I’ve had some pretty lively times with the Police Federation, as Chris Mullin described in his diaries:

Jacqui Smith has upset the Police Federation by staggering their pay increase, with the result that they all lose out on a couple of hundred quid … We are being bombarded with letters full of words like outrage, disgust, betrayal (the Federation never does anything by halves). They are demanding Jacqui’s head and there are calls for the right to strike, oblivious of the fact that the police are far better paid than those public servants who do have the right to strike.

So I know that the strategic and structural weaknesses outlined in this week’s independent review of the Police Federation predate the Andrew Mitchell case and should concern everyone who wants a strong and effective police service as well as the members who have been let down by the Fed.

The Police Federation was set up in 1919 in response to a breakdown of relations between the police and the government and a strike. Many focus on the fact that police officers have no right to take industrial action, but the Fed is set up in statute, with safeguarded rights to be heard, automatic enrolment of members and generous funding for representatives and activity – something many other unions and professional associations would welcome with open arms.

As the review outlines, this should provide a strong safeguard for members and voice for policing, but the Fed has failed to provide either.

First, there has been a history of counterproductive tactics. As Tony Blair noted:

I heard the news that Jack Straw had got slow-hand-clapped at the Police Federation conference … Jack had decided in the middle of an election campaign to give a pretty routine and fairly hardline law and order speech; but they were having none of it. He could have doubled their pay and they were going to boo him.

I know, because I’ve interviewed many of them, that most home secretaries received the same sort of treatment. What is the impact of this sort of behaviour? It certainly doesn’t intimidate home secretaries who tend to be toughened to more than this! Many individual police officers took the opportunity to apologise to me personally for the actions of their leadership and for the abuse I received during my time as home secretary. Members of the public, to the extent that they noticed, thought the Fed were bullies and that I should stand firm against them. So, far from strengthening their voice, they made themselves easy to ignore and difficult to work with – bad for their members and bad for the development of good policing reform.

Any of us involved in party or union know that internal battles can be played out with ferocity, but the Police Fed has coupled personal animosity and heartfelt disagreements about tactics with a structure which entrenches different power groups and makes coming to a common view on strategy practically impossible. The review is clear that if they had spent less time personally abusing Tom Winsor and more time developing a clear, evidenced case to put to his review on pay and conditions they would have been far more effective.

Their internal structure divides up members into separate rank committees and has a large and unwieldy central committee. It is nearly impossible for them to devise a timely strategic response to reform proposals or to put forward an evidenced case against cuts. Furthermore, in austere times, questions are being asked about the generous time off and resources afforded to their reps and the value of money of their national headquarters. There is a risk that, at a time when the job of policing gets more pressured and difficult, there will be fewer people able to defend individual officers and local policing.

Internal division has already meant that their representation is weakened on the College of Policing which may well be ‘registering’ their members and which sets professional standards.

The Police Fed’s special legal status depends on their safeguarding policing for the public as well as the interests of individual officers. I sincerely hope that the current Fed leadership, who deserve credit for commissioning the review, are able to bring about the big changes it recommends: incorporating the public interest in policing into their core purpose; streamlining their byzantine internal structures so that they can make clear strategic decisions; using research and evidence to strengthen their voice; acting as a champion of diversity in policing; improving external accountability and listening to others who care about the future of policing; being open about their finances.

Individual police officers doing a difficult and sometimes dangerous job, in the eye of public scrutiny need strong protection and representation. We all need the voice of British policing better represented in policy development. Despite my history with the Fed – in fact because of it – I really want them to succeed in building a better safeguard and a stronger voice. Good luck with the task.

———————————————————

Jacqui Smith is a former home secretary, writes the Monday Politics column for Progress, and tweets @smithjj62