On the beat | Privatising the police
Blog |
24 May 2012
Now is the time to reinstate the police union says Sophie Khan
"We are all in it together!" in times of austerity, say the Tory-led coalition government but with David Cameron chillaxing at Chequers,
in reality, it is the public sector workers who are facing the brunt of
the cuts and the radical pace of reforms to the services that they
provide.
On Wednesday 16 May 2012, the Home Secretary
gave her speech at the Annual Conference of The Police Federation of
England and Wales.
It was no surprise that Ms May would receive a
hostile audience by the thousand or so Federation representatives from
across all forces as the police service, as part of the public sector is
also facing cuts. A 20 per cent cut has been proposed to its work force
which will see 16,000 police officers lose their jobs by the end of
this Parliament. The numbers are high but so is the police budget which
stands at £14b a year.
The Police Federation agree that cuts need to
be made to the police service as the public expenditure on policing is
now unsustainable, but their grievances lie with the fundamental changes
the Windsor report will bring once implemented.
The reforms will create a new culture of
policing, ending the job for life ethos towards a more professional
outfit by raising the level of qualifications for those joining as a
Constable and introducing a direct entry scheme for talented individuals
from the business sector.
However, the level of opposition to such
changes during Ms May’s speech is likely to have bruised - if not broken
- the special bond between government and police for the first time
since 1918, when 10,000 Metropolitan Police Officers went on strike due
to poor pay and conditions. The National Union of Police and Prison
Officers founded by ex-Inspector John Syme in 1913 and reorganised in 1917 called the strike which led to improvements in pay and conditions.
The enactment of the Police Act in 1919
following the second strike banned the Union and with it the right to
strike. The government laid down the law and since 1919 there has been
no direct challenge to lift the ban.
But should that change now? I think so, as the
challenges faced by policing in the twenty-first century need to be
addressed, especially as the government has become fixated with privatising the police which could give private companies 10 to 25 per cent control over police services.
Although, Surrey Police, who are taking part in the Business Partnership Programme,
along with West Midlands Police have called for a pause in the
timetable to allow for a public consultation to take place over the
summer, the shortlist for bidders is still going ahead this Friday.
There does not seem to be a desire to abandon
the plans even though the public have already voiced their concerns and
now serious questions have been raised over the human rights record of
some of the bidders. Do we really want to give the company who built the
cell blocks at Guantanamo Bay a stake in our police service?
Under such circumstances no one would criticise
the police service if they wished to consider alternative routes to
challenge government proposals. Collective action, the traditional
weapon of the trade union movement should be an option that is explored.
And if a National Union of Police Officers is the answer then a
challenge to overturn the ban should be made.
I appreciate that the right to strike would be
a last resort for many police officers but that should not deter those
who feel that they should have a stake in the future of policing.
If the government is serious about protecting the Office of Constable then instead of privatising
the police it should allow the holders of that office the ability to
challenge it on an equal footing. The limitations of the Police
Federation are evident and as long as there is a ban on Unions, the
police service will remain at a disadvantage in negotiations with the
government.
The advance of privatisation
is a real threat to the future of policing and if the police do not
challenge this now they may see that their rights are curtailed even
further.
No comments:
Post a Comment