The police have published their response online at:

http://www.cambs.police.uk/about/foi/disclosure/PUB0228-2009.pdf

Cambridgeshire Police have ignored circular 02/2009.

I agree that the use of the word “Traffic” on prominently on the PCSO uniforms leads to confusion. I think the police ought be following these “determinations” from the Home Office. As you point out these determinations have been given the force of law by the act.

While I think the “Traffic” wording on PCSO uniforms is very misleading and very poorly understood by the public, it is, on its own, a relatively minor issue (that’s not to say I’m not very keen to get it fixed!). To me the key element about what you have raised is that it is yet another area where Cambridgeshire police are ignoring the Home Office, ignoring the structures set up to keep them under democratic control. Others include:

1. PACE Codes, the safeguards which protect us when we are stopped, arrested, locked up and interviewed. Cambs police say these are voluntary. In particular they currently refuse to issue stop and account receipts - even though the new PACE codes which came into force on Jan 1 2009 make stop and account a very simple procedure to document (the long form has been abolished).
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/stop-and-account-compliance-with-pace-codes-in-cambridge.html

2. Cambridgeshire police refuse to use a national common system for sharing information about at-risk children; members of the police authority have raised concerns about this, particularly as schools, social services and others in the area would like the police to work with them better.
The reason given by the police for not using the form is farcical; they say essentially a police officer can’t deal with a form on which they are allowed to leave blank spaces. The police say that the fact the “Common Assessment Framework form” contains sections on health and education means that officers would end up wasting their time finding information to put in these sections (rather than leaving them).
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridgeshire-police-authority-december-2008.html

With respect to PCSO uniforms one big problem I have seen with them is that many people cannot distinguish them from police officers. This is problematic when people actually want the officer to do something, as in most cases a PCSO is useless. PCSOs standing by as there is disorder and lawbreaking going on around them damages people’s opinion of the police. I think we need more fully trained and empowered police. Some PCs are paid less than PCSOs so this need not have an additional cost, if we had a police service where there were a larger number of PCs who stayed at that rank for a longer time I believe a large number of benefits would arise from having more experienced individuals, not seeking rapid promotion, as PCs.

Therefore, a PCSO wearing the “Traffic” flashes as referred to in the answer to the FoI question originally posed is not in the uniform prescribed in the Home Secretary’s “determination” and hence is not acting lawfully.

This is about something which is not being done in Cambridge - fly-tipping is not being effectively tackled and I am questioning why our PCSOs have not been given the same ability to tackle fly-tipping as PCSOs elsewhere.

The situation where the people of Cambridgeshire had no way of finding out what powers had been given to their PCSOs was ridiculous, there is still no easy way to find out the current situation.

The police do not generally consider it part of their role to advise you of their powers, and your rights when they are dealing with you. It is very important that if we are going to give powers of the state to these PCSOs, including the ability to administer summary justice via fixed penalty tickets that we all know what powers they have.

Knowing what powers PCSOs have is also a pre-requisite for questioning if PCSOs are good value for money; and considering if we should instead have more police officers. There is not a significant cost difference and think that having a larger core of police constables, who stay police constables in an area for a long period of time would be desirable. We don’t need all our PCs to be moving around regularly and aiming for rapid promotion.

The two documents which I have been sent appear to be out of date. It is not clear if the agreements the released documents describe have been renewed and are currently in effect.

I find it very surprising that Cambridgeshire Constabulary do not hold a copy of an agreement with Huntingdonshire District Council as a draft of that agreement is available (http://applications.huntsdc.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=11317).

The agreement with Cambridge City Council states:

“The Parties shall enter into negotiations with the aim of agreeing further terms with respect to the issuing of fixed penalty notices in relation to offences with respect to graffiti and littering; the further terms would authorise the issue of these notices by the police community support officers on behalf of the Council”

As the police state they do not hold any other information in relation to my request this implies these negotiations were not successful and no agreement on the issuing of fixed penalty notices was reached.

Dear Richard,

We apologise for the August and September FOI’s not being available. There
are a few technical issues but we will have them published very soon..

Kind regards,
Cambridgeshire Constabulary.

The links to documents from the August and September FOI disclosure logs do not work. Logs from earlier months do work.

Mr Wilkins and Olive Main,

I am writing you as relevant members of the Police Authority. I am aware that one of the roles the police authority fulfills is reviewing Cambridgeshire Police’s compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. A lot of time, effort and money apparently goes into attempting compliance and auditing of the Police’s performance in meeting its duties under the act. I would like to draw your attention to the fact the police are currently informing those requesting information that it will take around two months for their request to be processed whereas the act requires a response to be made as rapidly as possible and in any case within twenty working days:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/cambridgeshire_constabulary

In the case of my request for the powers of PCSOs in Cambridge to be released, I made the formal FOI request via the Whatdotheyknow.com website which puts the correspondence and released material in the public domain only after spending many months informally seeking the release of the information. For example on the 12th of September 2007 I got a commitment from the Chief Constable live on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire to publish the powers on the police website as other forces do however this was not followed up with action. I wrote to both of you on the 6th of October 2007 suggesting you ask the Chief Constable to follow up on her commitment.

I find it hard to get information out of the police, they appear to be institutionally secretive. As you can see from the Whatdotheyknow.com link it is not only my requests which are subject to illegal delays. I also note that the leader of Cambridge City Council has been seeking the publication of the membership, dates, and minutes of the police run “Neighborhood Action Group” meetings in Cambridge for a number of months now, again without success. I doubt he has resorted to citing the FOI act in his requests, but he shouldn’t have to, all requests for information should be dealt with under the terms of the act, it should have resulted in a culture change in public authorities, and in the case of Cambridgeshire Police it hasn’t.

I hope this email helps bring some more depth and “colour” next time you are reviewing a bland table of numbers detailing the police force’s FOI compliance performance.