Police Federation

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Police Federation.

I am pleased to speak under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will start by briefly sharing some of my experiences as a police officer, so brace yourselves because some of it is not very nice. In my time in policing, I was the first to arrive at a triple homicide scene. It was a mother who had killed her own three children. I saw people take their last breaths on Earth at road accidents; I pulled a suicidal man down from a road bridge; I knocked on people’s doors to tell them that their loved ones had passed away; and I was called to mentally ill people self-harming down to the bone with a razor. I was spat at by the people I was arresting and, of course, subject to the most disgusting verbal abuse from the people I was looking after in custody inside the police station. That is the reality of policing. If only it were just about catching criminals, but it never has been and it never will be.

I mention those incidents not because my experience was particularly notable; it was precisely the opposite. That is the reality of being a frontline police officer. They see all of that; in one minute they have to be physically tough in the face of aggression, and in the next they have to be emotionally sensitive with a victim of serious crime. That is what our police officers do day in, day out, working earlies, lates and nights on the public’s behalf. We owe them so much for doing the essential work that most people would not have the guts to even consider.

Being a police officer is mostly a thankless job. They get to the end of a long shift doing their bit for society and they feel that the politicians, the media and the courts do not back them up. Perhaps that is an issue for another day, but in the meantime, we have to ask who is looking out for the interests of our police officers. That brings me to the Police Federation.

The Police Act 1919 stated that, given their unique role in society, police officers could not join an ordinary trade union or take strike action. To be clear, I am not seeking to question that today. However, in recognising the need for representation, that legislation established one staff association to represent police officers: the Police Federation. That was reaffirmed in the Police Act 1996. I want to pay tribute to the many hard-working federation representatives over the decades, including those serving in forces across the country today, for the work they have done representing their local members. I do not diminish their work in supporting individual police officers in their time of need, but I am afraid that the national leadership of the Police Federation is rotten. It is not right that 140,000 frontline officers have to pay their subscriptions and put up with that because it is the only staff association that they are legally allowed to join.

Over the last two years, the unelected chief executive of the Police Federation has paid himself £1.4 million in salary and bonuses. That is paid through the monthly subscriptions from police officers’ wages. That fact alone is shocking, but it is the culmination of years of failure. Most recently, senior members of the federation who asked questions about its governance were purged from the organisation. Elected representatives who reflected the legitimate concerns of frontline police officers on policing issues were also purged. How can there ever be reform if those who ask questions and could have helped build a better federation are seen as the problem?

This issue goes back even further. There was the disastrous handling of the changes to police pensions, where it was found that the federation misled its own members, failed to communicate with them, and victimised officers who were forced to take action on their own. Cultural change was promised after the scathing Normington review of 2014, but a decade later things were still so bad that another report, the Bousted review, which was completed just last year, described

“an arrogant and inward-looking culture born of a centralist mindset and”—

crucially—

“a feeling that the interests and views of rank-and-file members do not matter.”

If so, what is the federation really for?

I am very interested in hearing the hon. Member’s evident experience. I would like to put on record that I am the chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. It is extremely important that police officers have representation. In only the last three years, we have heard about tragic cases of suicides and hundreds of attempted suicides. It is also evident that the governance of the Police Federation has to be adapted and improved immensely.

I would not dispute that one jot. The present national leadership say that

“a transformed Federation is the best way to deliver effective representation”

but I am afraid that officers have heard it all before. I dare say they will hear it again unless radical action is taken. It is because of this repeated systemic and cultural failure that I have come to the conclusion that only if police officers are given the freedom to establish and join an alternative will they get the representation they need and deserve.

The Police Federation has very few advocates within policing. I thank the many officers who have contacted me to say how pleased they are to see this campaign getting attention, with many confirming that only the monopoly and fear of being without representation when they really need it keeps them subscribing.

The hon. Member says that policing is often a thankless task. On behalf of the House, I pay tribute to and thank him and the many other fantastic police officers, including in Dorset police, for their work. The hon. Member talks about the fairness of representation. I had a constituent whose daughter, a police officer, was sexually assaulted by a fellow police officer. She was dismissed from the service as a result of a misconduct process that failed to recognise her trauma. Both officers were represented by the Police Federation, and the other officer got more senior representation based on his rank. That cannot be right.

I am not discussing that today, but the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Having diversity of options for officers could be useful in instances such as that.

I thank the National Police Association, formed of former federation reps and staff, for campaigning on this issue before me, in their own time. I thank the Metropolitan police’s network of women for sharing their concerns. The network’s leadership told me:

“Officers are effectively being asked to fund campaigns that they fundamentally do not support, without transparency, consultation or accountability.”

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s experience and advocacy of police officers throughout the country. In my constituency, local officers from the federation have been supporting police officers. This debate is not about them, but how can we support them by giving them more choice?

I am so pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned that, as I briefly did earlier, because I do not mean to diminish the work of many federation representatives. There are many brilliant federation representatives and leaders in some parts of the country. This debate is very much about the national organisation and whether it can reform itself.

The federation says that officers having choice of representation

“would weaken, not strengthen, the voices of police officers”

but it is hard to believe that it could be weaker than it has been in recent years. To reiterate, this would not require Government funds. It is not about striking or unionisation. The federation can remain a staff association for police officers to join if they so wish, but allowing officers to choose a staff association that truly represents their interests would send a powerful message to our police officers that their interests and voices matter.

I will finish with something mildly amusing. The Police Federation has been running a campaign called “Copped Enough: What the Police Take Home is Criminal”, which is about how police officer’s wages since 2010 have seen cuts in real terms. That is a worthy cause. Would anyone do the things I described at the start of my speech for a starting salary of £30,000? During the time of running that campaign, however, the federation has been led by someone paying themselves £700,000 a year from police officers’ subscriptions, and he was recently arrested on suspicion of corruption. To remind Members, the campaign that his organisation has been running is called “What the Police Take Home is Criminal”. It is hard not to laugh, but in truth, it is a massive slap in the face for the police officers effectively paying those ridiculous wages, whose interests the federation should be serving.

I am grateful for the Government’s engagement with the issue so far, and the Minister’s response to my letter, which was signed by colleagues across parties three weeks ago. I note that her response states that

I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for highlighting the good work done by the federation, and for sharing his personal stories and experiences. Some of the things he referred to would have been incredibly harrowing; I am not sure I could deal with any of them.

I will take a slightly different point of view. I have a very good working relationship with the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, which is well respected by police officers on the ground. I will not refer to the same things as the hon. Gentleman, because I do not have any personal experiences of them happening—as far as I am aware, they are not happening now. Maybe someone will come to me later and say, “Well, actually, this is not right”, but while the federation is not perfect, I am not perfect, nor is the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in this Chamber, and that is how we are in this world.

It is also nice to see the Minister in her place; there is no doubt that she is earning her money. She was in the Chamber all yesterday afternoon and is now back to take on another role in Westminster Hall, but she is still smiling. She has done well, and I wish her well.

The Police Federation plays a tremendous role in supporting individual members, from not only the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Royal Ulster Constabulary before them, but the corporate body of policing. Now more than ever, we need people in the know advocating for police personnel and the service in general. For years, I have taken the advice of the police and the federation, and have asked for greater resources for them as an elected representative. We advocated for them in the Assembly, of which I was a Member for 12 years before coming here, and in this place, where we have warned of a gathering storm.

We also warned about the issue of wages, which the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted. He referred to pensions, which police officers back home are having problems with as well. We warned that if our police service is starved of the financial muscle that it needs, we will lose not just numbers on a spreadsheet but safety on the streets. The Police Federation for Northern Ireland, and, indeed, each federation, has delivered a wake-up call that should ring in the ears of every Minister in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland—that our police service has been reduced to a skeleton.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Although the Police Federation serves a purpose by taking an active role in raising issues affecting frontline officers, particularly on pay and workforce issues, I am not sure that it is still fit for purpose as the sole representative body of 140,000 police officers across England and Wales.

In the last few months we have seen significant failings across the structure, with ongoing investigations into corruption and the accountability of internal processes. Taken together, those issues risk further undermining the federation’s credibility as a representative body. I feel that there has never been a better opportunity to open a discussion about ending the statutory monopoly on police representation. I believe that, so long as operational independence, integrity and safeguards are robust and protected, as a workforce the police deserve the greatest choice in who represents their interests. It really matters to me that the police in Dagenham and Rainham get the very best there is.

Having spoken to police officers in Dagenham and Rainham, I know how much pressure they are under and how they often find themselves in terrible and complex situations. I and the people of Dagenham and Rainham appreciate them greatly. With that in mind, I welcome this debate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for his work. I support the “Breaking the Monopoly” campaign, and I hope this debate encourages greater parliamentary scrutiny of section 64 of the Police Act 1996.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on securing this important debate.

I was contacted by my constituent Dan, who is a serving police officer. He tells me that the current level of support from the Police Federation is, at times, woeful, and that the best alternative support available is often found in informal peer support networks run by volunteers. Dan wants to be represented by an effective body that better serves the interests of its members and provides meaningful support on the issues that affect officers. He has serious reservations about whether the federation is delivering on its core purpose. Dan wants fundamental change to ensure fairness, choice and genuine wellbeing for those who serve.

As we have heard, the Police Federation currently holds a de facto monopoly on representation, leaving officers with little real choice and limited accountability. That situation has been made worse by recent scandals. Dan tells me that those controversies have seriously undermined confidence in the federation. As acknowledged in the policing White Paper, it is vital that police officers have confidence and faith in the institution that represents them. Officers deserve robust support.

I reiterate that the mental health and wellbeing of officers are also major concerns. Police work long, demanding shifts, often with insufficient recovery time. That is not sustainable either for the individuals concerned or for the effectiveness of the service as a whole. There is a clear need for greater support to ensure that officers are able to rest adequately between shifts and for sufficient funding, so that local services can offer proactive mental health and wellbeing check-ups, for example, every six months. Prevention and early intervention are key to maintaining a healthy and resilient workforce.

Police officers are stretched, and they are having to do so much for so little, so I urge the Minister to consider the views of hard-working police officers when considering any reforms. I am sure she will agree that it is imperative that they have an organisation that truly speaks for them, and one in which they can have the utmost confidence.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, even though it was slightly unexpected for me to be speaking today. I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for securing this important debate.

The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support the overwhelming majority of honest, hard-working members of the police. We recognise the immense value of their commitment and service, while at the same time continuing to hold forces to account to ensure that communities are kept safe. In my Chelmsford constituency, it has been a real privilege to join Essex police on patrol and to see at first hand the brilliant work they do to keep our community safe.

It is crucial that police officers are properly supported and have confidence and faith in the institution that represents them: the Police Federation of England and Wales. With police officers having no choice in their representation or where their union dues go, the federation must be effective and supportive to all officers. That is vital for retaining existing officers and increasing officer numbers, as the Government have pledged. The reforms recently announced in the policing White Paper must be implemented in the right way, and they must not come at the cost of officer welfare. The Police Federation has an important role in ensuring that.

Sadly, the ongoing police investigation into senior office holders within the Police Federation has naturally shaken confidence in the organisation. That is unfortunately the tip of the iceberg in a longer period of faltering confidence in the organisation. Accounts of poor culture identified in independent reports, particularly towards women, must be dealt with. I have heard from senior female police officers who have argued that allowing them to choose their representative body would be welcome due to these repeated failings. They have shared troubling accounts of where, irrespective of their senior police positions, they have experienced marginalisation, isolation and ridicule after raising issues within the Police Federation.

I thank you, Mrs Harris, for chairing this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for sharing his experiences and for securing this important debate. I also acknowledge the passionate and detailed contributions from Members who have offered their insight into the current and recent issues facing the Police Federation and its members. I take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to hard-working police officers across the country. The work they do, day in and day out, to keep our communities safe is second to none. They put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public, for which they deserve all our thanks and admiration.

Let us be honest: having a debate on the effectiveness of the Police Federation right now is probably not the toughest call. I will be careful not to stray into matters that are still subject to legal proceedings, but it is obvious why rank-and-file officers are deeply concerned. The arrests we have seen are extremely serious, and it is right that they are fully and properly investigated, but these issues do not sit in isolation. They add to wider concerns raised by the federation’s members, whether on governance, the handling of pension discussions or employment tribunal cases. Furthermore, legal cases involving the federation, which have been dropped, highlight concerns about free speech in the organisation, with officials seemingly being censored.

Every police officer deserves strong and effective representation. They do the toughest and most demanding of jobs, often under significant pressure and with clear restrictions to ensure political neutrality. The least they should expect is a federation that backs them properly. The federation does important work, and I am sure it supports officers well in many individual cases, but there are clearly bigger structural concerns that need to be addressed. Colleagues will remember that, at the start of the last decade, action was taken by a previous Government to push for reform of the federation. The Normington review set out a number of serious issues, while also highlighting the importance of the federation having the confidence of members, something that has come through strongly again in this debate.