Federation Open Meeting 22nd November 2011 Chairmans Speech Chief Constable, guests, ladies and gentlemen welcome to Kent Police Federation's Open Meeting at the Mercure Hotel...formerly... Let me begin by introducing the platform to you. Since we met last year we have tragically lost 3 serving officers, Terry Easterby, Jill Bateman and Linda Gillette. I ask that we stand for a few moments of silent remembrance and reflection. Mr Learmonth, I thank you for attending your 2nd open meeting. Last year you were fairly new to the job and were starting to make your mark. Now you have made that mark. In the nicest possible way……you have put yourself about. In a break with tradition, I will deal with one or two local issues before I turn my attention to national matters; I'm sure that Paul may wish to touch on these too, and Ian, who has come hot foot from the Police Arbitration Tribunal, is like a coiled spring waiting to answer any questions you may have. Sir, when you joined us you identified the need for a change to our style of policing. This change was not just about budget cuts but also a desire to extend neighbourhood policing and end the silo culture that had grown out of the Kent Policing Model, later to be adopted as the NIM. So we now have the new KPM, in fact the exceedingly new KPM as it is not quite a week old. The change has involved a huge effort from everyone within Kent Police; that effort should be recognised. It would be remiss of me not to mention some of your interventions, most notably around shifts. When the "theorists" planned a pattern solely around demand you listened to us & C/Insp Dave Pascoe. You took a hit on cover to reach a compromise on the work/life balance for officers. It is perhaps a shame that some other notable chief constables do not seem to understand the need to balance those issues and instead crave the ability to impose what they want. Whilst we have broadly welcomed the new model and the principles that underpin it, it would be remiss of me not to mention some risks and potential pitfalls. It is equally important we understand the context. This model is not about extra resources; it is not about protecting the frontline. It is about a re-positioning of resources; it is about moving officers from other frontline units into neighbourhood; it is about a world of 500 fewer police officers and 1000 fewer police staff. This style of neighbourhood policing is very different from the previous one. The new "cradle to grave" approach to dealing with crime is a complete departure from working practices that have evolved over the last 18 or so years. We need to ensure that officers have the skills and abilities to deal with prisoners & case files in addition to all the other demands on their time. The new model may have gone live on 16th November, but skills and abilities have to be learnt; they take time to develop. Mistakes will be made; they must be treated as learning opportunities and not misconduct. There is a real risk that crime performance may suffer. If your model is to survive and flourish then you, and your ACPO colleagues, will need to hold your nerve. Do not be panicked into any quick fixes & do not allow your area commanders to be panicked either. If you give them a hard time they will be quick to re-invent a team; volume crime teams will be resurrected as neighbourhood crime teams - well at least it will have neighbourhood in the title!! To the Police Authority I say this; you too must play a part in holding the line; in supporting the Chief Constable. I know you will be undertaking reviews of the new model and these are welcomed. These reviews must focus on the distribution of work for we have always feared neighbourhood may be overloaded; we need to ensure they have the time to do the neighbourhood part of neighbourhood policing. Yes I have seen the graphs and charts that show neighbourhood won't be overworked, but I am always suspicious of such academic theories. Call it a gut instinct……..and yes I know that is a sizeable instinct. I appreciate we are less than a week into the new model but early feedback from neighbourhood officers isn't positive. They say they are bogged down with everything apart from the neighbourhood part of the role. We would of course welcome the opportunity to be part of a review; a review that must happen sooner rather than later; a review that must involve practitioners - as you are fond of saying - those who have pulled on a pair of boots; and not just academics. As the Force continues along the path of reducing the headcount for officers and staff, we are becoming increasingly concerned about the use of police officers to back-fill police staff posts - case review, investigation management and now detention officers. Whoever thought we'd see police officers as jailers again? No matter how transient, police officers are moving from the frontline into the back office at a time when we have already lost nearly 200 police officers. This needs to be closely monitored. This needs to be reversed as quickly as possible. For more years than I care to remember we have made the observation that the silo mentality of the "old KPM" has led to what our chief officer colleagues came to euphemistically call "unintended consequences". A truly positive aspect of the new model is the golden opportunity to finally end pointless, tickbox performance management and restore the freedom for officers to exercise their judgement and do their job. It is a golden opportunity to replace quantity with quality. We welcome the "do it once do it right" message but we must ensure that officers are given the time, skills and overall resources to do just that. We must not allow ourselves to slip back into a culture of micro managing and bean counting that is nothing more than a poor substitute for proper supervision and leadership. Chief Constable, be warned though there are those who still cling to the old religion of counting. You can rest assured that we will be watching developments with great interest. The new response teams are responsible for high and immediate calls. This will obviously involve officers attending serious incidents. It will mean officers engaging in urgent duty driving. Officers need to be sure the Force will support them, particularly when they activate a speed camera. That support has been sadly lacking in a recent case. The Force needs to make clear its expectations around urgent duty driving; when it does apply and more importantly when it doesn't. It cannot be right that a driver who activates a speed camera in the middle of the night is then suspended from urgent duty driving for months; in reality for far longer than a firearms officer involved in a fatal shooting. Let me be absolutely clear. We are not asking that officers are somehow above the law. Clearly officers are accountable for their actions. But when officers have a proper exemption under the law we should not set about undermining that position. In a world of shrinking resources what is the point of engaging in a bureaucratic investigation, the outcome of which we all know before it starts. Think of the unnecessary pressure on the officer and wasted resource as he or she is suspended from using their driving skills. That cannot be right. We understand that people are going to review the existing policy regarding UDD. I make a simple plea. I am sure we will have some observations to make regarding this issue. In addition, this review needs to take account of the views of operational drivers, real practitioners and not just the theorists or those driven by impractical ideology, or those who are simply responsible for driving a high speed desk! On matters of speed or rather the lack of it, I will make a couple of observations on Christmas duties. We know when Christmas is! We know when New Year is! They never change, though at times it seems as if they change on a weekly basis!! This year the Force has been unacceptably slow in the publication of those duties. I understand we have changed our policing model, but that too has been planned. In publishing the Christmas duties let's adopt the mantra of the new policing model - "do it once, do it right." AND NOW TO NATIONAL ISSUES: Apparently we need to be reformed! If the Home Secretary keeps saying so then it must be true. According to her and others we are crime fighters; we are not social workers. Too many officers are in the station filling in forms not visible, out on the streets catching criminals. The frontline of policing is all about uniformed visible patrols. Well I have some observations for those who clearly do not understand policing. Yes, the uniformed presence is important…….BUT Who investigates internet crime - not the officer walking the streets of Maidstone! Who deals with the aftermath of serious domestic violence? Not the officer driving the traffic car on the M20. Who investigates the murder case - not the neighbourhood officer! Who carries out covert surveillance on serious criminals - well you have guessed it - not the officer driving a response car to an emergency call. Who dealt with the prisoners following the summer riots? Who put the case papers together for the court cases - detectives in the too oft derided back office, that's who. This govt's blueprint for policing seems to be based on Dixon of Dock Green. Well Home Secretary, the world and policing have moved on since the 1970s. When Dixon of Dock Green was taken off air in 1976, when Sgt George Dixon eventually retired, the actor (& yes Home Secretary he was an actor) who played him was 81years old. Perhaps Dixon of Dock Green is their blueprint for police pensions too. Last year I spoke of the impending changes to our terms & conditions. I spoke of the "independent" review by Tom Winsor, a review that he consistently told us would be based on evidence. Well we have seen the results of that review. He held focus groups and sought on- line responses to some fairly predictable questions. He claims to have spoken to 100s of police officers and staff. He claims that a great number of officers want changes to their terms and conditions. His 1st report produces 4 case studies showing the officers to better off. Let me be absolutely clear - we've checked, double checked and treble checked his figures. They don't add up! Nobody is better off. In his report Winsor names 6 Kent officers and quotes them. Now, purely to ensure these officers hadn't been misquoted (heaven forfend that would ever happen) we checked with them. Guess what - 2 of them don't even exist, another was on leave and never met Winsor & the rest were……….misquoted! Yes 50% of the Kent names in Winsor's report are false! What a great independent, well evidenced report! Chief Constable, as you reduce the headcount, perhaps Tom Winsor could suggest the names - you won't even notice they've gone! So, what lies behind all this? What is the motivation? Let's be clear, it is nothing to do with the deficit. As part of the negotiations within the Police Negotiating Board, the Staff Side (us) offered up savings that were equivalent to or more than those in Winsor. These proposals were rejected out of hand. If this was about deficit reduction, the government could have been saving money since 1st September. No, it's all about payback - for whatever reason this government feels it has a grudge to settle with the police. Peter and I met with a number of MPs in July. We spoke with Michael Fallon MP, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party - clearly a man of influence; a man "in the know". We laid out our concerns about Winsor and Hutton. His response (paraphrasing) - "You're getting it all at once because you got away with Sheehy." What an insult to every police officer in the UK. Who do you think was a special advisor to the then Home Secretary at the time of the Sheehy Report in 1993? One David Cameron! Is the picture becoming clearer? It's payback time, payback thinly disguised by that much used word - reform. It is reform by stealth; reform for the wrong reasons. Reform not rooted in reality. Home Secretary, reform is supposed to make things better. These alleged reforms will leave police officers & their families significantly worse off. As you preside over the decimation of officers' pay & pensions, and slash police officer numbers by 16,200 (& police staff by 18,000) let me remind everyone of YOUR words to police officers at the Police Federation Conference in May 2010: "I will always back you, I will always support you, I will always fight for you." Home Secretary, we know that protestors at Dale Farm threw urine at police officers, but with these hollow words you are surely taking it out of them!! We may have scoffed at the phrase, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", but Home Secretary, you are "soft on crime, tough on the fighters of crime" and that's self-evidently the wrong way round. Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe". I will leave you to draw your own conclusions! Chief Constable, you have been silent on Winsor. Last year you told officers that whilst Police Regulations weren't perfect, they did at least provide them with protection. Chief Constable, I was grateful for sight of your ACPO team's response to Winsor's consultation for his second report. Alas I was shocked upon reading it. I was shocked to learn that you & your ACPO colleagues believe that constables & sergeants are paid too much whilst you & your deputy are paid too little; and that you appear to be supportive of 3 & 5 year commissions on completion of the constable probationary period to "aid performance and incentivise discretionary effort". Having just recognised the huge effort made by everyone in moving to the new policing model, such comments are a real slap in the face to officers. If I am mistaken then I invite you to correct me. Sir, I also ask you to make clear your position on proposals for officers' terms and conditions. Chief Constable, do you support role related pay? Does it promote team working? Do you agree with the abolition of the CRTP with its impact on officers' pensions? What about the freezing of incremental pay scales on top of the annual pay rise freeze? Do you support the proposed shift allowance? How much will it cost to administer? How will it impact on flexibility? Will any changes to rewarding officers for mutual aid duties adversely impact on your ability to attract volunteers for this additionally duty? When it comes to police pay, what do you think the x-factor is? Sir, your officers want to know what their leader thinks. Let me remind you of a quote from my speech last year: "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." Sir, where do you stand as we fight to protect our pay and pensions? I am often asked the question - what's the Federation doing about our pay & pensions? Both locally and nationally we are doing all that is humanly possible - from Ian Rennie and his team at the Police Arbitration Tribunal, to Paul McKeever and his team maintaining the pressure in the press and on MPs. At a local level we have run a series of adverts, met with MPs, even the Police Minister. At every opportunity I am in the media talking about police cuts. I continue the fight via social media on Twitter and Facebook. However, this is not a fight the Police Federation can win alone. We need you; need you to write to your MPs, more importantly to visit your MPs, & to come to events like this. This fight is not a spectator sport, you have to be involved. This fight is not over by a long chalk. Winsor 1 is with the PAT, but Winsor 2 is on its way. Will the Home Secretary honour the PAT's findings? Remind your MPs of what they said in opposition - they would only overturn arbitration with a full vote in the House of Commons; hold them to this commitment. This is the most important officer requires assistance call you will ever respond to. Don't look back and regret that you didn't do more. So join with us, join the fight against a government intent on destroying our standard of living, our pensions; a fight to defend the very best traditions of British policing envied and copied the world over. Together we can make a difference; together we must make a difference.