The Proposed Police Covenant
The Home Secretary has announced a proposed Police Covenant and has launched a public consultation. This is a consultation that is worth responding to. Unfortunately the consultation is in a questionnaire format which is constructed to give advantage to the government's proposals:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/police-covenant-for-england-and-wales?utm_source=a44f6807-6420-4347-b4e6-ec345e8f0486&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
The idea of a Police Covenant comes from the Armed Forces Covenant (AFC). I am not well placed to judge the success of the AFC but it is obvious that members of the armed forces do face particular and unique challenges. In practical terms, for example, the requirement to be absent from home and the potential for frequent disruptions to family life by changing postings etc is factor that can be part mitigated by the promise of continuity in the provision of public services. Policing is different but could still benefit from a similar approach.
The draft covenant talks a lot about 'protection' but not much about long term support for those who suffer PTSD and similar problems. Such illnesses are a direct result of public service and often last long into retirement. We all know that the provision of mental health services in the UK is poor and obtaining treatment and long term support for such things can be difficult. This is an area in which the covenant could make a real difference. Losing one's job through illness has a massive impact on the whole family and guaranteed assistance would be of societal benefit.
It would be nice to see a covenant that touches the basic reason why people go to work - pay and pensions. The independent mechanism for determining police pay was torn up by the government and pensions are not to the standard enjoyed by those in the past. If the government is really serious about supporting the police then some promises in the area of pay, conditions and pensions would be a good step in establishing trust.
Both the Police Federation of England and Wales and the Home Office have pointed out that police officers are not employees but are the holders of a public office, that of a constable. In practical terms this is a fiction. Chief Constables and PCCs play the same role as that of an employer. It makes no difference to the operation and use of police powers. There are bodies of constables who are employed. For example when the status of police constables in BTP was being considered in the preparation of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 it was not seen as an issue. Employment (in this case by the British Transport Police Authority) was seen as the best administrative solution. In BTP and in similar forces there is no doubt that the independence of the office of constable comes before the duties as an employee of a police authority. If the 'not employee' bit was important why is there provision in the consultation for including police staff (PCSOs for example) who are employees.
Speaking of BTP it is interesting that the covenant will, if accepted in its current form, exclude officers of that force. The fact that the Home Office is not the lead department for BTP, MDP and CNC is only a machinery of government technicality. One that Therea May when Home Secretary was going to correct before she went to Downing Street. The Dft (etc) could have announced an identically worded consultation at the same time. Operation of the covenant will require cross departmental efforts (notably with Health) so why not get it right from the start? Or, is there a suggestion that these forces are not 'worth' a covenant? I am a retired BTP officer. I know plenty of officers who have suffered physical and mental injury because of their work and anybody who saw the response to the terrorist events in Manchester and London over the last three years would appreciate that neither the public or criminals are interested in the 'mechanisms of government'. I did contact the Home Office to ask their views on this but I have not received a reply.
In policing the Home Office writ does not run to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It will be interesting to see what's on offer in those countries.
It is not just the police that risk their lives and well being for the public. Fire and medical staff do incredible things for their fellow citizens. Should there be a public service covenant?
The proposed police covenant could be a really positive step forward, or it could just be words from politicians. A large response to the consultation might just help.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/police-covenant-for-england-and-wales?utm_source=a44f6807-6420-4347-b4e6-ec345e8f0486&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
The idea of a Police Covenant comes from the Armed Forces Covenant (AFC). I am not well placed to judge the success of the AFC but it is obvious that members of the armed forces do face particular and unique challenges. In practical terms, for example, the requirement to be absent from home and the potential for frequent disruptions to family life by changing postings etc is factor that can be part mitigated by the promise of continuity in the provision of public services. Policing is different but could still benefit from a similar approach.
The draft covenant talks a lot about 'protection' but not much about long term support for those who suffer PTSD and similar problems. Such illnesses are a direct result of public service and often last long into retirement. We all know that the provision of mental health services in the UK is poor and obtaining treatment and long term support for such things can be difficult. This is an area in which the covenant could make a real difference. Losing one's job through illness has a massive impact on the whole family and guaranteed assistance would be of societal benefit.
It would be nice to see a covenant that touches the basic reason why people go to work - pay and pensions. The independent mechanism for determining police pay was torn up by the government and pensions are not to the standard enjoyed by those in the past. If the government is really serious about supporting the police then some promises in the area of pay, conditions and pensions would be a good step in establishing trust.
Both the Police Federation of England and Wales and the Home Office have pointed out that police officers are not employees but are the holders of a public office, that of a constable. In practical terms this is a fiction. Chief Constables and PCCs play the same role as that of an employer. It makes no difference to the operation and use of police powers. There are bodies of constables who are employed. For example when the status of police constables in BTP was being considered in the preparation of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 it was not seen as an issue. Employment (in this case by the British Transport Police Authority) was seen as the best administrative solution. In BTP and in similar forces there is no doubt that the independence of the office of constable comes before the duties as an employee of a police authority. If the 'not employee' bit was important why is there provision in the consultation for including police staff (PCSOs for example) who are employees.
Speaking of BTP it is interesting that the covenant will, if accepted in its current form, exclude officers of that force. The fact that the Home Office is not the lead department for BTP, MDP and CNC is only a machinery of government technicality. One that Therea May when Home Secretary was going to correct before she went to Downing Street. The Dft (etc) could have announced an identically worded consultation at the same time. Operation of the covenant will require cross departmental efforts (notably with Health) so why not get it right from the start? Or, is there a suggestion that these forces are not 'worth' a covenant? I am a retired BTP officer. I know plenty of officers who have suffered physical and mental injury because of their work and anybody who saw the response to the terrorist events in Manchester and London over the last three years would appreciate that neither the public or criminals are interested in the 'mechanisms of government'. I did contact the Home Office to ask their views on this but I have not received a reply.
In policing the Home Office writ does not run to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It will be interesting to see what's on offer in those countries.
It is not just the police that risk their lives and well being for the public. Fire and medical staff do incredible things for their fellow citizens. Should there be a public service covenant?
The proposed police covenant could be a really positive step forward, or it could just be words from politicians. A large response to the consultation might just help.
Comments
Post a Comment