Federation Open Meeting 24th November 2009 Chairman's Speech at Federation Open Meeting Chief Constable, guests, ladies and gentlemen welcome to Kent Police Federation's Open Meeting at the Hilton Hotel. Let me begin by introducing the platform to you. Since we met last year a number of police officers throughout the United Kingdom have lost their lives. Whilst we rightly focus on the terrorist threat from Al Qaeda, we must not lose sight of the old terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. We have seen a re-emergence of that threat with the callous murder of Constable Stephen Carroll. I must also mention Constable Bill Barker from Cumbria who bravely and selflessly lost his life protecting the community he served. Closer to home we have suffered losses too - Constable Jan Pattenden lost her brave battle against cancer and Constable Phil Pratt was tragically taken from us whilst doing his duty trying to protect others at the scene of a road traffic collision. Phil and Jan were both much loved and respected - they are sadly missed by all. I would ask you to stand for a few moments in silent remembrance. Let me begin by welcoming our 3 new ACCs to our open meeting - Mr Beautridge (home grown), Mr Adams (from Essex or North Kent as we prefer to call it) and Mr Pughsley (from the Metropolitan). Sir, was it buy two get one free? Any more chief officers on that top corridor and it will start to resemble an episode of the Waltons! Each year I endeavour to give my speech a theme and this year is no exception - valuing consultation. Sir, consultation and negotiation has become something of a problem - but not with everything; the suspended review of shift systems was an example of good engagement with us - the sceptics might put that down to a requirement to have our agreement for a new shift pattern; some might say that but I couldn't possible comment. Other matters have attracted no consultation whatsoever - Taser for example. Decisions are made and these decisions have consequences. Engagement and listening go hand in hand. I was once asked to sum up the role of the Federation - I said we are the Force's conscience. That conscience however is most effective if it is listened to BEFORE the decision is made. Let's examine some real and fine examples where frankly there has been a lack of or belated consultation. Last year, and the year before that and the year before that, I have talked about the need to move away from a tick box performance culture, a culture that has become all about quantity and nothing about quality; the need to allow officers to use their professional judgement and discretion when dealing with incidents; the need to move away from measuring performance in terms of the number of arrests and sanction detecteds. Sir, it was in December 2004, yes 2004 when we first highlighted what we thought were scandalous rates of refused charges. Worse still, senior officers shrugged their corporate shoulders as if nothing was wrong. They were not in the least interested. For all the so called performance figures, data, analysts and obligatory graphs, no one had the slightest idea why. Well we didn't think it was rocket science - set a target for arrests and that's what you get! Never mind the quality, just feel the collar. We have highlighted the wasted effort involved in pointless arrests. Our concerns over this wasted effort were dismissed or ignored - perhaps they were just not fashionable. Let's take a moment to recap with some quotes:- "We have an aggressive performance culture." "We make scandalous arrests that are not in the public interest." "We've got to give officers back their professional judgement. They must be empowered again." "We've been arresting far too many people resulting in massive waste." Sir, who do you think made these bold statements? Richard Littlejohn from the Daily mail? Me perhaps? No, it was one of your ACCs, Mr Beautridge (a lightening conversion to rival that of St Paul on the Road to Damascus). Our warnings and genuine concerns are now euphemistically described as unintended consequences - such an innocuous statement to describe the arrest, detention and criminalisation of people to feed a performance regime and not because they deserved to be in the criminal justice system. How many people have had their futures blighted in the so-called name of performance? The answer is too many!! How crazy is it when under-resourced uniform sections chase around making arrests for their crime group colleagues simply because they get a tick for arrests and crime group don't. How can it be right to reclassify section 5 Public Order Act offences as drunk and disorderly just to reduce violent crime figures? Or worse still reclassify them as affrays as, believe it or not, affrays are not recorded as violent crime - how lucky is that? It is still going on. How bizarre that we count the number of times an officer has been on a bus, put up a poster, produced a positive impact media release or undertaken a "Blackberry engagement" as some sort of magic mirror that will lead to increased public confidence. Having been regaled with the finer detail of what constitutes a "Blackberry engagement" with a member of the public, I just wonder what my old mum would make of the questions therein. I cringe with embarrassment at the thought of some 19 year old constable trying to explain to her what sexual orientation is all about. The officer would be more likely to get belted with her handbag than an answer to the question. Her blood pressure would go up but I doubt her confidence would. But what a difference a year (or in this case several years) can make - you and your team have at last started to listen and you are to be congratulated for that. Time for another helping of "who said what", "The public aren't interested in numbers". Again, not me but the DCC at the recent Big Conversation V. And no, I've neither hypnotised nor drugged Mr Leppard. The pilot at East Kent and the ending of TPIs and PPIs is welcome. It is long overdue. It is time we got back to policing based on professional judgement. It is time we restored discretion. It will be a huge culture change for the Force and whilst we have expressed concern over whether a 6 month pilot is long enough to turn that culture around, we understand that a balance has to be drawn. That said, the pilot must not be doomed to success it must be a true pilot carried out in a real environment. Sir, let me make this very simple plea, KPM III must bring real change and not just introduce a different list of numeric measurements to show performance. If all we do is introduce a different layer of bean counting we will surely be the force that hit the target but very much missed the point. Some six weeks ago Peter and I attended a week long "Lean" event aimed at analysing the performance culture with its PPIs and TPIs. The event attended by many including at least one area commander finished with a presentation to the DCC. He agreed that PPIs & TPIs should go. Mr Beautridge has instructed area commanders twice to stop counting arrests as a PPI. Sir it is still going on - that instruction is being routinely ignored. Only last week an email was sent to section officers on a particular area - let me give you the headline: "October was a cracking month with 113 arrests for the team, meaning we were top of the pile which is of credit to you all." This week I have seen PPI & TPI sheets from around the county (with the exception of East Kent) and arrests are still on them. Why then is there so much reluctance by some to understand and comply with what I thought was a fairly clear and simple message? I wonder if counting arrests is like a small child's comfort blanket or a favourite teddy bear - area commanders simply can't let go. Sir, I have a simple question. Given that Chief Officers openly accept the principle that we stop counting arrests as a target, when are areas going to act upon that message? When my members are asked to do something they don't want to do they are rightly reminded they work in a disciplined service. Well if that's good enough for the Federated ranks its good enough for the Superintending ranks too. Rest assured we will continue to raise this issue at all levels until some understand and act upon the message. We know there will be challenges and we know there will be difficulties but we remain optimistic that given the right motivation and the right encouragement the East Kent pilot can succeed. We very much look forward to seeing how things develop. Rest assured we will have a view. Now to something a little more electrifying (sorry) - Taser. Sir last November the then Home Secretary made an announcement on the funded extension of Taser - a good news story with the potential to show real support for the frontline. Or so you could be forgiven for thinking. So where did it all go wrong? Why was it decided to roll-out taser to units (including traffic) but not core section? Why was core section ignored? Why were decisions made without reference to us, the voice of over 3700 officers? Well, sir perhaps you knew you wouldn't like what we'd have to say. The result of this was a consultation process played out in the local media and police authority meetings. The public were regaled with tales of patrol officers routinely facing extraordinary violence at spontaneous incidents, particularly at violent domestics where knives are readily available; they were told that Kent Police was playing fast and loose with officer safety. This was not our choice to go public - we would have much preferred to have those conversations with you, but in reality we had no choice. However after considerable debate sir you did listen, you ordered a review of the proposed roll-out. You are to be congratulated for involving us in that review and subsequently changing the decision and rolling out taser to ERV crews on the 6 areas. Whilst chief officers in other forces appear to lack the appetite for such an extension you have chosen to support your frontline officers and not follow the pack. However, I would take this opportunity to remind you that rolling out taser to ERV crews was always our compromise position taking into account a number of factors - we do not see it as the end of the process. Our ultimate aim is still to see all frontline officers issued with taser enabling them to properly protect themselves and the public. Let me turn my attention to finances: Sir, we are all too aware of the financial difficulties we are facing. The country is broke and whoever wins the next election there are bound to be further cuts in public spending, cuts that will not be aimed at health or education but the police. It is only right and proper that you and your team have set in place processes and reviews to find savings - savings to protect the frontline. That said your team must learn to properly engage with the Federation - at HQ and locally. Sadly that has been missing. Let me give a couple of shining examples. The Force Travel Plan. Firstly let's not fool ourselves into thinking this all about being "green". This is an attempt to try and save money. Nothing wrong with that one might say provided we don't have "unintended consequences"; increases in overtime, people waiting around for pool cars or the job simply not getting done. Whilst I accept there is consultation now there wasn't at the start. We had heard rumours of proposed changes as long ago as April 2008. These rumours talked of massive savings to be made when we compared Kent's vehicle allowances to those paid in Essex. Over 12 months later proposals were put before chief officers that outlined over £350K worth of savings around essential user allowances - we believe blinded by those savings chief officers made decisions. The problem was we hadn't been consulted. Nobody had thought of the "unintended consequences". Without the benefit of any consultation the author of these proposals believed quite wrongly that…….once upon a time, when people couldn't afford cars allowances were introduced to help them buy one. No account had been taken of that minor inconvenience known as Police Regulations. No account had been taken of the voluntary nature of officers using their own car for police purposes; if officers didn't like the deal they couldn't be compelled to use their car. No account had been taken of the potential increase in the vehicle fleet if officers declined to use their own car. No account had been taken of the accuracy of the Essex figures and how they do things differently. Belatedly wiser counsel has prevailed and we are now being consulted; the Force is listening to its conscience. Unfortunately now that Police Regulations and our observations are being considered, those seemingly attractive headline savings are disappearing as fast as they arrived. Sir, when times get tough it is important we have a team approach, a sense that as a Force we face and resolve problems together and yes, if necessary share the pain. I was grateful to Mr Brandon for his recent suggestion to review travel costs in the round including the superintendents' and chief officers' car schemes. Such a review would reinforce that team approach and engender a feeling of solidarity in the face of adversity. I couldn't talk of financial pressures and saving money without touching on the Specialist Operations Collaboration with Essex. Whilst there has been some initial consultation, the desire for collaboration/merger has accelerated leaving consultation in its wake. We have received a number of calls from specialist operations' personnel who have the distinct impression this is a "done deal". They are fearful for the future of their role, where they'll work from and the general logistical problems that surround merged teams where the only link between the two counties is that world famous bottle-neck the Dartford Crossing. When Mr Pughsley (our lead on this) states, "There are no insurmountable barriers. All of it is achievable" I too wonder if it is all a "done deal". I fear that, as with the travel plan, decision makers are being blinded by potential savings on paper that won't be translated into reality once we have been properly consulted. This shouldn't just be about consultation with the Police Federation, it should also be about proper consultation with the staff - the practitioners who bring real and current experience to the debate, things that maybe the theorists and accountants either lack or sometimes lose sight of. When financial pressures bite and savings have to be made, those charged with wielding the axe often lose sight of the huge amount of unrewarded goodwill provided by officers; goodwill that gets the job done but doesn't appear on any balance sheet. Sir, underestimate it, ignore it, or ride rough shod over this goodwill at your peril. I have said this on many occasions. You may not like what we have to say but our contribution is, hopefully reasoned, objective and honest. We spend far too much time playing catch up, correcting and amending policies; it is wasted time and effort and this all has a cost to it. In times when we need to maximise our resources, to get the most and the best from what we have it seems sensible to engage early and to listen. An old mate of mine who works as a chippy always says look at the drawings, measure twice, cut once. Sir If the Force took a little more time considering the drawings and taking the measurements properly, then some of the cuts and some of the joins just might be in the right place. Here's a final "who said what". "We attach the greatest of importance to full and free consultation between the CC and his staff association. To ignore the views of staff associations' representatives is to close ones eyes to the realities of the modern world. The staff association representatives may have much to contribute to the discussion of particular matters of force policy…………." Consultation includes operational matters, but it will sometimes be essential for the CC to reach a quick decision without having time or the opportunity for consultation; this is inevitable bearing in mind the nature of the police service. But the wise CC will consult his staff associations' representatives whenever this is reasonably practicable. These are not my words. These are the words of the Lord Edmond Davies Committee of Inquiry on the Police 1979. Sir these were wise words then and they are wise words now. Let me leave you with this - I firmly believe the officers I have the privilege to represent want to do a great job policing this county. They want to make a real difference. Please listen to them. Please listen to us. Let's face the challenges together and get on with doing the difficult and demanding job we all joined to do.