DPF Briefing

March 2001

Making The Case

Federation Meets Armed Forces HOC Committee

At the end of January it was the turn of the DPF to give its evidence to the House of Commons Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. The Bill contains legislative proposals which will empower MDP officers to act as constables when outside their current jurisdictional limits.

The proposals are not expansive by any means but at least our officers will now be covered for emergency incidents where prompt police action is required. As before, protocols agreed with local Home Department Forces will be agreed or amended to take account of the proposed legislation.

At the Committee meeting in the House, the Federation was represented by its Chairman, Paul Trickey and Vice-Chairman, Tom Cullen (Dave King being on sick leave). Their contribution came immediately after the evidence of Colin McKerracher, a member of ACPOS General Policing Standing Committee, Association of Police Officers.

Mr McKerracher’s evidence was supportive of the new proposals but onlookers might have thought that his continued reference to protocols to clarify what the demarcation lines would be, indicated a distinct lack of enthusiasm. This became an area which the various members of the Committee, under its Chairperson, Rachel Squire, continually visited. Selective quoting by the Committee from a letter to them by Sir Roy Cameron, Chief Constable of Lothian & Borders Police was used as a prompt for questions to Mr McKerracher and clearly there are some in ACPO who think that the powers of citizen’s arrest should be adequate for the MDP.

It was against that background that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman took their seats before the Committee. Both Paul and Tom took the initial questioning as an opportunity to get across the message that the MDP was not looking to take over the jobs of Home Department police services but simply to extend the law in order to protect officers. Examples were given where officers had come across incidents in London and in country areas where police action was required, yet the officers had no jurisdiction.

Other criticisms such as the quality of MDP training vis-à-vis the Home Department were strongly rejected by Tom who was able to tell the Committee that the training of the MDP was identical to that of Home Office police. The DPF evidence was not defensive and emphasised that their role was complementary to Home Office police. Again an interesting statistic was made by our team when they pointed out that MDP assistance had been requested on average 3,000 times a year to respond to incidents because Home Office police were unable to react in time.

To suggestions that more extensive use of MDP might mean that there would be reduced Home Office police, Paul made it clear that he thought the MDP would not tolerate that. He did not see MDP officers being used as routine back-up to the Home Office police. Such a misuse of the MDP would, if necessary, be taken up by the Federation.

The essence of the Federation message was fully picked up by the Committee that our priority was the protection of officers. Members again and again sought clarification as to the circumstances in which MDP officers were unable to assist. The recent fuel crisis was such an example when officers were unable to provide assistance other than as citizens in escorting tankers or manning retail petrol stations. Mutual assistance is of course two way and Greenham Common and Molesworth were cited as examples when the MDP had to seek support from the local constabularies.

At the end of the session, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman felt content that (at long last!) the opportunity was available to regularise what has been a very unsatisfactory situation. As Chairman Paul Trickey said afterwards: “Our objective was to get across the message that we were looking for officer protection at all times when required to act as police officers; that we certainly were not after anyone’s job and that the MDP is a professional and as well-trained force as any.”

The Federation will continue to make this case as the Bill progresses through the House.