Ref:75/09 July 7, 2009
ACPO President, Sir Hugh Orde, speech at ACPO conference

I want to begin by thanking Peter Fahy for his welcome. I want to recognise the substantial success Peter and his team have achieved over the last few months in tackling guns, gangs and violent crime. Last year was Manchester’s first in a decade to be free of firearms homicides; while gang-related firearms saw a 92 per cent drop. It is a great example of determined joint effort between the police, the authority and the people to make their world a safer place together.

As incoming President, and having taken soundings from many in this room I am clear that my first task is to assess where ACPO fits in to the national picture. We carry out a huge amount of work and we must be satisfied that our current structure is fit for purpose and meshes closely with the work of the APA and Government. I look forward to a serious debate on this with all colleagues at our CC Council in Oct and our closed conference in November.

It seems to me that there are three key issues to address. First the incredible complexity we are faced with in policing. Second, the degree of change we see before us in the world we operate in. Third and finally, in the face of those twin challenges, ensuring that the values we hold dear remain constant and at the top of the agenda.
It’s with that last aspect I will begin and end.

Over the past seven years I have had the unique experience of leading an organisation full of people who are incredibly proud of the critical service they deliver to the people of Northern Ireland. The situation they face there is unique, but the values they live by and embody through their work are shared across the police family.

All those who take the office of constable attest to a sense of duty, a commitment to serve communities, a willingness to protect life and property, to keep the peace in full knowledge of the dangers we may face. All chief officers in this room swore the same oath, we should never forget that fact.

Constable Stephen Carroll who tragically lost his life answering an ordinary message for help from a member of the public took that oath, and when a call for help came, Stephen did what men and women across our service do routinely, every day, without thought for their own safety. He did his job.

On 13 March this year, I said this as we marked his passing, and I will repeat it today. “He will not be forgotten”.

Stephen was one of many colleagues who died in service during the year, indeed I lost 5. I know they will all “not be forgotten” by their colleagues.

Stevie was a Territorial Support Group officer engaged in community policing the night he was murdered. He was working with the local community team who were responding to an urgent call. He was protecting both his colleagues and the local people when he was shot. Together with his two colleagues in the car that wet Monday night there was over 70 years of police experience.

They knew that the threat was high, they knew that many colleagues in our intelligence and crime departments and security service, were working tirelessly behind the scenes to keep them as safe as possible. Those officers and staff were also fully engaged in community policing because through their work, they were creating the conditions that enabled us to operate on the frontline, engaging with local people in the heart of our communities.

Indeed, the murder teams that are now investigating the murder can also properly be referred to as community police.

This tragic story proves beyond doubt that different policing disciplines do not fit easily into different boxes. In discharging our duty everything we do has to be tailored to local need, informed by local knowledge and responded to by local colleagues in a bespoke way. Indeed, it took an hour to respond to that call, but the local community fully understood why local conditions meant that was the case.

The reality is that policing is highly complex, highly regulated and subject to substantial oversight. Targets remain and do not appear to be disappearing very quickly. Many are (and will remain) comfortable with bean counting because it provides a convenient lever that can be clung to. The problem is that policing cannot be reduced to plain numbers. It is just too complex for such an approach.

The shift towards confidence and feeling safe is a step change that has to be welcomed. But this approach also has challenges as defining success or failure becomes a question of interpretation rather than pass or fail. This is the reality of the world we live in. We must guard against over simplistic interpretations of such measures and also these becoming additional, rather than replacements.

We are more than happy to be judged against that backdrop, our tradition embodies ideals of service, of human rights, of accountability to law and independence. Values that meant something to Stephen Carroll and his colleagues.

And they need repeating, in this ever-changing and ever more complex world. We face competing problems and priorities. Delivering safe and secure neighbourhoods. Tackling organised crime, (locally, nationally and internationally). Confronting the threat of terrorism in our communities and disrupting terrorist activity. Policing public order and disorder, Lifting public confidence. Managing offenders on their release from custody. Protecting the weak and vulnerable in society. The list goes on; and of course there is the day job of responding to urgent calls.

To deliver all of this and more we have to work together, and as President of ACPO I will seek to work closely with our colleagues in the Superintendents Association and Police Federation. Collectively we must work to better explain and describe the daily experience of our staff in all its complexity. We must also work closely with those who hold us to account.

Policing in our tradition has always sought accountability, because it is from accountability that springs legitimacy and consent.

It seems ever more the case that policing is at the hub of an industry that relies on our existence to ply its trade. We have to get this balance right. I am yet to be inspected by any agency that has not felt the need to make a number of recommendations!

I have no difficulty with other people intervening in our world in order to give communities confidence, and reassurance. It has to be right that independent structures exist to deal with complaints, and local accountability. I firmly believe that without the office of the police ombudsman, or the policing board in Northern Ireland we would not have secured the level of cross-community confidence we currently enjoy.

We also need to understand, that we are in an age where images and information can be recorded and shared with millions in a heartbeat. Policing has to get used to that degree of “informal” public scrutiny that will focus on individual actions and individual events. Police actions will travel around the world at velocity we have never seen before.

It is within this framework that we expect our colleagues to make life and death decisions with incomplete information, with inaccurate information, with misleading and often conflicting information, or with no information at all. Yet a decision must be made, often in a split second. A non-decision, referral to another committee, debate with another organisation; for frontline officers this is not an option.

Indeed, the decision must be taken against a backdrop that may well lead to a re-examination of the case a year or so down the line when, fully armed with 20:20 hindsight, a legal or quasi-legal investigation will try to interpret what happened, and apportion blame rather than learning from any situation that has gone wrong.

We as leaders, and I as President, need to start a conversation about the complexity of policing. Let me be quite clear. This is not about hiding behind some meaningless mantra when things go wrong. Failures can be for many reasons ranging from complete incompetence through to the unexpected, unpredictable, and unknowable. When we get it wrong, we should recognise the facts quickly, we should encourage debate around the grey areas of policing and be very willing to listen to the views of those who wish to engage in the policing debate and learn from them.

Policing is as much an art as a science. It requires individual officers to take responsibility for the actions they make on behalf of the public. We have made, do make and will make mistakes. What’s important is that we are judged on our response, and how we ensure that we do better as a service. Openness and transparency are the key words here. I welcome my colleague Brian Moores’ work on managing risk which will assist in the debate with some clear principals against which we will operate.

I believe that ACPO has a critical role to play in that process. That role is to help create the conditions for effective policing to be delivered. Not to dictate, but to produce workable and realistic guidance for the routine of our business. Indeed the work in relation to local decision making currently being piloted in Leicestershire, Surrey, Staffs and West Midlands shows what can be achieved.. My only problem with this is that it is a pilot! It seems to be no more than giving trust back to the front line, allowing officers to make fair and reasoned decisions based on experience and common sense; employing discretion: the bedrock of the office of constable and an independent police service. We don’t need a name for this initiative, we could just call it “policing”

This approach requires a mature attitude to risk, a focus on what causes harm.

We must see an end to excuses for poor performance mentioning the phrases ‘health and safety’ or ‘human rights’. They are mere myths that we need to let go of. Human rights should be at the heart of policing, not an excuse for inaction. Health and safety legislation is a vital component of modern employment and applied properly it should not, and cannot be allowed to, interfere with our mission of public service. Police officers have to respond to dangerous situations and where necessary, take decisions which place themselves at risk.

As senior officers we need to ensure our officers have the confidence to make these decisions and feel empowered to do so.

Moving on….

The world is a very different place to the conference last year, I am sure Bob will touch on this but clearly our role as an association will be critical in advising all parties on policing issues. More widely I am prepared to engage with anyone who wishes to contribute to the policing debate in a constructive way. It has been a phrase that has worked for me in Northern Ireland where I have had many interesting conversations with interesting people….. and learnt from them. I see this as a vital part of my role as your President.
Of course the first message will be that the strengths of UK policing rest on the bedrock of independence and accountability

The reality and complexity of policing is not an attractive subject for those seeking sound bites. The links between community policing and highly sophisticated anti-terrorist operations are difficult and on occasions impossible to explain but critical if we are to protect communities. We need to get this message across and I welcome and suggestions on this.

We should not be surprised by this. The structure of policing which is enshrined in legislation has created an equally complex picture. 44 chiefs cover the territory, over-arching operational structures hover above this. Non-operational bodies are handed a plethora of tasks do their best to achieve consistency across the piece in terms of training and technology.

To deliver, we must have a clear understanding of relationships between police, authorities and boards, and government. The reason is simple: we carry the responsibility to deliver. If people seriously think some form of elected individual is better placed to oversee policing then the current structure, then I am very interested in the detail of how that is going to work – and happy to have that debate. Every professional bone in my body tells me it is a bad idea that could drive a coach and horses through the current model of accountability and add nothing but confusion.

I note that our partners here in the APA are keen to engage, and I am sure that our current model can be built on, but it seems to me that communities have a right to have their police service held to account in a sophisticated and apolitical way. I am pleased that Government has woken up to this by withdrawing their former proposals and look forward to debate with others who still hang on to this idea.

The future holds difficult choices. The economic recession may be in retreat or on the turn or but the new landscape beneath has not yet revealed itself. The Prime Minister has acknowledged the importance of maintaining investment in policing and that is welcome. The emerging realities of public spending will mean tough choices and we need honest conversations now with Government about priorities.

Nowhere will the impacts be more keenly felt than in service strength. We know already that many police authorities are showing signs of fiscal strain and if funding is cut in 2011 we can expect to see real difficulties in the face of a period, potentially, of rising and sustained unemployment and rising crime, The prospect of cutting both officer and staff numbers in order to keep running costs down is fast becoming a reality.

We with the APA are working hard to find efficiencies, make savings and become as lean and efficient as possible. Using technology to our advantage will play a vital role and in the exhibition which runs alongside this conference we see a glimpse of what that may look like. Better procurement and shared services can have a direct impact on the frontline officer and the public. The National Policing Improvement Agency’s supporting role, through work it is leading such as the service-wide Information Systems Improvement Strategy, is critical.

However, the current model of policing delivered through 44 police forces, is not one we would settle on if building from the ground up. Boundaries mean little but opportunity to those who harm society.

The government decided not to merge police forces and, since that time, ACPO has worked collectively to address the issues presented to us and these threats. For example, the ACPO-led counter terrorism structure which has brought together capability and capacity to address terrorism in a strategic and effective fashion, supported by Government. Many parts of the country have witnessed the emergence of regional collaboration around such areas as serious and organised crime. Similarly there is multi-force cooperation around procurement and the provision of forensic science facilities. I’m sure we can do more in this area.

I do not think the debate on mergers has “gone away”, but that is a matter for Government, until then we must not sit on our hands but continue to work together. We must look again at the strategic gap which exists around protective services, take account of the structural realities I have described, discard the language of blame and find a shared approach to solving the problem.

If we can’t meet that challenge then we stand little chance of effectively confronting the organised crime gangs whose activities, through ACPO, have now been mapped across England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

Questions for me as the new President - Are we as an organisation fit to meet all these and the many other challenges we face?

I think the answer is without doubt yes, but we must be crystal clear about what we must focus on, and how we do business in this world of ours.

ACPO is the answer to delivering consistency across the piece, being the professional voice of the service and providing the leadership to the service that it deserves.

Some of this seems quite straightforward, some less so. There is a clear need for a structure to drive forward at a national level policy work that delivers clear guidance on key policing disciplines for local application. It seems to me that in this area the phrase ‘more is less’ often applies. While there is a need to codify it (policing activity), guidance must assist and not restrict, front line officers from taking the decisions we ask them to do.

We must guard against setting ourselves up to fail, by trying to second guess every possible, probable or improbable outcome of imprecise and complex events which will never fit some standard definition. Our role is to ensure colleagues dealing with these crises have the confidence to make decisions unfettered by over-complicated rules created in the calm of an office and ignoring the reality of policing.

Against the challenge and change we encounter there has been no greater time of need for the constant focal point for delivery in the public interest that ACPO provides. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is moving in a new direction, independent of the service and styled as ‘fierce advocate’ of the public interest. A new generation of police leaders must be nurtured and supported from within, for both policing and the public. I see this as a primary role for us, to help and develop and learn from each other.

We must underline our objection to any notion that interferes with our operational independence. In the final analysis chiefs should be answerable to the law and the law alone. If independence is to be preserved, a serious debate needs to be started to ensure that any proposals that shift us towards “employee” status are fiercely resisted. And I will resist them. We are appointed to the rank by Police Authorities, and if performance over recent years is the benchmark against which we should be judged, then it has been quite a successful process.

Chief Officers should be proud of what they have achieved through ACPO.I fully appreciate that I am the only full time member of ACPO and I rely on your commitment to national work that is in addition to your day job. Trivialising those achievements is a dangerous game, without first considering how else the law and order gap between local police forces and a central government should be filled. The world has been strangely silent on alternative models to the Association of Chief Police Officers.

However, we have an opportunity now to take a fresh look at what we want from our organisation and part of my promise to you is to listen, to go around the regions (talk to ACC’s Commanders..), so that all in ACPO have a say in how we do business.

ACPO is first and foremost part of our great service, with our shared values, ideals and principles ingrained within. The words ‘public interest’ must be stamped across everything we do. If the test is not met at the first glance, then searching questions follow about our efforts and undertakings. Our standards and principles must be clear and the need for our existence unambiguous. People need to know what we do and why we do it.

As leaders we are fortunate and privileged to command people such as Stevie Carroll and I am determined that during my time as President, we will do everything in our ability to empower our colleagues to deliver an effective service to all communities, people like Stevie who are out there keeping people safe. They have an absolute right to look to us for the resources, support, training and guidance to do their job. My pledge is that I will strive to ensure that the professional voice of the service is heard loud and clear so that all decisions made on policing are informed by those who understand the service, because they command the service.

ENDS

Notes for Editors

• The ACPO Press Office can be contacted via 020 7084 8946/47/48 (office hours) or via 07803 903686 (out of office hours).

• The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is an independent, professionally led strategic body. In the public interest and, in equal and active partnership with Government and the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO leads and co-ordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In times of national need ACPO, on behalf of all chief officers, coordinates the strategic policing response.

• ACPO’s 341 members are police officers of Assistant Chief Constable rank (Commanders in the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police) and above, and senior police staff managers, in the 44 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and other forces such as British Transport Police and States of Jersey Police.