ePolitix.com speaks to Peter Smyth, vice-chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation about the work of London's police officers.

Question: What does the Metropolitan Police Service do?

Peter Smyth: We are the staff association for London's frontline police officers and we interest ourselves in anything which affects the welfare of our members.

Much of our work concerns day-to-day matters, such as ensuring satisfactory working hours and effective operating procedures, but our activities go far beyond this.

For example, we run extensive scientific research programmes, which have attracted the attention of law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, both in the UK and abroad.

We also hold seminars to update police and other enforcement agencies on how the latest scientific findings – both ours and other people's – could affect their work.

Question: Who do you represent?

Peter Smyth: Every police officer in London (apart from those in the City of London force) from the rank of constable up to and including the rank of chief inspector. We have 30,000-plus members.

We are affiliated to the Police Federation of England and Wales.

Questions: What are some of the Met Fed’s current campaigns?

Peter Smyth: Right now, we are pressing as a matter of urgency for the wider deployment of Tasers. That's the weapon the media call a 'stun gun', although it works by making people temporarily lose control of their limbs, not by stunning them.

The Met Federation believes that the Taser is an outstanding piece of equipment and we are not alone. Numerous studies in North America, where it is widely used, have shown it to be safe and effective.

One of the latest pieces of research was carried out by North Carolina's Wake Forest University. It reviewed 1,000 cases of Taser use in the US and found, in the words of lead researcher Dr William Bozer, that the injury rate is low and that most injuries appear to be minor.

At present, Tasers are issued in London only to officers who are firearms trained. The Home Office has agreed that officers in the Territorial Support Group, which is a mobile reserve, can be trained in Taser use and issued with the weapon on a trial basis but the Metropolitan Police Authority are currently opposing this. They have said it sends the wrong message to Londoners.

Aside from the fact that this is an operational matter and therefore outside the competence of the MPA, we believe that the arrival of Taser on the streets will, in fact, be extremely reassuring for Londoners. The weapon allows violent situations to be brought to a swift conclusion, minimising the risk of injury to officers, the suspect and, most importantly, the public.

In fact, we would like to see the deployment of Tasers extended even beyond the Territorial Support Group. The more readily available it is, the faster it can be applied in incidents where its use would be appropriate and who knows how many injuries, or even lives, that will save?

Question: What problems does the Federation face, considering the limitations put on police professional associations?

Peter Smyth: Well, because we cannot take industrial action we are unable to force the issue when it comes to pay.

In theory, this shouldn't matter too much because for almost 30 years, we, in common with all other police in England and Wales, have enjoyed a pay agreement which compensates us for this prohibition on action, as well as recognising the unique aspects of the job.

For example: police officers can be required to report for duty at no notice, they must uphold the law both on and off duty, they are accountable for their actions on and off duty and, of course, they face the ever-present possibility of physical danger.

As we speak, however, the government is attempting to impose a new agreement in which this compensation element is absent.

This has infuriated our membership, who made their feelings known at a packed-out mass meeting in Methodist Central Hall last September, which was attended by police minister Tony McNulty and shadow ministers from the Tories and Liberal Democrats.

Can we force the government's hand? No, not in the short-term. But we know from history that unless police pay is maintained at a certain level, recruitment suffers, and in London, where the cost of living is a major factor, officers begin transferring to county forces.

Indeed, the pay formula which the government wants to scrap was introduced in 1979, precisely because police numbers had dropped too low, with the Met 20 per cent under strength and unable to attract recruits in sufficient numbers.

Question: How have community support officers changed modern policing?

Peter Smyth: It is hard to say because there has been no recent independent evaluation of their effectiveness. In fact, the Met Federation is keen that the Metropolitan Police Service or the Home Office should commission just such a piece of work.

The research, development and statistics department at the Home Office conducted some research in 2005 which found that, while the public welcomed the reassurance provided by patrolling CSOs, they would rather have got that reassurance from having more fully-sworn police officers on the streets. And therein lies the rub as far as we are concerned.

CSOs have been giving a bashing in the media recently over incidents in which they allegedly failed to personally intervene. In London, two of them were said to have hidden behind a tree while a man was being attacked. But they are not trained to intervene and they are not supposed to intervene – they are supposed to summon the police.

Last August – the most recent month for which figures are available – the Met had 4,114 CSOs. If they were all on the minimum pay of £22,857 – although some can, in fact, earn as much £29,000-plus – the salary cost to the force would be £94,033,698.

A sworn Metropolitan Police constable earns, after 31 weeks' training, £29,847. So for the cost of the CSO cadre, we could have at least 3,150 police officers, any of whom would have been capable of intervening and arresting in the case of the London assault. And, of course, they would be able to perform a full range of other policing tasks.

I would like to emphasise that we are in no way demeaning the men and women who perform the CSO role. Many of our members hold them in very high regard as individuals.

We just think that their talents are under-exploited in their current role and that they would be more valuable to Londoners if they were warranted officers.

Question: Has the Met Fed got any upcoming events?

Peter Smyth: We are supporting a major research project to identify the best techniques for winning co-operation from difficult-to-control people, such as drunks and the mentally ill, without having to resort to force.

The project will, among other things, try to identify behavioural clues that officers can spot to tell them what personality types they are dealing with and identify the most effective persuasion techniques for dealing with each type in stressful street situations.

It will also look at the significance of cultural and ethnic differences in this regard.

The work will be carried out by Prof Bill Lewinski, who is a specialist in police psychology and head of the influential Force Science Research Centre, based at Minnesota University.

It was his expertise in human behaviour during firearms incidents which exonerated the officers in the Harry Stanley shooting.

Question: Have you got any final messages for ePolitix.com's readers?

Peter Smyth: Our members do frontline policing which means they have a wealth of knowledge about the streets, the crimes, the criminals, the victims, the challenges of the job and the frustrations which police officers face. They know what works and what does not.

If you would like to tap into that knowledge, please don’t hesitate to contact us. You can email us at enquiries@metfed.org.uk, phone us on 020 8464 2322 (ask for the Corporate Affairs Department) or write to us at York House, 2 Elmfield Park, Bromley, Kent BR1 1LU.