Annual Report

Professional Standards

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CO-ORDINATOR

Last year’s report heralded impending new legislation consequent upon the Taylor review of conduct, unsatisfactory performance and attendance procedures. Since December 2008 we now have with us the Police Conduct and Performance/Attendance Regulations 2008 and are watching ‘progress’ with interest.

It is too early to be conclusive about the level of improvement in the system which it is hoped and anticipated will yield increased proportionality, timeliness and transparency to that which pertained earlier within the ‘discipline’ process. However, we always suspected that the requirement for culture change to ensure that the ethos of the legislation is successful would and will take time to embed.

The early signs are that although the systems are ticking along quite well, there has been no particular call for euphoria. There have been problems, of course, and naturally those negative aspects come to the fore for discussion rather than any positive ones. If I was to identify a major ‘moan’ then it would be around bureaucracy surrounding the holding of ‘Meetings’. There exists reluctance by many conformist PSDs to take the short cuts sometimes on offer and the consequence can be an elongated rather than an abridged process to bring any matter in hand to conclusion.

To identify a very positive aspect within the new procedures , already in evidence is the better information flow which legislation has  dictated and which results in officers being kept better informed rather than kept in the dark as previously was the case.

The review of the Panel of Friends, as recommended last year by the Vice President in his overall review of the PSAEW, has been undertaken by the Deputy National Secretary, Graham Cassidy. Due to unforeseen circumstances the time scales for completion and publication of that Review have slipped slightly. However, the recommendations are imminent at this time of writing.

During the lifetime of that Review taking place, and as a result of emerging findings, some healthy changes have been made to the functioning of the Panel. The overall membership has  reduced in number by one fifth in the last year  to complement the decline in total of  those being recorded ‘at risk’; enhanced and professional training has been introduced for Panel members and is funded by Abbey Legal, our Insurers; a professional and comprehensive Panel Guidance binder containing salient and pertinent documentation has been produced and distributed to all Panel members and plans are afoot to ‘cluster’ members of the Panel into specialised groupings with  respective  accreditation for undertaking  ’Friending’ in specific and specialised  subjects.

The Proactive sub committee of the NEC is not my direct responsibility (albeit that I sit as an adviser to its members) but frequently matters start off in my court before being passed uphill to the National Deputy Secretary.

It remains true that often there is a link between the issue for which pro-active support is sought and the ‘at risk’ arena. The purpose of raising this entity is simply to flag up that although the number of members ‘art risk’ under my bailiwick has declined, those seeking pro-active support continues to increase.

The relationship between the PSAEW, our lawyers and insurers remains solid and healthy. Whilst our dealings are always professional and business like, interchange between parties benefits from being open, forthright and sometimes challenging whilst at the same time being friendly and sociable.

Within our LPI premium, we now have a funded, emergency 24 hour availability (call out) by our solicitors should the need arise and meet the relevant criteria. This results in benefit for all parties—the insurers by having solicitors on hand to assist and mitigate potential harm thus looking after their interests, the lawyers as the provision gives enhancement to their contract and coffers and benefits our members—for very obvious reasons.

My world continues to be imbued with business and meetings around relevant ACPO committees, with the IPCC and is interspersed with visits to Branch and District gatherings.

Perhaps the above narrative is indicative of change and change of course is always in our midst. What does not alter though is the psychological effect and upset endured by the membership subjected to complaints and investigations.

I am sufficiently comfortable and confident to say that the available counselling and help service on offer from the Professional Standards Co-ordinator is very frequently accessed and generally well received. 

Tom Moran

Professional Standards Co-ordinator