In a recent survey carried out by the Police Federation it was found that the majority of officers who responded to the survey were in favour of arming the police. The same survey found that whilst the majority were in favour of arming, they would prefer that only highly trained teams of officers were armed as opposed to an overall arming of the Force.

It has been suggested that if the police were to be armed then criminals would respond by arming themselves. The police deploy firearms only in the following circumstances;

a) In response to the possibility of an encounter with an armed criminal

b) To deal with dangerous animals

c) To provide protection to VIP’s

The police must arm themselves for protection, it would be unreasonable to expect a police officer to take on a criminal armed with a firearm without the means to defend him/herself. The fact is the criminals are already arming themselves and there is little evidence to show that this is because the police have greater access to firearms.

It is true that in recent years a number of incidents occurred where innocent persons were seriously injured or killed, this was mainly due to inadequate training given to the officers involved. As a result of these accidents the training of police officers in the use of firearms was reviewed and a decision was made to completely rewrite the book. The numbers of officers authorised to use firearms was drastically reduced and at the same time the amount of training given to officers was increased. Before these changes were introduced, some officers received training as little as twice a year. These days, the average amount of training received is twice a month. In Lothian and Borders Police, officers receive up to three days training a month. It is hoped that the increase in training and the more stringent selection procedures will prevent future accidents.

Every effort is made, during the selection procedure, to ensure that only those officers considered as having a suitable temperament, are authorised to carry firearms. Police officers are answerable to the law and must justify any actions they take to a court of law. If an officer unjustifiably took advantage of being armed, he/ she would be subject to the due process of the law.

All officers who volunteer for firearms training are given the most demanding tests in both physical fitness and marksmanship before being allowed to carry a firearm on duty. They must first be considered suitable by their senior officers and must have shown that they are able to make decisions quickly and are capable of handling stressful situations on their own. It is usually older, more mature and experienced officers who are selected for training. Once selected, they are given a six month ‘probationary’ period during which time they are constantly monitored and if at any time they fail to reach the required standards, they are dropped from the training programme. After they have successfully completed the training, they are given a final ‘exam’ in marksmanship, fitness and other subjects relevant to their duties as firearms officers. They must pass all aspects of their training, and only then, will they be authorised by the Chief Constable to carry a firearm when required on duty. This is not the end however, as they are required to qualify in marksmanship/fitness tests every three months. If at any time they fail the marksmanship or fitness test, their authorisation is withdrawn permanently. It is by no means easy to become a firearms officer!

In September 1994, the Force launched its Incident Response Vehicle (also known as Armed Response Vehicles) which operates through the Lothian and Borders area on a round the clock basis. The vehicle is driven by a traffic officer and carries two authorised firearms officers throughout the tour of duty. As well as attending firearms incidents the vehicle also attends other violent incidents such as sieges and hostage situations where weapons are used. It is reassuring to the officer on the street that the incident response vehicle can be directed to a potentially violent incident that he or she is attending. In incidents such as these, the incident response vehicle provides a quick and efficient response.

The Joint Standing Committee is the established body through which the advice, policies and practices in relation to the use of firearms are developed. During recent years the Joint Standing Committee on the Police Use of Firearms has promoted a policy whereby it has been recommended to police forces that they retain a figure of about 5% of police officers who are trained in the use of firearms. This figure has been arrived at by a majority of forces, thereby allowing officers a more regular access to firearms both in a training and operational deployment sense. In effect, the level of competence of such officers is now significantly higher than hitherto and this naturally benefits both the service and the public alike, especially in safety terms. Any change to this policy, certainly by way of any substantial increase in the number of officers who are authorised to possess firearms (AFO) would to our mind (ACPO - Association of Chief Police Officers) be a retrograde step as it would, by virtue of the resources available for such training alone, reduce the overall competence of many such officers.

The procedures whereby police officers are allowed to possess firearms is very strictly defined, and in all but the most exceptional circumstances the authority of a Chief Officer (Chief Constable - Assistant Chief Constable) is required. This provides a safeguard for both the officers and for the public, in the knowledge that a very strict criteria is applied before firearms are ever issued. It would not in our view be appropriate for any officer "to be armed on request".

The majority, if not all, police forces have now introduced Armed Response Vehicles which are available for deployment to any potential armed incident. It is a matter for the individual judgement of Chief Constables as to whether such numbers should increase. In reaching such a decision Chief Constables will have to balance the number of such incidents officers are responding to in any police area against the training and resource implications of introducing more ARVs. In practice, Chief Constables have reflected changes in circumstances over recent years and this has led in turn to an increase in ARVs.

Historically, British Police Officers have been unarmed. It is our belief that the vast majority of officers wish that situation to prevail. Equally the public have always supported an unarmed police service. To seriously consider arming all officers raises a number of questions. How would this be brought about in practice? Firstly with the exception of the RUC applicants to join the police service are not required to possess firearms skills. Once they have joined the service the opportunity may arise where they would endeavour to become an AFO. To achieve such a status they will have to undergo extensive and expensive physical and psychological training. Many applicants fail at the outset, others fail at later stages. The competencies required to become an AFO are very strict and few police officers meet the overall criteria. If all current police officers were required to possess firearms as a matter of routine, then the criteria would undoubtedly have to be changed. This would inevitably lead to a lessening of standards, with all the potential problems that would cause. What of those officers who failed the course. Would they be prevented from performing police duty? Would they have to leave the service? Importantly, would applicants wish to join in the knowledge that they would be armed? It is in part too simplistic to try and move automatically to a fully armed police service, although the question will remain one for constant re-assessment.

Body armour for firearms incidents is available to officers deployed to the scene. In terms of other types of body armour (knife proof vests, etc), unfortunately such equipment for general use is not yet available, although scientific research is being carried out (on behalf of the JSC) to try and develop a vest that provides the necessary safety elements whilst still allowing for it to be worn in "normal circumstances". At present vests may be slash proof but will not prevent stabbing. Once an appropriate vest is available, it will be recommended for introduction to all forces. As an additional point, simultaneously trials and research is being undertaken on a number of "less than lethal weapons", which stop short of firearms but are intended to assist and protect officers. Again, once a suitable "weapon" has been approved, it will be commended to all forces.

In the light of experience, and having taken account of recent tragic events, it remains our view that the routine arming of police officers is still some time away, although the increase in violent crimes will now require a constant reassessment of the needs of the police officers. All officers require maximum protection but whether this is achieved, certainly in the medium term, by them all being armed is debatable.