6

 

- 1 
Special Branch Policy Paper ..1A
[Policy Paper on SDS Recruitment, Selection, 
Monitoring and General Welfare]
Memo (copy) from Occupational Health dated 28th February 2002 ..1B

 

Commander 3 [through Det Supt4

 

In the light of the you may wish ACSO to have sight of the Policy Paper at 1A which 

We? welfare aspects of the SDS operation. You will note that the formal
measures now in place, particularly in the context of testing and
counselling, mirror precisely those areas which7 claim
to have been deficient in 8 .

All current field officers l9

 

10 have now had sessions with Feedback from those
sessions has been universally positive and a timetable is in place for each

officer's second visit to take place in July.

 

I am aware that Det Chief Supt l12 will be responding in due course to
the issues raised in the OH Memorandum at 18,13
14 . The funding issue, however, is rather more pressing. Without financial
support from Occupational Health, SDS will be obliged to pay for the
counselling from its Operational Expenses
budget. In January 2002 for example, the bill for the latest set of 
testing amounted to  this sum was drawn from the SDS budget. Next
month I will receive16 first invoice which will cover one to one
sessions with the 17
one-off sessions during the course of 2001 with both current and former field
officers. I anticipate that this will amount to about 19 he probable annual
costs of maintaining essential welfare support for the unit are likely, therefore, to
be in the region of 20 these costs are to continue to be met from the SDS
Operational Expenses budget, clearly there will be a detrimental impact on the
availability of funds for the operation itself.

   
 

Field officers at the start of 2002, together with at least 18- 1 (Cont'd)

With welfare support for undercover officers as a central plank of the

there does seem to be a case for central 23 endorsement of the procedures now in place for the SDS. In that context, 24 decision that OH does not a realistic possibility of contributing to the (SDS Welfare Policy) seems to sit ill at ease with the MPS commitment to stress management (quite apart from its potentially damaging
implications in any future judicial proceedings). A commitment of 25 per-
annum, therefore, seems a small price to pay in the face of the prospect of 26

27

22


28

15th May 2002 

 

Detective Inspector