19 May 2011
ACPO president Sir Hugh Orde answers questions from Police Review on the future of policing.
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2011
JANE'S POLICE REVIEW COMMUNITY - MARCH 25, 2011
© IHS Global Limited 2011 Jane’s Police Review 25 March 2011 Reproduced with permission
Law & Orde
In the wake of the first Winsor Report into police pay and conditions, and the Hutton review of pensions, ACPO president Sir Hugh Orde answers Royston Martis's questions on the future of policing - and standing up for officers' rights
Q What did you think of the Winsor Report into police pay and conditions?
A I think [Tom Winsor] went out of his way in the time available to him to understand the business. And we certainly spent a lot of time with him explaining the complexities of the world we lived in. And he had a very difficult job... I think he did OK.
I think he recognises that the unique office of constable must not be tampered with and that is vital. I also think he recognises that officers doing the most dangerous work should receive the highest amount of money available.
The step change is away from an incremental, overtime, pay scale, to a sort of rate [for] the job and then supplemented depending on what you do. I think that culturally the service will find that quite a challenge.
Q Police Review has never seen such anger from officers at Winsor, the government and ACPO. They believe you have not fought on their behalf. Is that fair?
A I would say, having spent 18 months in this job, that the chief officers I have the privilege to work with do not come to work to do anything other than to support their people. I was at many of the meetings with Mr Winsor where chief officers made it very clear this had to be a fair process, albeit we were clearly mindful of the cuts imposed on policing. And I do think he listened to us.
The last thing I think we need is, quite often, externally generated attempts to create a major argument between different ranks of the service. I think that is dysfunctional. I do not think it achieves anything positive.
Q These officers are worried about their mortgages, which are based on a certain salary, and a standard of life that is now threatened. They want to hear you come out and say similar things as British Army generals have on behalf of their troops. And they have not heard that...
A I am afraid in leadership you have to make hard choices. The efforts that went into quiet conversations, negotiating behind the scenes, conversations right at the top end with the Home Secretary Theresa May, ministers and the Treasury to try and minimise the impact of cuts on policing were huge - by many chief officers, including me.
I met with Danny Alexander [chief secretary to the Treasury] and we made it explicit that they had to recognise the importance of policing in the difficult choices they had to make.
I think we need to be clear that making a lot of noise does not necessarily achieve a lot of results. If one steps back and looks at the cuts in the military, they are huge. This notion that shouting a lot achieves anything is flawed. Seven years in Northern Ireland tells me that quiet conversations, sensible negotiations and influence are a far better tactic.
Of course, because it is quiet, it is not as explicit or clear to those who may feel we have let them down. I do not think we have let them down, I think we have done our level best. The 20 per cent cuts in the police budget could have been 25 per cent.
Plus, I do think people need to understand - and I saw it first hand - that the Home Secretary argued as strongly as any other cabinet minister to defend the budget that she had. The notion that the government has abandoned policing is wrong. It could have been worse, is the point.
Q Post-Winsor, are you going to be having these quiet conversations with people in the Home Office?
A I spoke to the Home Secretary and the minister yesterday and I made it absolutely clear that we will watch with great interest the progress [of the recommendations] through the Police Negotiating Board (PNB).
What Winsor has done is to rebalance things. He has cut pay in some places, he has increased pay in other places and we need to look at how that works through. If, for example, the outcome of the PNB was to cherry-pick so the bits that cut pay come in and the bits that increase pay do not come in then there will be a very serious conversation and it will probably be a very public one.
Q What about the Hutton report into public sector pensions? Does ACPO want 59-year-old officers pounding the streets or holding firearms?
A I sense the service is worried... and I understand that, because it seems to me that part of the deal around policing is obviously the pay but the pension was always an integral part of that and I can understand why people feel let down.
I think cops also feel they pay a substantial amount into the pension - they pay 11 per cent already, which is a big chunk of their income.
The hard facts are that the pension we get after 30 years is very good, even with the contributions we make.
The combination of these hits [Winsor and Hutton] needs to be carefully considered by the government.
In terms of 60-year-old cops, the average age of an officer joining now is around 28, so to do 35 years is a different challenge. It is how we deal with it, and that is going to be difficult. There are many jobs where you can do extremely useful work over 50 [years of age] - and I like to think I fit into that category. The reality is that it is going to happen anyway. I do not think it is a function of Hutton, it is a function of an older and more mature workforce, which has huge benefits in other ways for policing.
Q After the Winsor and Hutton [Reports], officers are saying they have run out of goodwill. Morale in the service is low. How are chief officers motivating this angry and depressed workforce?
A I think you are being too pessimistic. That is not to underestimate the concern. I think it is hugely insulting to the integrity of our workforce to suggest that everyone is so angry they are going to stop working, and hugely damaging to public confidence.
In terms of what chief officers are doing, if I was still in a real police force, which sadly I am not, I would be spending as much time as I could on the front line, seeing officers and having that conversation with cops that will tell you what they feel but [let them know you] are prepared to listen as well.
Q Will you quit as and when police and crime commissioners come in?
A Let's be clear, what I said was if I had a real police force, which I do not, and I was put in a position where someone could tell me how to deliver policing, I would quit. That is not how you police in this country.
Q Do you think that might happen, though?
A No, and I will tell you why. If you read the face of the [Police Reform and Social Responsibility] Bill and every statement from the Home Secretary and the policing minister [Nick Herbert], they lead on operational independence - that is the critical part of policing. The government has listened to our concerns. We are working with them to develop a strategic policing requirement which ensures the national responsibilities of policing are protected and chief constables can deliver from the local to the national.
Q Can you see friction between commissioners and chief constables?
A Yes, and there should be a tension. The way British policing works is that we make operational decisions, because we are operationally independent on how we best deploy our resources to keep people safe. We are then held to account for the decisions that we make. I do not see anything currently to suggest that is changing. The style of oversight is changing. That is a matter for government.
Q You mentioned you were sad at not being a chief constable of a force any more...
A No, not sad at all. I think seven years of leading a service like the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which was quite fantastic, is probably enough. Knowing when to leave is as important as knowing what to apply for.
So while I miss it terribly, I have a huge set of new challenges. We are seeing the biggest challenges to policing for a very long time and we have to lead the service through that. It is a huge privilege. Chief officers are not people who have moved themselves from the reality of policing. It is important to remember that is where we all started. That is a huge strength of this service that we all started there.
Q Direct entry?
A Personally, I am dead against it. I think [every officer joining as a PC] is one of the great strengths of the service.
Q You are occasionally personally attacked in the media with inaccurate stories about £27,000 bonuses, and your family and personal life. How do you cope with those attacks?
A I have always believed absolutely in the freedom of the press. But I think there is an unwritten contract that we have a right to accurate reporting. I get concerned when there is, in my judgement, deliberately inaccurate or misleading reporting.
The most recent attacks fall absolutely in that category. If I was a frontline officer who was told that the ACPO president has awarded himself (that was the inference) a £27,000 pay rise, when they themselves are looking at losing £2,000 or £3,000 in the worst-case scenario, I would be furious - and I can understand why they would be.
I am paid exactly the same now as I was as the chief [constable] of Northern Ireland. I have no complaints about my level of income. You have to ask why is [this story] flying around? How do you cope with it? You need the hide of an ossified rhinoceros. It is hurtful but you live with it. It is the privilege of rank.
© IHS Global Limited 2011 Jane’s Police Review 25 March 2011 Reproduced with permission
For more information please contact:
ACPO Press Office
Association of Chief Police Officers
e: press.office@acpo.pnn.police.uk
Communications office
By phone: 0800 538 5058
By email: press.office@npcc.police.uk