piece of which merely begets the next one and uses up valuable resources in its implementation. There is, so far as we can see, no empirical demonstration of its value to the public.The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee published, in January 2008, a report entitled 'Policing in the 21st Century' which examined the wholesale reform which stemmed from the Government's 2001 White Paper 'Policing a New Century'.

The committee concluded that "these measures have not addressed the concerns of the public or police forces themselves and many of the original questions posed in the 2001 White Paper remain unresolved." The Committee went on: "We recommend that an independent review, such as a Royal Commission, is established to review what the police do and how they are organised to do it." The Police Federation has itself long been calling for a Royal Commission. It believes that only by this means can sound decisions be reached on the shape of policing in the years to come.

Neil Cratchley
General Secretary
Metropolitan Police Federation July 2 2009