Branch chairs say PFEW is sub-standard

The chair of the West Midlands Police Federation has told a parliamentary committee that his national organisation is not fit-for-purpose.

Ian Edwards said Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) members’ isolation from branch issues was one of the reasons for a culture failure highlighted by the independent review of the PFEW, conducted by Sir David Normington.

This review, published in January 2014, found failings in the culture, structure and financial accountability of the PFEW. It also highlighted that many branches had controversial number two accounts and held millions of pounds of which no details were published.

Speaking to the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC), which began its inquiry into reforms of the PFEW in response to the review on Tuesday (April 1), Mr Edwards admitted he did not feel his organisation was currently up to standard.

“We need to be fit-for-purpose and I don’t think we are.”

Out of the 36 recommendations that came from the Normington review, Mr Edwards said that his branch believed 17 recommendations were acceptable (coded green), 16 needed work (coded amber) and three were unacceptable (coded red).

The committee questioned Mr Edwards on his branch’s finances; despite having net assets of around £2.6 million, he felt that a reduction in membership fees by 25 per cent, subsidised by the branch, a key recommendation on the Normington review, was unacceptable. This, he said, would mean the West Midlands branch would be making a small loss by 2018.

Also appearing before the committee, John Tulley, chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said his organisation had an accumulated wealth of £4.6 million.

He said the Metropolitan Police Federation had accepted 13 of 36 recommendations, with 15 that are amber and eight that are red. Both men offered to send full lists of which recommendations their organisations had accepted to the committee.

Mr Tulley added: “I can’t speak for other federations, it is clear that there are some federations that do have number two accounts and don’t publish them. I was surprised to hear that other parts of federation are less transparent than we are.”

Both men agreed with the recommendation that the culture of the PFEW was in need of a fundamental change. Mr Edwards said: “Locally I believe members understand what we do, but there is a communication issue between local and national levels.

“I can’t say who is to blame – local federation reps speak to members daily; it is probably the removal of the federation reps into a central committee who don’t hear the voices of the members on a daily basis.”

Mr Tulley said: “It is clear to us in the Met Federation that there is a need for change, it is important that we don’t knee-jerk and that we get it right first time around; it is difficult to pinpoint what the issue may be, but as Mr Edwards says, a removal of members to the national committee may be partly responsible.”

The HASC is looking to report on the PFEW reforms by the end of May.