SCOTTISH
POLICE FEDERATION
5 Woodside Place, Glasgow, G3 7QF
GENERAL POLICING ISSUES
Norrie
Flowers, Chairman address the 87th SPF Annual Conference,
Honoured
Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome you to the
87th Annual Conference of the Scottish Police Federation.
As
we all know, we are one week away from the elections to the Scottish
Parliament. This means our normal arrangements are amended somewhat,
and I am delighted to say we are joined today by four senior political
party representatives.
In
the best traditions of our non-party political status, can I introduce
in alphabetical order,
Annabel
Goldie, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Cathy
Jamieson, Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party
Jeremy
Purvis, Justice and Home Affairs Spokesman, Scottish Liberal Democrat
Party
Alex
Salmond, National Convener, Scottish National Party.
In
a few minutes, in the same alphabetical order, each will address us
on the theme of our Conference today, “The Future of
Policing.”
I
also have pleasure in welcoming our other guests from the Convention
of Scottish Local Authorities, from the Scottish Executive, the Police
Complaints Commission, the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland,
and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. You are all
very welcome.
Ladies
and Gentlemen, the theme of our Conference last year, was “Policing
Works” . Now I could spend the rest of the day giving you examples from
all over Scotland of how right we were that policing works.
Where
there is a crime or an anti-social behaviour problem, put sufficient
police officers to the task and it will be cured. It is a very simple
equation. Everybody in this hall understands it.
Operation
Tag in Glasgow was designed to reduce violent crime. They put more police
officers on the street, on foot, in cars, on bikes and in plain clothes.
Between April and December last year, they reduced incidents by 17.1%.
As
I've said, there are examples up and down the country and the same can
be said for elsewhere. In New York , we all know that the successes
against crime and disorder were achieved by putting more police officers
on the streets.
A
couple of months ago, when there was a spate of youth shootings in London,
and considerable public and media pressure, the Metropolitan Police
responded by putting more police officers on the street.
But
people are beginning to ask themselves why, if the police can sort out
these problems, why can't they prevent them from happening in the first
place? Where are the police when the problems are developing?
Well
part of the answer is that the calls for police services are almost
overwhelming. On top of the day to day one off calls for help, we have
major matters to attend to. New terrorism related duties, sex offenders
and legislative requirements use up vast numbers of officers.
We
are very good at policing major incidents. We are very good at responding
to murders and kidnappings and the demands of new legislation. But it's
the day to day response policing that is the problem – all too often
we don't get to calls quick enough and we don't have enough time to
make quality enquiries.
Calls
for extra cops are not just about more officers on the streets either.
Schools, hospitals, buses and other places, all want dedicated police
officers. They all know that policing works and they are prepared to
pay for it. At first sight this might seem ok. But surely beyond any
other service, the police service should not be dependent on ability
to pay. Safety and security is the first duty of government and everybody
has the right to have an efficient and effective police service to call
upon.
Government
has got to make the police a real spending priority – not just talk
about it – but give us a real percentage lead in new spending over other
services in the future.
When
Sir Willie Rae, Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, says, as he did
in February of this year, that future budgets would not allow him to
maintain the police officer numbers he had, we shared his concern. The
public shared his concern.
Our
political guests here today know this is the case. They are getting
these questions on the doorsteps as they go about their election business.
They are reading the ICM and other polls which show, yet again, just
how high a public priority community based street level policing is.
And
another thing. While we take no pleasure in the recent evaluation which
showed that community wardens have little or no effect on crime and
anti-social behaviour – we did say at our Conference here 4 years ago,
that the £20 million earmarked for them, would have been better
spent on the police.
We
have been proved right, and we all need to sit down and carefully consider
the future of wardens in Scotland . We have never said there is no place
for wardens, but crime and anti-social behaviour are police matters.
To propose or suggest anything else is simply wrong.
Remarkably,
it's now over forty five years since we had a major review of policing
in Scotland . Recently, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary
has three times called for a review of policing purpose. Since our legislative
remit was drawn up, Scotland has changed beyond all recognition. The
job of the police officer has become far more complex. The HMI, some
chief constables, the Superintendents Association and many academics
have all sought reviews of purpose, structure, governance and financing.
We
in the Federation agree. What should we be doing, how should we be doing
it, do we have the right numbers of people to do it? These are all fundamental
questions and should be reviewed. We look forward to discussing this
with whoever forms the new administration.
One
thing that is troubling us greatly at the moment is police pay. You
will all know that our pay is arranged through the Police Negotiating
Board for the United Kingdom . Sadly, the government seems determined
to destroy a 28 year old fair police pay up-rating system. The system
links police pay to average increases paid to a range of other workers.
It
is a fair system. It's not a brilliant system which makes police pay
that much better than that paid to other workers, but it's fair. Last
year, our employers, for lack of a better term, tried to renege on our
long standing arrangement. We had to go to independent arbitration and
after we presented a strong case, unsurprisingly it ruled in our favour.
Immediately,
the government called for reviews. A review of the pay system in the
short term, a further review of the system in the medium to long term,
and a review of the negotiating machinery itself. Sir Clive Booth was
appointed, provided the answers the government wanted, and it has now
instructed the negotiating board to reach an agreement on what are clearly
inferior arrangements.
Now
ladies and gentlemen, we believe in negotiating. It is by far the best
way forward, but when one side of a negotiation simply tells the other
what the outcome will be, that's unfair. Our legal advice is that it
is probably illegal too. This is an ongoing matter and negotiation in
public is not the way to do it, but we will not be forced into accepting
an inferior pay arrangement.
So,
what do we think about the “Future of Policing” ?
Well,
providing we have the tools – we will do the job. We need a community
based service – visible and responsive to the community. Of course we
need to maintain and develop specialisms, deal with the major crimes
and incidents, keep pace with legislative requirements, but we cannot
forget that policing begins and ends at a public level.
We
all know, politicians, senior officers, delegates, observers and guests,
that to improve our crime and disorder experience, to alleviate fear
of crime, to make our streets safe and secure, we need the police. Policing
works.
We
all have to prioritise. But yet again, policing comes to the top of
the public's priority list. This time around, the new administration
needs to remember this, and do something about it. Nothing else will
do.
Ladies
and gentlemen, I look forward to your comments and to your visions.
Thank
you.
