Page 28 - Top Cover Issue 6

28 TOP COVER ISSUE 6

There has been much in the press recently about the Police Federation and the way it
operates. There have also been raised eyebrows and heavy criticism following the recent
report by Sir David Normington, who has made several recommendations that will help
bring the Federation back in line with its membership. The Federation was set up by an
act of parliament in 1919, so there’s no question a revamp is long overdue.

Top Cover speaks to Steve White the Vice Chair, one of the people tasked with finding
a way to implement the recommended changes without alienating the members, the
politicians or the public. It is a delicate balancing act.
When we met Steve at his Leatherhead office to grill him on the inner workings of the
Police Federation, it emerged that the former beat cop from Bristol actually has a pretty
tough job on his hands. Away from home Sunday to Friday most weeks, Steve can find
himself bending the ear of the Prime Minister one day or dealing with the media fall out
of a gruesome death in custody the next.

Was the review into the Police Federation by Sir David operates. What is happening right now to change?
Normington a good idea in hindsight?
The most important thing to understand is that the Independent
Yes. There was a misconception that the Review was set up as a review has provided a skeleton of ideas of how to operate in future.
direct consequence of the Andrew Mitchell affair in 2012, and It’s for us, the reps and members, to decide what the detail is going
that’s not the case. The Joint Central Committee (the policy making to be. There are only 36 recommendations; it’s not a huge report
body made up of national reps) had already been talking about because it’s leaving the details to us. It’s not something that is
reforming the way the Federation is funded and structured. That being done to us, we are recognising the need to change.
conversation had been going on for years; it was not a knee jerk There are gaps in our ability to communicate with members but the
reaction. The Federation has been this way since 1919, and hasn’t whole process is going to take time – changing primary legislation
moved with the rest of the world. Back then the government didn’t is going to take a couple of years but we can start doing some stuff
want the police to have too much power, but realised we needed early on. At our conference in May we will start the process, we
some representation, so basically the Federation was set up to fail should have an idea by then and we can start to put the theory
but against the odds we have made it work. into practice.
In 2011 The Winsor Review meant police pay and conditions
degraded at a pace we had never had to deal with as an organisation Do you think that conditions of service for Federation
before. There is no question in my mind that we need to change. Representatives need to be looked at, as some posts attract
huge additional payments and enhanced pensions?
What was your first impression when you became Vice Chair?
Some branch boards give their reps extra pay, but the review says
The way the Federation was set up meant it wasn’t meeting there needs to be national guidelines, and the value needs to
members’ needs and could not respond effectively enough. That be examined. A lot of it revolves around transparency. There are
was another driver to make us take a long, hard look at ourselves, rumours that people here at Leatherhead gets vast sums of money,
and I happened to join the national Fed at that time. I’d been but it’s nonsense. Enhancements are agreed by conference but
a Fed Rep since 2001 at my home branch in Avon and Somerset only for national positions. It isn’t about individual posts, it’s about
but when I came to my first meeting there was no question that the organisation agreeing commonality over who gets paid what.
a change was needed. I thought it was a miracle how successfully The key is transparency otherwise rumours continue.
people had been working in their roles given the structural barriers
to getting work done. Can you understand the frustrations felt by your members
In terms of some major issues we were able to be persuasive and when they read stories in newspapers about the exploits of Fed
show how powerful we could be, we were able to be united and be Reps and they themselves are working shifts and struggling to
effective for our members. There were structural barriers to making make ends meet following massive cuts in pay?
decisions yet the reform agenda was moving rapidly so we were
holding extraordinary committee meetings almost every other Yes, our ability to communicate with members is almost non-
week in order to get the work done. We were having to work within existent. I led the committee to produce an App to send them
the rules we had been given when the Federation was created information, it’s the first time we’ve started to go down that route
almost a century ago. It is very unusual for a staff association to because we have no mechanism to tell people about our work.
exist within the law, but the way we do business is written in an Traditionally we were reliant on the branches but information
act of parliament so we can’t just ignore it. We have to be relevant gets diluted or not delivered at all, it’s not an effective way of
to our members, to be more than just an insurance policy. They communicating. It’s impossible to persuade members that we’re
should want to join because of the benefits it brings. I am totally fighting for them if we’re unable to tell them. We’re in the process
convinced there has to be change. of creating a national database – we know how many members we
have but we don’t know who they are because they pay their local
The review has in parts been scathing about how the Federation branch boards not us. Members think we just provide solicitors but