DEVOLVING POLICING TO THE WELSH ASSEMBLY.

An Authority's major functions are to run an effective and efficient force and to monitor how complaints are dealt with. The PA is also the only body with the statutory task of disciplining the force's senior officers. A PA is part of tri-partite arrangement between Home Office, and Chief Constables. (Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary is to a lesser extent part of the power-sharing scenario and are mostly retired chief constables paid to advice Home Office.) Sharing responsibility for policing means than no one is actually accountable for mismanagement or poor administration or for errors. I accept that I have only worked for one PA and,served on the North Wales P A, but I believe that the PA system is deeply flawed and PAs see protecting its chief officers.

Any criticism is made with a view to being positive, not negative as I am more interested in ensuring that Police Authorities become more accountable and responsible for their actions. Generally, PA's do not have enough knowledge of how forces operate and therefore happily accept all that they are told by senior officers.

I do not think that JP' s, some Masons are best suited to be members as there is always a very close link between the police and the magistracy. Finding the idea individual to serve on a Police Authority is not going to be easy. Training may assist.

Chief Constables are enormously powerful. The operational role of a chief officer cannot be challenged easily, if at all. Home Office can require a Chief Constable to resign but it is a rarely used power.

The PA sets the police precept and the local authority merely collects it with council rates. The Chief Constable of North Wales threw down the challenge though the press the year before last, that unless the public was prepared to increase its contributions, no guarantee could be given that he would be able to provide an effective service. A poll held by a local paper gave a majority of people prepared to increase local rates. His Police Authority meekly acquiesces to the CC's demand ,yet could give no guarantee that the public would see any improvement in services. Last year, the exercise was repeated.

North Wales policing costs have rocketed in the past six years and it is for the PA to determine what is needed and not for a begging bowl approach by a controversial chief constable through the press. This sets a dangerous precedent, as confidence will be lost when promises are broken.

South Wales ports and Southampton use private security firms paid for by the Port Authorities. Why should North Wales need to employ the more expensive police resource? This sort of anomaly could be challenged by the Assembly to ensure consistency across all four forces and Police Authorities should be asked to justify such varied approaches to port security.

In 1998, the Association of Police Authorities suggested that the criterion for senior officer selection needed radical overhaul. Recently, Home Office indicated dissatisfaction with some of its senior police personnel and controversial proposals have appeared in the press such as calling for performance related pay, more money to command particularly difficult areas and even recruiting senior officers from abroad. None of these proposals will be effective unless the force's ruling body is more up to the job. Policing needs to be looked at in the round; what are the messages coming from Home Office? How impartial is the Inspectorate, are chief officers good managers and do PAs monitor their forces or are they just cosy Chief Constable Supporters' clubs? Evidence shows that support for senior officers takes precedence over impartial governance.

Every force should compile and publish much more data on performance and staffing issues; gender balance data, record of internal grievance procedures, discrimination and harassment claims both for police and civilian staff. Sickness rates and the number of medical retirements should also be available as these statistics are useful tools to determine the health and morale of a work force.

The cost of internal grievances and compensation should be calculated and fully available to the public. (Identity of individuals could be safeguarded).

Again, in 1988, the Association of Police Authorities admitted the subject of data collection was topical but it had no plans to instigate a central collection of these figures. The lead body for Police Authorities are not pressing for radical change and that is worrying.

Home Office have continually ducked the data dissemination issue and extensive correspondence I'd had with the Permanent Secretary has been inconclusive. It's very clear that gender balance data is not going to be released. The Welsh Assembly could do things differently.

The Welsh Assembly should ensure that all statistics; those of a personnel nature as well as robust details of crimes committed and clear up rates must be published regularly. The cost of civil actions is published quarterly, why not the cost of medical retirements too?

As the Assembly has responsibility for equal opportunity matters across Wales, devolved policing would finally mean that officers and civilians could enjoy the benefits of the Assembly's commitment to equality opportunities policy across Wales. Compilation of this data-would provide insight into how forces treat their most valuable staff and help to ensure fair treatment and thus, better staff retention.

As approximately 75% of a force budget goes into salaries and retirement pensions, looking after serving police and civilians is vital. Why staff leave the service should be monitored carefully by PAs.

The cost of police retirement pensions places a huge and growing annual burden on Police Authorities as no central fund exists. Home Office deliberated for three years on a new means of resolving the pension crisis but failed to find a solution. On a smaller scale, perhaps new ways can be found within Wales to look again at the problem?

I turn now to the weaknesses to be found within the administration of most Police Authorities, certainly the NW PA.

The CC preferred to give verbal up-dates on the progress of this serious civil action. The acquiescence of PA members to this illustrates the weakness of the current system. Finally, when a court date was close, the Authority was given eight pages that had to be read within minutes during the meeting and then it was collected.

As the ex-officer's case was strong and the CC was soon to be called before the presiding judge to explain why vital papers had gone missing from force HQ, it seemed sensible to settle and spare the public further cost.

On this occasion details of the settlement was published. The taxpayer footed the entire bill of £107.000 as the force insurers refused to pay. Because of the way that information was imparted to the Authority, it was not clear at the time of agreeing to settle that the force insurers were not prepared to meet any of the substantial costs.

No one pressed for the reason why the force insurers were allowed to escape financial responsibility! The Authority should have been briefed by a proper report served within the normal committee papers time scales.

The PA sought no inquiry into how police impropriety had led to this large legal settlement and as a result no lessons for the future were leaned. Such capitulation should have galvanised the PA into seeking a disciplinary review.

Could the Welsh Assembly have intervened and lessened the impact of a long delayed civil action? Under a devolved policing arrangement, a process for close monitoring of legal actions could be instigated. Provisions should be made to allow exploration of early settlements option to avoid excessive legal bills that are invariably settled.

The District Auditor was and remains powerless to intervene and his role is confined to looking into events after settlement. This is inept and unsatisfactory particularly as any criticism of PA administration is merely reported only back to the Authority and not made public.

The Auditor General will take over the police auditing function in 2005 and I trust this unacceptable situation will be addressed.

The next case highlights many more weaknesses in the Police Authority administration in North Wales. A Police Authority can treat an employee unfairly and each PA member is protected from any redress by anyone or other agency, apart from using the unwieldy industrial tribunal system.

PA members can show bias and lack of duty of care and yet can continue to sit as JPs or go on to hold other important public office regardless of how poorly they have conducted themselves as Authority members.

One reason why Labour Councillors wrote to Home office was over their concern with an unacceptable conflict of interest between the function of Head of Legal Services, (HLS) who was also legal adviser to and employee of the Police Authority, (not the Chief Constable) and a division of loyalty.

HLS routinely advised the chief officers of legal matters relating to defending the force from civil actions and advised the PA about complaints from the public made against the senior officers. Note, that the PA is the only Discipline Authority for ACPO ranks.

None of the many complaints from the public over the behaviour of senior officers ever led to a formal investigation. Head of Legal Services and the Clerk to the PA were performing their gate keeping roles well. The Clerk, who was also the Chief Executive of Anglesey lost credibility when it was finally revealed that he was under investigation by the NWP Fraud Squad. This important fact should not have been withheld from members, as it was material to how he performed his job. He quietly resigned. It was little wonder that no complaint against senior officers was ever investigated!

Cynical comment abounded that the Clerk would not wish to rock any boats as Monitoring Officer whilst he, himself was under investigation by the force, whose PA he briefed.

Moving on, in January 1999, the HLS sent a sensitive report detailing civil actions against the force to the Authority without having the contents cleared by the chiefs. She was doing her job in this instance and was entitled to act as she did. She was immediately served with a memo that was a technical constructive dismissal. Her job description was changed and several staff she had commanded was removed. Both her roles became vulnerable.

She sought my advice on the premise that as I was her employer i.e. member of the PA. Visiting me was seen as treachery as I was not a compliant PA member. The CC commenced an investigation on how she worked and she was duly suspended followed by steps to discipline her. One charge stated that she had visited my house and handed over confidential documents. No one asked me for a statement and in the circumstances, that particular charge could not have been sustained. She duly lodged an internal grievance procedure against the Chief for harassment. She had not pursued her constructive dismissal hoping to mend fences with senior officers.

A Grievance panel chaired by the PA Chair was convened. The Chair was a serving JP and holder of some position in magistracy circles, who should have respected impartiality. The Panel dismissed her grievance against the Chief Constable. The PAs refusal to support its own employee was a grave and flawed decision. It flew in the face of a recommendation of an independent consultant, employed by the Authority to assess the facts of her case. The adviser wrote that she had a strong case and the matter should be resolved and quickly in her favour.

With her dismissed internal grievance, suspension followed in September or November 1999. Until the affair was finally settled in August 2002, she was on full pay and furthermore, others had to be employed to perform the HLS role in her absence.

Could the WA ensure a speedier conclusion to this sort of internal personnel dispute at large public expense?

Her union commenced legal action on her behalf and HLS reported sick which made it impossible to put her before a Discipline Panel. How it could be perceived that she could obtain justice when the "Grievance Panel" had shown such bias by "'siding with the Chief Constable: desperate to get rid of her because of the "leaked " report and her visit to me is not known? The PA closed ranks and as they knew much of the case against her before the hearing, placed HLS in an impossible position. For reasons of his own, the Clerk did nothing to redress this unacceptable situation. Yet again, the District Auditor was powerless to intervene despite escalating legal fees and on-costs.

£9000 was spent for the report recommending that her conduct warranted recourse to discipline.

The full cost of legal fees and settlement is not known and she was given a confidential settlement in August 2002. I believe I precipitated this climb-down when I queried how the charge of visiting me was provable without a statement from me. Suddenly, she was instructed to return to work by fax although it was not clear if all discipline had been dropped. This confidential settlement was announced in August 2002 and her union withdrew the IT proceedings. She had been suspended for over 20 months on full pay and the PA had seemingly indulged in a costly and indefensible vendetta.

The Auditor General for Wales has criticised confidential settlements and the Assembly has supported his stance. As policing is not devolved, the WA has no power to prevent PA's from using them.

This travesty raises many questions. The Chair who ignored the advice of an independent assessor still sits as a JP. Is the public entitled to know not only that he showed her no duty of care~,but also seems susceptible to corporate/personal bias?

A "how to complain" leaflet was obligingly enclosed. Thus, an employee is suspended to oblige the former Chief Constable who wanted to terminate the employee's contract for actually doing her job properly. She suffered stress and humiliation and no member is held OR CAN BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.

The Clerk cannot and surely will not investigate himself. I complained to the Law Society about his conduct but failed too. The Law Society stated that it has no authority to adjudicate over the correctness or otherwise of the quality of the legal advice. I was advised to place my grievance before the PA, as it was their duty to call their Clerk to account. As the Clerk's function is to advise and monitor the actions of the PA, it was disingenuous, in fact insulting of the Law Society to have suggested this pathetic action!

No PA could really question the Clerk as it is on his/her advice that the PA acts. A .PA can call for and in fact did use outside legal advice. However, only if a member were well versed: in police procedures would a member have the courage to challenge the Clerk's advice to the Authority.

The majority could simply out-vote any challenge to the Clerk's advice. The jointly held Monitoring Officer/Legal Adviser role makes is virtually impossible anyway.

The Clerk was dreadfully compromised. He had worked with HLS as an equal and thus would have himself been party to events that led to her facing discipline. He led on handling the discipline issues and was the contact with her union representative. He used the same law firm to advice him on discipline against HKLS that had advised HLS on her other force/civil action/complaints against senior officers.

With such multi-faceted conflict of interest the chance of a just and fair outcome was negligible.

The maligned DC case cost NW taxpayers £107.000. The full costs of the 21-month suspension of the HLS are unknown but the bill could exceed a million pounds. PA-members who are "untouchable" denied HLS care or support.

Both cases were the subject of verbal reports to the PA. The practice of accepting verbal reports from senior officers when matters are sensitive or potentially embarrassing to the force: and that are not even properly minuted, gives scope for poor administration and leaves public and PA employee without proper protection.

Confidentiality clauses are unacceptable to the Auditor General in Wales and yet are commonplace in policing circles. No lessons seem to be learned and bad management both by senior officers and Police Authority goes unchallenged. A PA behaved with bias and because of lack of documentation and secrecy, the cycle of non-accountability will be perpetuated.

It is against the public interest that this state of affairs is tolerated.

Local Authorities do not use verbal reports to brief their committees. The WA could outlaw this practice.

I repeat, there is no current means of challenging the decisions of a PA. The Local Government Ombudsman states he has no locus. Home Office will not interfere in the decisions of a PA and the Lord Chancellor has decreed that PA's are the responsibility of Home Office. Home office have stated that any complaint must be raised with the police under the Complaints Procedure and twice now have refused to involve itself in PA business.

PA must be accountable to some agency. The District Auditor's report in the HLS affair should be publicised. The public should know why unquantifiable amounts of money are being spent on legal fees & confidential settlements.

No "force" or "Authority" has an intrinsic rightness or moral ascendancy and devolving policing to the WA could redress this serious weakness in transparency and accountability.

With policing devolved, the Assembly should become that accountable body. The WA could work with the Auditor General to ensure there is openness and proper scrutiny of PA actions. Where a PA acts with bias, its members should not be free to operate in other spheres of public influence.

The Assembly could request updates on internal staff disputes and review costs of such disputes as a means of encouraging fast track litigation. Delays are always costly.

Forces should not use the same external law firms continually and never where there is the risk of conflicting advice. Consideration should be given to changing them and have a tendering procedure.

The Monitoring officer role must be made truly independent with the incumbent of sufficient experience and status to perform the role.

As stated, the Assembly should demand the publication of a full range of statistics. Wales could lead the way by ensuring that these statistics are regularly available, thereby providing comparisons in performance between forces.

All PA members should publish their contact details and level of remuneration received. PA members' statement of interests should be widely published and available on the Internet and in libraries.

Selection of PA' members under the Home Office appointments scheme should be consistent and serving members should be interviewed, when seeking re-appointment again and should not given preferential treatment over new applicants.

OPERATIONAL control must remain with the chief officer but there must be greater clarity over clear up rates, crimes recorded and targets achieved. What is considered "successful" should be capable of definition.

The role of the HMI needs to be properly costed. Is this function needed in Wales in the WA assumes a policing responsibility.

The WA should be able to cost not only the audit function but also all policing activity to ensure that across the board, value for money is achieved.

There is duplication of joint funding for drugs and alcohol programmes. Home Office funds certain elements, as does the Health and Social Services budget and I do not think there is any clear audit trail as to who pays for what scheme or service. NWP fund a drugs rehab programme of some description and it could be argued that the public is paying twice. Once for the ever-increasing police precept and again in its taxes. The WA must give taxpayer value for money in these jointly funded initiatives.

Devolved policing will question the need for 42 Welsh MPs. Some are necessary but an AM and an MP per constituency is not sustainable particularly as the Welsh Assembly has taken over most of the work of Welsh M's.

Obj. One funding will soon be exhausted and projects such as the Wales Millennium Centre and Botanical Gardens will increase budgetary demands. Therefore, some relief to the taxpayer in cutting back on an underused tier of government in Wales would ease the financial burden.