Police Community Support Officrs and their role must not be misunderstood

First of all, I’d like to make the following observations. PCSOs are not a replacement for police officers. They are recruited, trained and deployed to carry out a specific role – that of high visibility patrolling. They act as an additional set of ‘eyes and ears’, and are equipped with the necessary powers to suppress acts of anti-social behaviour and public nuisances.

Second, the introduction of upwards of 6,000 PCSOs has not been accompanied by any reduction in the number of sworn police officers in the service. Further, PCSOs have received an enthusiastic welcome from the public and the majority of their sworn officer colleagues, who view them as a useful and complementary resource.

Third, the creation of the PCSO role has enabled a number of able individuals from diverse backgrounds to become part of visible policing in a way which would otherwise not have been the case.

Now, I’d like to answer one or two of Andrew’s specific points...

Volumes of crime and incidents, as well as the associated administrative tasks, have increased significantly since Andrew (and I) joined the police service in the late 1980s. While the cost of employing a PCSO is indeed significantly less than that of a sworn officer, it is wrong to make the assumption that sworn officers are preferable in every case. There are a number of roles traditionally carried out by police officers which may be undertaken just as competently by suitably selected and trained individuals who are in no way involved with all the range of responsibilities, duties and disruptions that accrue to sworn officers.

The powers of arrest under subsection (4) and (5) of Section 24 (not 2.1 as stated in Andrew’s Letter To The Editor) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act relate only to arrestable offences as, no doubt, Andrew is well aware. They do not cover the circumstances by which PCSOs have a limited power of detention.

The 30-minute power of detention (which is not, by the way, being universally adopted by all forces) is more akin to Section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. In other words, it is only applicable where an offender fails to give personal details, and relates to offences for which there would be no power of arrest even for a sworn police officer.

It is abundantly clear from Reliance Security Services managing director Nigel Forbes’ excellent article in the same edition of SMT (‘Working to CSAS guidelines’, Guarding Watch, p49) that Street Wardens, Neighbourhood Wardens, PCSOs and the wider security industry are all in the business of making public spaces much safer environments.

That being the case, we should not make the mistake of seeking to undermine the role of one part of the policing family in order to promote that of another.

Peter Davies, Assistant Chief Constable, Lincolnshire Police