Find out more
2011: the start of a great decade for criminals?
On 7th January 2011 a message of the day appeared in the name of the Chief Constable and included the following:
"following further analysis undertaken to establish our budget position, it has become clear that we will need to make significant savings much sooner than the Nine Steps Programme plans had anticipated.
This means that a proposal to accelerate the programme including the restructure and reorganisation of the workforce has been put forward to take place this calendar year."
On 11th January 2011 the Joint Branch Board passed the following resolution:
North Yorkshire Police Federation Joint Branch Board instructs the JBB Chairman, JBB Secretary and JBB Treasurer to raise at every opportunity in any forum the concerns of the Joint Branch Board at the proposed reduction in police numbers over the next four years to ensure their views and concerns for the impact this will have on the policing of North Yorkshire and the City of York.
This comes against a backdrop where following the Police Authority meeting on 13th December 2010 where it was agreed to allow the Chief Constable to use Regulation A19 to dispense with the services of those officers with 30 years pensionable service and those on 30+ in a 4 year programme which sees a reduction of 210 police officers on top of those we have already lost since 2007 and no prospect of recruiting any more we were criticised for calling the decision a good Christmas present for criminals and humbug for police officers.
Nothing new. Paul McKeever our national chairman was criticised for calling the planned national reduction in police officer numbers Christmas for Criminals and the media reported the collation government jibe of vested interest.
In May 2010 figures were released which showed that in North Yorkshire the number of police staff increased by 158% between 2000 and 2009, compared to 12% for police officers during the same period. The increase in police staff was the highest in England and Wales.
Consequently it attracted a lot of media attention and the Chairman issued a press release which is reproduced below:
"It is alarming that there is no tangible evidence that even suggests, let alone proves, the value brought by civilianising increasing numbers of police officer posts. At a time of financial restraint a rise in police staff numbers is absolute nonsense when the public want more police officers on the beat and available in emergency situations when needed.
Britain has a new government; and a new Parliament. Now is the time to stop this uncoordinated and ill-constructed plan that will destroy the police service in England and Wales; to implement a full independent review and to have the courage to ask the public what they actually want and expect from their police service."
An email from North Yorkshire Police Research department who had viewed the research conducted by the Police Federation nationally concluded "I was able to match up their stats with various HO reports."
What we released in May 2010 and what we reproduce here in light of the cuts is not an attack on any given individual. It was a plea for the future direction of the police service to be based on sustainable sound policy not a sound bite. It was a plea to expose the value for money fallacy - what is the meaning of value (not price) - a cynical device to hide cuts. And finally it was a plea for people to consider the long term efficiency and efficacy of the police service. Sadly people do not seem to have listened.
We assert that they are wrong. Ask Ben Priestley the UNISON national officer for policing who is reported to have said ‘It will not be possible to protect the frontline in the way the government claims, because the distinction between this and the policing back office no longer exists.’ Well he would say that wouldn’t he after all are UNISON not just another vested interest like the Police Federation?
Recourse to the HMIC ‘Valuing the Police’ report in July 2010 – shows that between 2004 and 2008 forces have achieved £1.5 billion of efficiency savings. And the same report reported that ‘A re-design of the system has the potential, at best, to save 12% of central government funding, while maintaining police availability. A cut beyond 12% would almost certainly reduce police availability unless it were prioritised over and above everything else the police did.’
And we know that £21 million savings will be made by reducing the number of police officers and police staff in North Yorkshire over 4 years. The force target is by 2014/15 to have 1294 police officers and 1110 police staff.
So are we a vested interest by raising legitimate concerns about the impact this may have on the policing of North Yorkshire and the City of York.. Maybe.
But Civitas aren’t and their evidence supports our view.
Using data from the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, they compared the number of police officers per 100,000 population and recorded offences per 100,000 population. This was because crime rates have been consistently negatively correlated with key measures of police effectiveness. Thus according to Civitas and backed by academic research which they reference “it is plausible to suggest that police resources play an essential role in tackling crime. While police numbers and resources are far from the only contributor to police effectiveness, it seems highly unlikely that the swingeing cuts now being enacted will be made without significantly decreasing detection rates. The result will be that offenders will be able to engage in criminal acts with a reduced risk of being caught and sanctioned, making criminal acts less risky and more attractive for potential offenders. As a result, it is possible that recent falls in crime will be halted or even reversed. Members of the public are at greater risk of crime in the coming year.”
For more details click here.
So why are in this mess? This was due in part to ACPO nationally giving a clear indication to government in the summer that the police service could accommodate cuts of 25%. Since then the self-appointed, ‘professional voice of the police service’ appears to have an extended dose of laryngitis. Why ACPO did this is a mystery. They have achieved the almost impossible, alienating government, the Superintendents’ Association, PFEW, SPF, PFNI and the Association of Police Authorities who it is worth mentioning were so piqued by ACPO’s recent stance on Police Commissioners that they considered withdrawing their funding from ACPO.
And the Shadow Home Secretary, Ed Balls stated on 11th January “The Prime Minister David Cameron and his Home Secretary Theresa May totally failed to stand up for the police in the spending review negotiations and now we are starting to see the consequences of that mistake.
“The police are taking a much bigger hit than other vital public services. The sheer speed and scale of these cuts – over twenty per cent and with the biggest reductions in the first two years - will hit the frontline hard and go way beyond what independent experts believe can be achieved from efficiencies and better procurement.
“At a time of rising public protest, an ongoing terror threat, the security challenge of next year’s Olympics and an expensive reorganisation of policing, these cuts are a reckless and dangerous gamble. They will undermine the fight against crime and take unnecessary risks with national security and the safety of our communities. The government should go back to the drawing board and think again.”
And so say all of us. And that is the message Paul McKeever gave to the Home Affairs Committee on 11th January 2011 which you can view here http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9354000/9354143.stm
