Ormskirk Police Station to remain open to the public

IT has been confirmed that Ormskirk Police Station’s front counter will NOT close – despite being put under threat by Lancashire Constabulary.

The news was confirmed this morning and it is a great relief to residents and businesses in Ormskirk.

After months of campaigning on this issue, I for one am delighted the police have finally come to their senses and ditched their ill-thought out plans for Ormskirk.

The policing bill for West Lancs has more than tripled over the past 14 years and, against that background, it would have been criminal to demand inflation-busting increases from hard-pressed taxpayers with one hand, while pulling down the shutters on the front desk with the other.

The reasons for closing the front desk were very flimsy and did not bear the sort of intense scrutiny which myself, local residents and colleagues, put them under. By working together, we persuaded police chiefs to come to the only sensible conclusion; to keep the front counter open to the public.

They have made the correct decision and I welcome it.

Too many chiefs at Lancashire Police?

It is well documented that Lancashire Constabulary is proposing to close the front desk at Ormskirk Police Station.

The force’s top brass claim they need to make these cuts and that all areas have been looked at. But have they?

A quick look at the Constabulary’s own website will reveal that it has large senior management team, with a Chief Constable, a Deputy Chief Constable and three Assistant Chief Constables, as well as eight Chief Superintendents and a raft of Inspectors under them.

All this at a time when the police management themselves are proposing cutbacks.

Let me give this some context. Since 1997, Lancashire’s policing bill has more than tripled but that money was given for frontline policing, not more bureaucracy.

How can the police say they are trying to protect the frontline whilst having a system where managers manage managers who then in-turn manage some more managers and so on? The Borough Council recently reduced its senior management team and Cabinet, and it is obvious the police now need to look at their own arrangements.

My Derby Ward colleagues and I have called on the police to look at restructuring the senior management team.

As my colleague Cllr Paul Greenall said: “It is staggering that at a time when budgets are under pressure, Lancashire Police continue to have so many managers. As recent events have clearly shown, police officers are of more use to the community when they are out on our streets, not sat in an office somewhere dealing with paperwork”

And Cllr Adrian Owens said: “Lancashire Police Authority should undertake an immediate review of the amount of senior management posts at Lancashire Police. Taxpayers’ money should be spent on keeping our police stations open and our frontline officers on the beat, not on a bloated management structure which could be slimmed down to meet the challenges of the future.”

Will Lancashire Police rise to the challenge? We sincerely hope so…

‘Pen power’ can help save police front desk

THIS week I’m calling on residents to use “pen power” to help save Ormskirk Police Station’s front desk,

I’m urging locals to write to the police with individual letters of protest, because quite simply police chiefs need to recognise the strength of opposition to their plans.

Regular readers will know I’ve been a vocal critic of the proposals to close Ormskirk Police Station’s front desk. I’ve quizzed police chiefs at a recent meeting and spoke out at last month’s Full Council meeting, seconding a Conservative motion calling on the Constabulary to think again.

I’ve now sent my own consultation response directly to the Chief Constable and am encouraging others to write to the police with their concerns.

Individual letters outlining your own views and concerns would give us the best chance possible of keeping the front desk open. Otherwise, police chiefs could simply rubber stamp the proposals once the consultation process has ended.

Remember, the policing bill in Lancashire has more than trebled since 1997. In that time, we’ve had inflation busting annual increases of more than 18%, 14% and 11% in certain years. Those increases have far outstripped those levied by the Borough Council, County Council or Fire Authority. Many will wonder why, with all those increases, the police cannot keep something as basic as a front desk in a busy town like Ormskirk running.

Every organisation is operating within restricted budgets but the police need to be smarter. You may have read recently that the Borough Council and County County Council recently joined forces to protect jobs and services in West Lancashire – we need to see the same level of innovation from the police.

I fear closing Ormskirk’s front desk would undo years of hard work by frontline officers to rebuild trust with the community. We cannot let it close without a fight, and I urge residents to write to the police to demand a rethink.

Residents have until August 31 to have their say. Visit http://www.lancashire.police.uk/policing-budget for more information.

Case for Ormskirk front desk closure should be thrown out due to lack of evidence

Last week, I attended a meeting with the top brass at Lancs Police over proposed plans to close the front desk at Ormskirk Police Station.

The meeting, which other councillors were also present at, was informative but I left it feeling even more convinced that the case for closing our front desk service should be thrown out due to lack of evidence.

I specifically raised the point that another police station, Rossendale in East Lancs, is down for retention of its front desk even though it has statistically fewer visitors per hour than Ormskirk.

According to the police’s own publicly available figures, Rossendale has 2.3 visitors per hour whilst Ormskirk has 2.5 visitors per hour. When I put it to them that Rossendale has fewer visitors than Ormskirk, they tried to claim the reason for this discrepancy is that geographical factors need to be taken into account. But even their evidence for this is flawed because if someone in Scarisbrick needed to attend a police station, they would be faced with a round trip of approximately 24 miles to Skelmersdale. I understand the distance between the stations in Rossendale and nearby Burnley would involve a round trip of approximately 18 miles.

I do question whether the closure of the front desk at Ormskirk would net any real savings. The police have not gone into detail as to how much closing the front desk at Ormskirk would save, and I am sceptical it would amount to very much.

The station itself will remain in operation and I know the times I have visited, I have rang the front counter bell only for a Constable to turn up about a minute later. This is the norm in stations across the country, and I see no reason why this cannot continue at Ormskirk. Residents have already contacted me saying they would volunteer their services if it meant keeping the front desk open. Why have the police not explored this option?

I’ve concluded that the police’s argument for closing Ormskirk’s front desk is weak and not borne out even by their own statistics.

As I said to the local press this week, if this was a Crown Court trial, the Judge would have thrown it out on the first day due to lack of evidence.

As far as I’m concerned, front desk services at Ormskirk should be retained – case closed.

Police station with fewer visitors than under-threat Ormskirk is set to keep front desk services

I have today called on police to remove the threat of closure over front desk services at the town’s station after I dicovered that another station with statistically FEWER visitors will probably remain unaffected.

I have written to the Chief Constable because, according to the police’s own figures, the station at Rossendale Waterfoot in Pennine Division has statistically fewer visitors per hour than Ormskirk but front desk services there are set to be retained, while Ormskirk’s are earmarked for closure.

To my mind, if it is good enough for Waterfoot, then it is good enough for Ormskirk, so I have asked the Chief Constable to remove the threat from Ormskirk Police Station now, before the consultation process gets underway.

As I said during a radio interview yesterday, if Ormskirk Police station is closed to the public, people in areas such as Scarisbrick face a 24 mile round trip to Skelmersdale, and that is unacceptable. Ormskirk is the ‘capital’ of West Lancashire and should have a fully functioning station with public access.

The police need to sort out their own inefficiencies such as duplication of resources, which could be helped by giving PCSOs more powers and reviewing whether the frequent patrolling in pairs is necessary, rather than cutting front desk services.

Lancs Police say ‘no’ again to extra powers for PCSOs

My fellow Derby Ward Conservative Councillors and I have this week responded to Lancashire Police’s latest refusal to grant extra powers for our local PCSOs.

Following a recent decision of Full Council, West Lancashire Borough Council’s Chief Executive wrote to Chief Constable Steve Finnigan, calling on him to give his frontline PCSOs extra powers.

Remember, currently 95% of discretionary powers in Lancashire are not used, whilst in neighbouring Wigan, PCSOs use more than 65% of the discretionary powers available to them.

Cllr Paul Greenall, who took the matter to Full Council in April, said: “The Chief Constable’s reply is extremely disappointing. He claims that by giving PCSOs more powers, it would cost more in wages, training and equipment. But other forces, like Greater Manchester and Kent, have done this, so why can’t Lancashire?

“The financial mess that Labour left our country in means everyone in the public and private sectors are expected to do more for less. In not giving PCSOs extra powers, Lancashire Police are limiting their impact in tackling crime at the very time when budgets are being squeezed and every penny counts. And they are not doing something that PCSOs, Unions and the public want.”

Cllr Adrian Owens said: “The Chief Constable’s refusal to grant extra powers mean that West Lancashire residents are once again suffering from a postcode lottery. How can it be fair that in some cases, like in Up Holland, residents are getting a two tier policing service depending on what side of the road they live on?

“Giving PCSOs more powers would have freed up frontline Police Officers to deal with other serious crimes. Instead, they are having to deal with relatively minor offences which could be dealt with by PCSOs if only they had the powers. It is waste of valuable resources.”

For my own part, I have spoken to many PCSOs who have indicated they would warmly welcome extra powers. They want to help keep our communities as safe as possible, but if they are not given the powers to do so, it’s almost like they’re being asked to do their job with one hand tied behind their backs.

It is a shame though West Lancs Labour Group voted against our calls for extra PCSO powers. In doing so, they have shown themselves to be soft on crime and defenders of a two tier policing system which is plainly to the detriment of West Lancashire taxpayers.

West Lancs Labour vote against calls for extra PCSO powers

Last night I attended the meeting of Full Council in Ormskirk to hear the debate regarding my call for extra powers for Police Community Support Officers.

My Derby Ward colleague, and Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Cllr Paul Greenall, placed the following Motion on the agenda:

“This Council notes that under various legislation, 22 powers are available to be granted to Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) at the discretion of Chief Constables but that in Lancashire, only one of these powers (i.e. the power to issue fixed penalty notices for dog fouling) has so far been granted to our PCSOs. This Council also notes that locally, West Lancashire Conservatives have been lobbying Lancashire Constabulary to increase the number of discretionary powers available to PCSOs. Accordingly, this Council supports the actions of West Lancashire Conservatives and formally calls on the Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary to provide PCSOs with more discretionary powers.”

Fairly straightforward… so much so that I was hoping it would get cross-party support so the Council could go to the Chief Constable and urge him to think again.

The issue has been well documented in the local press and on this blog since I launched my campaign last month, and it has attracted a lot of support, most notably with local residents.

While out and about earlier this week, I called on a gentleman who, having explained I was a local council candidate, gave me a “you’re all the same – I’m not voting for anyone” response, something which candidates, councillors etc of all parties, (and even those of none), get from time to time on the doorstep. I politely thanked him for his time and moved on. About 1 minute later, having finished speaking to his neighbour, he came back out and wanted to speak about the leaflet I’d handed him a minute earlier which talked about my PCSO powers campaign. This had caught his attention, and indeed he told me that it was a topic of conversation among his friends. I explained the unfairness between PCSO powers in Lancashire and Manchester, and we then chatted for a more few minutes. It ended with him saying that as a result of my campaign, he may support me.

So it was with great hope I entered the Council Chamber last night, but the West Lancs Labour Group on the council had other ideas. Right from the start of the debate on PCSOs, it was clear Labour were against it.

The excuses they gave for voting against Paul’s Motion were very weak – ranging from the sentiment that we shouldn’t be bothering the Chief Constable on this, (let’s leave the small matter that his wages are paid by the taxpayer to one side) to the bizarre notion that Police Community Support Officers weren’t brought in to support the police!

So Labour’s position was simple; never mind that local residents want it, never mind that a Labour-affiliated union (Unison) wants it, never mind the fact that PCSOs themselves want it, and never mind that Labour MPs leglislated to bring in discretionaty powers for PCSOs. we’re going to vote against it.

I must admit I was surprised at Labour’s stance, after all it was a Labour Government which brought in PCSOs and, as I say above, legislated to allow them to have extra discretionary powers. The local Labour Group now appear to be condemning what their own Government did when it was in power.

Labour’s refusal to support our campaign means they are backing a two-tier policing system which sees Constables having to be diverted from more serious incidents because they do not trust PCSOs their own Government brought in to use the extra powers their own MPs legislated for.

It is a shame they appear uninterested in helping to make our local communities safer. Labour are completely out of touch and isolated on this issue, which has support from trade unionists, councillors, PCSOs themselves and residents.

After voting against more powers for PCSOs, Labour have shown themselves to be a party which is soft on crime.

Councillors to debate my calls for extra PCSO powers

Borough councillors are set to formally debate my calls for extra PCSO powers next week.

A motion on the subject has been placed on next Wednesday’s agenda by my Derby Ward colleague Cllr Paul Greenall, who is also the Borough Council’s Conservative Cabinet member for Community Safety.

You may remember I launched a campaign last month calling on the Chief Constable of Lancashire to hand down more discretionary powers to his frontline Community Support Officers. Since then, my campaign has been backed by leading councillors and residents.

I’m delighted this important issue will be debated publicly by councillors next week.

At present, out of 22 discretionary powers available to the Chief Constable, just one has been issued – the power to hand out fixed penalty notices for dog fouling. We have a situation where 95% of discretionary powers are not used in Lancashire, whereas in neighbouring Wigan, PCSOs there use 67% of the discretionary powers available to them.

This is having a real effect on the frontline as streets on the West Lancshire/Wigan border are getting a two tier policing service, depending on whether you live on the Wigan side of the road or the West Lancashire side.

I’ve also been told of incidents where a PCSO has attended an incident and wanted to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice but didn’t have the power, so had to radio back to the station for a PC to come out and do it for them. This is a ridiculous waste of precious resources.

I hope councillors support my calls for the Chief Constable of Lancashire to hand down more discretionary powers to our local PCSOs. My message is simple – it’s time to give PCSOs the extra powers they need to make our communities safer instead of expecting them to police with one hand tied behind their backs.

Why UNISON should back my campaign for extra discretionary powers for Lancashire’s PCSOs

This week I have written to trade union UNISON, who represent PCSOs in Lancashire, asking them to back my campaign to give frontline support officers more discretionary powers.

Regular readers will know this all stems from information I gleaned from a Freedom of Information Act request which revealed that out of 22 discretionary powers at the disposal of Lancashire’s Chief Constable, just 1 of them has been handed down to local Community Support Officers – the power to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for dog fouling. 95% of discretionary powers are not used.

Last week, I revealed how neighbouring Greater Manchester Police had given 67% of discretionary powers to its PCSOs, leading to some streets on the border between Wigan and West Lancs having a two tier policing service depending on what side of the road you live on.

It is now becoming clear that far from the police’s claim that there is ‘no current appetite’ for more discretionary powers, the public are of a different view.

The police have given no clear reason as to why Lancashire’s PCSOs only have one discretionary power at their disposal but colleagues in Greater Manchester have 14. The average family in West Lancs pays slightly more in Council Tax to the police than the same family in Manchester, so why can’t our PCSOs have the same powers at least? If it’s good enough for Manchester, then surely it’s also good enough for Lancashire?

In the past, Unison at a national level have called on police chiefs to give more powers to PCSOs so I hope the local branch which represents PCSOs in Lancashire will support my campaign.

By joining together on this, we can press the police to ensure that our frontline officers have the extra powers needed to protect the public in a more efficient and effective way.

The road where West Lancashire PCSOs have fewer powers than colleagues patrolling the same street

My latest investigations into the lack of discretionary powers for our local PCSO threw up an interesting comparison this week.

As regular readers will know, I want Lancashire’s Chief Constable to hand down more of the 20-plus discretionary powers than he has done so far. Currently, only one discretionary power has been handed down to frontline CSOs, leaving 95% of discretionary powers not being used. Greater Manchester Police on the other hand use 67% of discretionary powers available to them.

Of course, Lancashire shares a border with Greater Manchester and in fact, in some streets, the boundary goes down the middle of the road. One of these streets happens to be Sefton Avenue in Up Holland.

One side of the street is in West Lancashire, where PCSOs use just one of the discretionary powers available to them, whilst the other side comes under Wigan where PCSOs have 14 discretionary powers. My Conservative colleague County Cllr Carolyn Evans joined me there to help highlight the imbalance. As you will see from the above photo, I’m standing on the Lancs side of the road, where 5% of discretionary powers are used, and Carolyn is stood on the Wigan side, where they used 67% of discretionary powers available to them.

Among the discretionary powers which are available to PCSOs in the Greater Manchester Police area but not in Lancashire are as follows:

• Power to issue penalty notices in respect of offences of disorder
• Power to issue fixed penalty notices for truancy
• Power to issue fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly-posting
• Power to detain
• Power to disperse groups and remove persons under 16 to their place of residence
• Power to seize drugs and require name and address for possession of drugs

So what we are seeing is a ludicrous postcode lottery in PCSO powers is leading to some local communities having a two tier policing service —depending what side of the street they live on. Ridiculous.

To be able to stand on one side of a street and there be one set of powers available to a PCSO and then cross the road and it be totally different shows just how silly this situation is.

My position is clear; PCSOs are a visible presence but for that to mean anything, they need the powers to back that up, otherwise they won’t get the respect needed.

I discovered this week that the average family in West Lancs pays slightly more in Council Tax to the police compared to those in Greater Manchester, so why can’t we at least have the same level of powers for our PCSOs?

Lancashire’s Chief Constable should undertake an immediate review and give our PCSOs extra powers to help them make our communities as safe as possible.