|
|
|
|
Surveillance Training
3.11 At present nearly all seconded officers to the Scottish Crime Squad have previous CID experience and a high percentage have already attended initial Detective Training courses at the Scottish Police College. However, if they have not, the Scottish Crime Squad views this training as developmental and are happy to send officers. During 1998-99 only 5 officers required to attend this course. The main training abstraction affecting the Squad is in relation to surveillance training. Scottish Crime Squad officers were formerly surveillance trained in-house, but the advent of national standards and health and safety requirements led to the development of formalised training and a surveillance course has been run at the Scottish Police College since 1997. It is of three weeks duration and there is still a heavy involvement from Scottish Crime Squad trainers. However the revised standard arising from the formalised nature of the training, presented the Squad with problems, in that some officers were failing the final assessment and were therefore unable to be utilised on Squad activity. The majority of failures were due to driving standards and in May 1998 a pre-surveillance driver training course, also 3 weeks, was introduced. Acceptance on the surveillance course is dependent on passing the driving course and to date it has increased the surveillance course pass rate from 75% to 82%, although this includes officers from the forces as well as the Scottish Crime Squad.
3.12 On the introduction of the formal training, forces were encouraged by the Scottish Crime Squad only to nominate for secondment officers who had passed both courses. However nothing had been formally agreed and difficulties arose in 1998 when 2 detective sergeants from the one branch had to be returned to their forces after failing the pre-surveillance driver training course. Both officers had at the time been seconded to the Scottish Crime Squad for a number of months and not only was it an unsatisfactory situation for the running of the Squad but was also a personal setback for the officers concerned.
3.13 The matter was raised with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) Personnel and Training Standing Committee and at the beginning of January 1999 it was agreed that future selection for the Scottish Crime Squad will be conditional on successful completion of the pre-surveillance driver training course. This has still left the issue of the successful completion of the surveillance training and the Scottish Crime Squad are now adopting a policy that if officers are untrained in this discipline their actual starting date with the Squad will be after they have attended and passed the course. This has left the Scottish Crime Squad with sometimes having to delay the appointment of officers to coincide with a vacancy on a surveillance course at the Scottish Police College.
3.14 It should be noted that Strathclyde Police make it a pre-condition of secondment to the Scottish Crime Squad that both courses must be passed. HMIC commends the level of support this provides the Squad with, but acknowledges that smaller forces might have difficulty in resourcing this. While recognising the progress made HMIC considers that there remains scope for better co-ordination and synchronisation of:
HMIC would not wish to see a repeat of the situation which occurred in the Edinburgh branch between 1 January 1998 and 1 April 1999, when of the 20 officers appointed, 14 required both pre-surveillance driver training and surveillance training with a resultant abstraction of 84 weeks operational time. This did not include the time the officers had to wait to get places on courses, during which they could not be fully utilised on Scottish Crime Squad duties. HMIC encourages the Standing Committee to agree appropriate standard practice in respect of the training of crime squad officers.
Tenure
3.15 This has been a recurring issue in previous HMIC Inspection Reports and
was one that was repeatedly raised by officers throughout the course of the
inspection. The basic tenure period is 3 years and in 1994 HMIC recommended
that this be increased to five years. However, in response, the Standing Committee
decided that, while there should be no formal policy of extending tenure, requests
for individual extensions would be treated on merit. The 1996 Inspection Report
noted that this policy was being met with an inconsistent approach from forces
and was particularly concerned that expertise and specialist skills being acquired
by some officers were not being fully taken advantage of due to the restrictions
of tenure. There was evidence during the recent inspection that the situation
has now significantly improved with a more consistent approach being adopted.
During 1998/99, of the 18 requests for extensions, only 3 were not granted,
2 not being supported by the Commander and one by the officer's force. The Scottish
Crime Squad management appear to be taking a robust approach towards the issue
and officers are now selected for specialist roles within the first year of
secondment and, prior to being trained, home forces are contacted as to the
likelihood of an extension to their secondment being granted in the future.
To date 3 officers have had their secondment extended to 6 years. 3.16 The vast majority of officers spoken to during the inspection considered
that the basic 3 year secondment is too short and whereas the current 'flexible'
solution might be seen as an acceptable approach it does raise issues of its
own, for example:
3.17 Any tenure policy requires to serve three masters, the Scottish Crime Squad, the individual, and the home force, and will often of necessity come down to a workable compromise. There is no question however that the shorter the period the higher the turnover of staff, which leads to:
The specialist nature of the work of the Scottish Crime Squad is only likely to increase in future years and HMIC recommends that the basic tenure period for secondment to the Scottish Crime Squad be increased to 5 years. This should not rule out the possibility of officers returning to force earlier for career development or other appropriate reasons.
|
Recommendation 4 HMIC recommends that the basic tenure period for secondments to the Scottish Crime Squad be for a period of 5 years, subject to any adjustment which may be required to meet individual or operational needs. |
The Police Research Series Paper 106 - Tenure: Policy and Practice is a useful study on the impact of tenure and may be of value in the development and management of a new tenure policy.
Career Development
3.18 Whatever length of tenure, there is a responsibility on forces and the Scottish Crime Squad to develop the careers of officers. As tenure lengthens this becomes an increasing obligation and it is important that seconded officers are fully integrated into their forces' career development processes so that time away is not seen as time out. Although officers are subject to a common appraisal system, forces operate different developmental programmes of which the Scottish Crime Squad management need to be continually aware. Three forces operate assessment centres in which seconded officers can participate, and the remainder adopt less formal procedures. HMIC was advised that the Scottish Crime Squad management had participated in one such process by completing the relevant grading forms for officers seeking promotion, only to learn that the grades were changed on receipt by the home force. Forces also adopt different approaches as to whether approval needs to be sought for secondees performing acting rank duties while within the Scottish Crime Squad. An indication of the variations that exist is that since the last inspection, of the 10 officers promoted directly from the Scottish Crime Squad, 7 were from the one force.
Liaison with Home Forces
3.19 However long officers are seconded to the Scottish Crime Squad for, there will always be a large number regularly returning to force. The Deputy Commander takes a pro-active role in facilitating the transition of officers back to force but there were a number of issues identified surrounding the role played by forces. Only 2 forces had a formal process, through which officers were contacted and interviewed 3 months prior to the end of their secondment, to discuss their return to force and career development. Two forces had an informal procedure but the remainder left it up to the seconded officer to initiate contact. This lack of structure was an obvious concern among officers spoken to, as well as the issue of what type of duties they would return to. There was more evidence that forces were trying to place officers in roles which took account of their specialist skills and career aspirations but one force, as a matter of practice, posted all returning officers to uniform duties. For seconded officers, maintaining contact and a link with home forces is vital. Most were in receipt of force bulletins and similar documents, and depending on their job and office of work, there were varying degrees of informal contact while carrying out their Squad role. Only 2 forces made regular formal contact with their staff, one on a six monthly and the other on a yearly basis. HMIC encourages the Standing Committee to agree common good practice in respect of the personnel management of staff seconded to the Scottish Crime Squad.
Absence Management
3.20 There is no written absence management policy for the Scottish Crime Squad, primarily because sickness levels are so low it is not seen as a significant priority. Over the last year the average number of days lost per officer was 6 compared with the Scottish police service average of 11.5, and this included 2 officers off long term due to injury. The average for support staff was 7.3, compared with the Scottish average of 13.9. There is no suggestion of any lack of concern for the welfare of staff, and indeed the tight-knit nature of the syndicates and offices generated considerable support. However HMIC felt that the responsibility for ensuring staff welfare and appropriate liaison arrangements with home forces, should be documented.
Health and Safety
3.21 Generic and specialist risk assessments have been completed in relation to all activities undertaken by the Scottish Crime Squad and are currently being incorporated into the Standing Orders. As a means of 'quality control', the policy had been referred to the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) Personnel and Training Standing Committee before being adopted by the Standing Committee of Chief Constables. A similar process was used in the adoption of the equal opportunities policy and associated grievance procedure.
Support Staff
3.22 The table below details the designation and location of support staff in the Scottish Crime Squad.
3.23 As already stated the Scottish Crime Squad exists by means of a collaboration agreement part funded by central and local government. It has no power to employ staff in its own right. Because of this, support staff who work at the Osprey House, Stonehaven and Edinburgh offices, are employed by the Joint Police Boards of Strathclyde, Grampian and Lothian and Borders Police. Section 9 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, as amended by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, requires in Section 49(2), that support staff employed by a Police Authority be placed "under the direction and control of the Chief Constable". Therefore the support staff, although working entirely for the Scottish Crime Squad are technically under the direction and control of the respective Chief Constables. However in the case of the Technical Support Unit based at Dunfermline, the staff there are employed by Fife Council in their capacity as Police Authority for Fife Constabulary. HMIC's recent Review Inspection Report on Fife Constabulary comments on the blurring of the lines of responsibility (between force and police authority) in relation to support staff and recommends that such staff should unambiguously be placed under the direction and control of the Chief Constable. That report however related to personnel working for Fife Constabulary itself and did not directly address the issue of staff employed at the TSU. In examining this issue HMIC found that Fife Council appeared to discharge their role as an employer in a conscientious and professional manner, taking a close interest in the duties, health and safety, and working conditions of staff. However, this in itself created occasional tensions with operational commanders who would prefer to keep knowledge of covert operations on a tight "need to know" basis. So long as the current ambiguity regarding the employee status of Scottish Crime Squad support staff remains, management of these difficult issues will continue to require a degree of sensitivity.
Figure 6: Scottish Crime Squad support staff strength at 31/3/99
3.24 There are issues surrounding who is 'best placed' to decide upon personnel issues relating to support staff such as their roles, recruitment, employment, remuneration, pay and conditions, discipline, health and safety, access to grievance procedures etc. At present these matters are not determined by the Commander or the Standing Committee, but are negotiated through individual force Human Resource departments, and in the case of Fife, in conjunction with the Council. Leaving aside issues of operational sensitivity, the fact that the Commander of the Scottish Crime Squad has no legal control over his staff as an employer is unsatisfactory. HMIC considers that these personnel functions would be more appropriately carried out by the Scottish Crime Squad itself and the question again arises of the status and accountability framework in which the Scottish Crime Squad currently operates. HMIC recommends that a review of the alternatives to the present employee status of police and support staff in the Scottish Crime Squad be undertaken.
|
Recommendation 5 HMIC recommends that the Standing Committee of Chief Constables undertakes a review of the alternatives to the present employee status of police and support staff in the Scottish Crime Squad. |
3.25 Such a review cannot be done in isolation and the Steering Group which is currently looking at the structure of the Scottish Police Service, and which will inevitably consider the structure and status of the common police services, may be best placed to undertake this. HMIC would suggest that the above recommendation be remitted to them for consideration.
|
|
|