Testing the fitness of all police officers will help forces meet their duties under the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997 and the HSWA 1974, and result in lower rates of sickness absence.
This is one of the justifications for introducing regular fitness tests for officers – linked to disciplinary outcomes and pay penalties if they fail – a key recommendation set out in the second stage of a comprehensive review of police pay and conditions in England and Wales.
Written by former rail regulator Tom Winsor, the Government-commissioned report, which was published yesterday (15 March), insists the current fitness-testing regime for police officers is inconsistent and needs overhaul, not just to improve the level of protection the Service provides for the public but also to enhance the protection of police officers themselves.
It says: “A police force is required to ensure safe working practices for its staff, particularly those facing potentially violent situations. One of the control measures designed to reduce the risks for those facing potential conflict is the training of all police officers, and staff to whom it may be appropriate, in the use of equipment and techniques to protect themselves and others through personal safety training.”
It adds: “Fitter people can work longer, harder and with less fatigue than people who are less fit. This is because they will be operating at a lower percentage of their maximum physical capacity. They are also better able to cope with stress.”
Currently, police officers and some police staff are tested during the recruitment process, and are ineligible to join the Service if they fail. However, officers are not tested again during their career unless they take up a specialist role that their force has decided requires a higher level of fitness.
Using the riots as a stark example of the need for change, the Winsor report identifies the current system as beset with major flaws, especially as police officers are “liable to be deployed to any role, at any time”. Chief constables, therefore, need to be assured that “all their officers have a minimum level of fitness, so that redeployment can be undertaken with confidence, particularly in an emergency”.
The recommendation has already attracted significant controversy. In a consultation exercise carried out for the review, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said fitness testing should only be required for specialist officers. It expressed concern that significant resources could be put into fitness testing without any corresponding improvement in performance, or attendance, and believes a more cost-effective approach might be to invest in sickness management and healthy-lifestyle programmes.
The Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales also questioned the benefits of fitness testing. Instead, the Association is in favour of the Service providing an “effective occupational health service” for all staff and officers, and champions health screening as a way to produce a healthier and more effective workforce.
The Police Federation of England and Wales is against in-service fitness tests for all officers and highlighted the need for fitness tests to comply with equality legislation. However, the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives described fitness testing of officers against the job requirement as desirable, both from the perspective of a responsible employer and to improve public confidence.
The Winsor report concedes that various practical challenges exist for police forces in moving from regular testing of a few specialists to the regular testing of all police officers. It acknowledges, for example, that, this could bring the risk of an increased numbers of officers on restricted duties, and that the number of ill-health retirements could increase substantially over the medium term, costing money.
However, the report also underlines that “the significant advantages of a fitter, healthier, more alert and energetic police workforce, with lower rates of absenteeism through sickness, are worth the necessary measures”. It also advocates a more stringent physical fitness test to be introduced in the medium term.
Following the launch of the report, Policing minister Nick Herbert said: “Our comprehensive package of police reforms will support the Police in improving service to the public and developing professionalism – giving us a better crime-fighting force for the future.”
More information on the Winsor report, parts one and two, as well as summary factsheets setting out the key recommendations, can be found on the Home Office website.
In this episode of the Safety & Health Podcast, ‘Burnout, stress and being human’, Heather Beach is joined by Stacy Thomson to discuss burnout, perfectionism and how to deal with burnout as an individual, as management and as an organisation.
We provide an insight on how to tackle burnout and why mental health is such a taboo subject, particularly in the workplace.
The test should be more comprehensive than just measuring fitness. I have been carrying out health and fitness tests on firefighters for over 12 years. After the initial apprehension, they all see the benefits. The test is followed by a personal report and advice. Further support is also offered.
I agree Paul,
I spent 24 years in the Military and if you were not fit to do the job then you were a liability that could and in some cases should be removed.
I think the days of the jolly and rotund local Bobby are over, to carry out the tasks that the police have these days requires a good level of fitness.
However I would hope that there will be some sympathy and intelegent thought put in to the process of what happens to those that fail the fitness test.
I take it that all public sector employees, lncluding MPs will have fitness tests as well? The justification being “fitter people can work longer, harder and with less fatigue than people who are less fit. They are also better able to cope with stress”?
In fact, make all employees have to have one or face disciplinary proceedings!
i think it is about time that this has come in . If you were in the millitary it would be mandatory to pass a basic fitness test if the police complied as well then the rate of sickness and stress would also drop.not to mention the benifits to the individuals in there health
The assessment as to if an officer is considered ‘Fit for Operational Duty’, is if they are able to perform the skills tests in their annual ‘Officer Safety ’ refresher training to a competent and satisfactory standard. If they are unable to meet the required standard, they are referred to HR/personnel for supportive action. What should be considered is a mandatory health check. This would be more productive in assessing the health of a 55 year old officer who has a non active role