Conference / Speeches

Annual Conference of Civil Nuclear Constabulary Federation

Glasgow Hilton Hotel - 22 and 23rd June 2010

Speech by Peter Storey, Chairman of Civil Nuclear Constabulary Federation

Sir Chris Fox, Chief Constable, guests and delegates welcome to conference.

No-one is going to forget the name of Derrick Bird in a short period of time.

Certainly not in Cumbria.

In the space of five hours he shot dead 12 people and wounded another eleven before, perhaps mercifully, taking his own life.

To all the bereaved families I offer on behalf of the Fe3deration our deepest condolences.

The effect on the community, especially in Whitehaven and on the Cumbria police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, has been one of profound shock. The incident was another obscene reminder, in the same bracket as Hungerford and Dunblane, that something terribly bizarre can overcome the sanity of a seemingly normal person. The result can be a murderous catastrophe.

Investigations are well under way and I do not propose to add any forensically based views about what happened and certainly we should all heed the advice to avoid kneejerk reactions which offer simplistic but unrealistic analysis.

From a Federation perspective I am proud of how the CNC supported our colleagues in the Cumbria police, firstly in our speed of response and secondly, with the numbers of firearms trained officers that we were able to deploy within minutes from Sellafield.

No-one can ever predict when those explosively violent incidents will occur. Just some unfortunate and rare combination of mental breakdown and a ready access to firearms can result in an indiscriminate killing rage.

The CNC has been specifically trained up to deal with any unexpected attack from terrorists. They would seek to be even more murderous than Derrick Bird. What the Whitehaven incident illustrates all too clearly is that the capability and response of the CNC can be tested by the breakdown of a member of the public just as thoroughly as through a planned terrorist attack.

We were glad to go to the aid of the Cumbria police and although our contribution did not determine the final outcome to the incident the whole affair is still an example of the added value that the CNC can bring to the policing service. It was therefore with particular satisfaction that I noted our CNC officers, who were deployed from Sellafield, met the Prime Minister David Cameron when he came to hear for himself about the efforts of police to track down Bird.

The CNC's highly developed skills in firearms should be considered a national asset to policing capability throughout the United Kingdom. By tradition our Home Department force colleagues are routinely unarmed and, as in Cumbria, frequently display considerable courage in pursuing armed criminals. While their assistance at a major incident at a CNC guarded nuclear base would be welcome, their deployment would be necessarily limited.

The converse of that point is that our extra skill in weaponry would be and has been proved to be of major assistance to a county force in need of mutual aid.

I mentioned the new Prime Minister there and of course we have had a change of Government. We have a coalition Government - perhaps an example of political parties benefiting from mutual aid. In the past few months in the run up to the general election the General Secretary, Nigel Dennis, and I had made a point of meeting Ministers and their potential successors. We need to ensure that Ministers understand the challenges facing policing. And to be fair we need to see and understand their difficulties as politicians as well. Dialogue cannot be all one way or people switch off.

The new Minister of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Charles Hendry was the previous shadow Minister. We are fortunate in that our earlier meetings, pre-election, has been time well spent with the right people. We look forward to speaking to the Ministerial team now that they are in office.

Chief Constable, you will be aware of our ongoing concerns regarding the location of political oversight of the CNC being in DECC. The Federation believes that the CNC should be the direct responsibility of the Home Office. There was speculation about a new Homeland security department for dealing with terrorism but little has been heard since the election.

I see advantage in this police service being accountable to a Government Department whose main responsibility is the security of the UK's infrastructure and the safety of the wider public. It is quite obvious that the CNC is a bolted on responsibility which is a distraction from the mainstream priorities of a Department focused on energy and climate change.

Secondly, it continues to cause the Federation unease that our system of indirect and largely public funding through the private sector contributions of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, British Energy and Uranco is an unnecessary complication to the financial administration of the CNC. It would be our preference for the funding of CNC to be at arm's length or at least routed through the Department and let the Department raise the money through the nuclear companies. At present our budgeting for the year is an inflexible process which each month can insist on expenditure going ahead even when changes in circumstances have rendered this unnecessary. Equally frustrating, delivering savings over the month, far from being applauded, is almost regarded as an act of administrative sabotage.

In making these criticisms of current financial arrangements I am mindful that we are grateful for the success that the Chief Constable and the Policing Authority have had in securing budget increases of over seven per cent for last year and for the next year. Money has been tight and undoubtedly as we heard yesterday from the Chancellor in Parliament it is going to get even tighter. A massive cutting of public expenditure will have serious implications for the police service bringing cuts in police numbers, overtime, a public sector pay standstill and a freeze on recruitment.

The new Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced that this final year of our three year pay deal would be honoured. For that we are grateful but hard times are coming. Cutting overtime will cause massive problems for the CNC in meeting specific commitments on security. Freezing recruitment is a flawed principle and causes serious long-term structural imbalance and career blockage throughout any large scale organisation. It is simply not good practice.

And if I may borrow a phrase from the business world: every police service is going to have to sweat its assets harder. One way of sweating those assets, in other words us, is to ensure each officer is properly trained to maximum effectiveness. Training is the best investment the Force can make. While I recognise the tremendous progress made in firearms training, one area in particular should be addressed - driver training.

It remains a matter of serious concern to this Federation and to the general public that too many officers are being asked to deliver a level of driving skill beyond their competence. We are simply not training enough officers to the required driving standard. Entrusting a car to an insufficiently skilled officer is the equivalent of handing a lethal weapon to an untrained officer. If the officer has to engage in response to an incident in a marked police vehicle then the result could be the death of officers or members of the public.

Recent legal cases have indicated that if an officer commits a driving offence, particularly leading to a fatality, he or she may not be standing alone in the court. They may have the Chief Constable for company. Under the duty of care obligation the Force has a legal responsibility to ensure that officers are trained to a level of acceptable competence in order to perform their duty.

Shortcomings in training are but one example of failure in corporate governance. The Policing Authority has recently started to address this issue. Just a few days ago your General Secretary and I were invited to meet the Chairman of the Police Authority to discuss this very subject. I commend the Authority for recognising the need to review its performance in delivering good corporate governance even if it was, as I suspect, prompted by the attention of the Audit Office.

We welcome the invitation and you can all be sure that we are looking forward to that meeting.

One of the findings of the Authority's review was that staff consultation and engagement was limited... for limited I would read inadequate... and there was a limited resource spent on communication with stakeholders and the public and making accountability real.

In plain English what this means is that your elected Federation officials have not been regularly invited to attend Authority meetings. Far too much of the business of the Police Authority has been delegated to sub-committees which neither of us is invited to attend. As a result when the various sub-committees report, matters are often deemed not to need further discussion or can be taken through the agenda in closed session.

The criticism from the Audit Office is well founded and to put it bluntly: it is no way to consult with a major stakeholder such as this Federation. I would hope that the meeting with Sir Chris Fox will have - as number one item on the agenda - meaningful engagement with the Federation.

It may be symbolic that the Federation attends Police Authority meetings as observers - but it must not be tokenism. The symbolism is important to us. It signifies that the Police Authority takes the need to engage with us seriously. We are there to relay to our members the challenges facing the CNC. Our attendance can only be helpful to the overall management and functioning of the CNC. Better understanding of issues makes for better communication and improved co-operation with our members.

Within this theme of corporate governance I want to deal now with the approaching request for consultation on terms and conditions. Just over two weeks ago the discussions which Management were having with us, on the back of the appointment of consultants Ernst and Young, started to become more formal.

Under the wonderfully named project title of "Futures" the Federation is being invited to engage in consultation on developing our terms and conditions. We are advised that, at this stage, particular focus is being given to the application of the work of Ernst and Young to new CNC recruits and transferees in the rank of Constable and Sergeant. But the Futures Programme also includes: how the existing workforce could be re-profiled together with more appropriate terms and conditions for that workforce; and how our funding and business processes could be streamlined, modernised and better informed by the industry's timelines and business assumptions. According to the Policing Plan this programme will span the next three years.

We have immediately indicated to Management that the Federation will not shy away from our obligation and responsibility to operate a partnership with the CNC. More importantly, from a membership perspective we have stated we shall be striving for the best possible terms and conditions we can achieve for our members both now and in the future.

But I have two major concerns.

First, where are we going with all this? The major reform I would like to see is across the board equality for the officers of this force with the rest of the Home Department police service. We are trained to the same standards, we carry the responsibility of being a fully and routinely armed police service and we have just proved our value in mutual aid to the Cumbria police.

I do not want to see nor will this Federation entertain any moves that would seek to rewrite our relationship with the rest of the police service through changes in our terms and conditions as set by the Police Negotiating Board. Although we are not represented on the Board the PNB is the gold standard for all the UK federations. And if this Force has foisted on it worse terms and conditions than our colleagues under the guise of the Futures Programme will the next onslaught be on our pay and pensions and will other police forces be targeted after us?

We need reassurance that the Futures Programme is not some kind of Trojan horse which will eventually undermine everything the Federation has achieved on behalf of the membership.

My second concern, Chief Constable, and as a lay member of the Bar Council, you will appreciate the weight the courts attach to the legal concept of equality of arms between the parties. Now I know we will want to work in partnership in the forthcoming Futures review. But with the best will in the world, there is still going to be at times an adversarial debate between our respective positions. On your side you have the entire resources of your management team and in Ernst and Young, a nationally known management and business consultancy. On our side we have a hard-working fulltime general secretary and a part-time chairman, yours truly, to represent the interests of an organisation with 730 federated members and distinctly limited resources. It is hardly an equal contest. And any unfair bargain is not going to endure and is therefore not worth striking.

As the first item on the agenda we will want to discuss how we can ensure that the Federation has reasonable access to all the necessary expertise and resources in order that we may best represent the interests of our members. We too want to see a Civil Nuclear Constabulary fit for purpose but that definition must also include a police workforce which feels valued for their contribution and is properly rewarded.

Thank you

Chief Constable, I invite you to address conference.