THE REAL HANDCUFFS

Excess Bureaucracy, Inadequate Technology And The Police

The parliamentary politics surrounding the Police Reform Bill this week
must appear to be an abstract process to those who have to deal with
disorder on the streets.

The debate as to exactly how much authority the Home Secretary should have
to impose an "action plan" on chief constables, while not unimportant in
terms of where accountability lies, is really an argument about what to do
about relative failure rather than about how to promote absolute success.

By themselves, many of the measures which David Blunkett is promoting will
not reduce either the rate of crime or the fear of crime.

But one idea in particular, that of creating a body of community support
officers, could have an impact on the quality of policing.

Over the next few days T2 will publish a set of articles on the police,
written by Alice Miles, which looks at crime from the perspective of the
officer. The series, starting with an examination of the day-to-day
problems of modern policing, demonstrates that the law-abiding public can
be as much of a handicap to the police as the criminal fraternity. An
enormous amount of their time is taken up acting essentially as social
workers with helmets.

The majority of 999 calls are of no merit, while many requests directed at
officers on the beat are more related to the psychological concerns of
citizens than the presence of criminality. Drink and drug abuse fuels most
violent incidents.

Much of this is unavoidable. What should not be unavoidable, however, is
the amount of bureaucracy involved in processing the details associated
with arrests. The typical officer, for example, spends as much time on
paperwork as patrolling. It takes on average more than three hours to deal
with the administration of the drunk picked up off the pavement.

The inevitable consequence is that the visible presence of the police is
diminished. Civilian support staff could take over much of this
bureaucratic burden at police stations and enable police officers to return
to their duties. Equally, much of the "social work" parts of policing could
be undertaken by new community support officers.

There is no persuasive reason why, despite vocal objections from the Police
Federation which echo those made when traffic wardens were first suggested,
they should not be introduced as swiftly as possible.

The other element which this survey highlights is the unimpressive state of
information technology available to most forces.

What is regarded as quite a sophisticated computer system in this part of
the public sector would be deemed primitive in all but a few large private
companies.

Various initiatives to promote "joined-up thinking" on these matters have
run into the sand. Yet Downing Street has ambitious plans to encourage
DNA-based crime-fighting. Poor technology is partly the result of
inadequate procurement but is also, in truth, reinforced by a cultural
resistance from officers with no interest in computers.

A different mentality is as important here as extra money.

These basic factors a " excess bureaucracy and inadequate technology a "
are far more important than other policy aspects which attract the
attention of ministers and officials.

The latest plan for so-called "spidergrams", a means of presenting what
will be highly simplified information as to how police forces compare with
one another, is welcome as a matter of principle but is unlikely to work
wonders by itself.

There are distinct limits to the degree that any Home Secretary sitting in
Whitehall can serve as a sort of national sheriff, regardless of the formal
powers and resources which might be available.

The struggle against crime and social disorder ultimately has to be fought
not in the House of Lords, but on urban streets and within police stations.