KENT NEWS: A leading police figure has issued a damning verdict on the independent body responsible for cutting the money spent on Kent’s anti-terrorism strategy.
Mark Gilmartin is chief executive of the Kent Police Authority, which oversees the running of the county’s force.
He told KOS Media he was concerned the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) was allowed to make important decisions for the Government without being accountable to the public.
He made the comments after a review by Acpo’s TAM (Terrorism and Allied Matters) committee decided an undisclosed sum of money used to fund 3.5 ‘dedicated security posts’ in Kent would be better spent elsewhere in the country.
Mr Gilmartin said: “The Home Office has basically said to Acpo, ‘You’re probably well-informed on these matters, how would you suggest we spend the funding?’ The cynic in me looks at the chief constables sitting on that committee, and it seems their forces do pretty well.
“I hope I’m not being inappropriate, but it doesn’t seem to me to be the right and proper way to do things. Acpo ought to be subject to some sort of independent body to make sure my sort of scepticism is ill-founded.
“There’s no doubt their discussions are very sensitive and confidential, but I would expect suitably vetted people to be able to sit in and challenge what is being decided.”
The county contains high-profile potential targets for terrorists, including its ports, airports and cross-Channel train services.
In 2007, five men were jailed for life after planning to use a giant fertiliser bomb to blow up Bluewater shopping centre.
Mr Gilmartin’s comments come as Acpo faces questions about its own future and whether it is the right body to oversee Britain’s police forces.
The organisation is a private company governed by a board of directors. It is funded by the Home Office, contributions from each of the 44 police authorities and membership subscriptions.
Mr Gilmartin added that while the reduction in posts comes as no surprise given the economic climate, he was concerned nonetheless.
He said: “It appears the people who make these decisions have focused too much on tackling terrorism in inner-city areas, when the ports still need to be fully protected.
“There’s no huge city in Kent, but we do have a large frontier to police. Thankfully we’re not looking at a huge reduction this year, so we’re disappointed but not quite ready to go to war.”
Newspaper reports said Acpo had cut Kent’s anti-terrorism funding because the force was spending some of it on community support officers, who deal with minor offences but have no powers of arrest.
However, the police say the cash was actually being spent on community liaison officers, six of whom support the anti-terrorism unit by gathering intelligence on the streets.
Mr Gilmartin said he was responsible for signing off the funding and was confident the money had been spent in the right way.
Assistant Chief Constable Andy Adams reiterated that anti-terrorism funding had never been used to pay for part-time community officers.
He said: “The force’s response to terrorism covers a number of areas and there is no suggestion this money has not been used correctly. It is very important to emphasise that we are in a unique position because Dover is the gateway to Europe and one of the world’s busiest ports.
“That means we have an international responsibility for the safety of more than 13 million people who pass through there every year.
“Part of our counter-terrorism strategy involves work within our communities both to raise awareness of any potential threats and to gain information.
“The force’s response to terrorism also has a number of other aspects, including the delivery of policing in neighbourhood areas.”
Mr Adams said the annual bidding process was intended to reflect the terrorism threat to specific parts of the country, and that while funding for Kent’s ports, airports and railways had been reduced this year, the force had received extra cash in other areas.
An Acpo spokesman said: “On behalf of the Home Office, Acpo TAM’s role is to provide these funds to police forces to be spent on counter-terrorism and national security work.
“Within that area, each force is best placed to decide how these resources should be deployed in the most cost-effective and efficient way.”
POSTED: 07/03/2010 09:00:00
Bookmark with:
Email to a friend: