The independent review of pay and conditions of service for police officers and staff began on 01 October 2010. As of today, there have been over 4,500 responses from officers. We have created an RSS feed of the latest responses to the questions posed in the link at top right of this page "Review of Remuneration and Conditions for Officers and Staff".
The review site can be visited at http://www.review.police.uk/index.php
The Home Secretary has asked the reviewer, Tom Winsor, to ensure that police pay and conditions and the structures around them are the best they could be given the challenges facing the police service, which will see forces being required to achieve more with less, while also being fair to officers and staff.
If you are a police officer or member of police staff, including PCSOs, they want to hear your views on where inefficiencies are to be found and where resources - including pay and allowances - are spent badly.
They are separately consulting with national staff associations and trade unions, but this is your chance to have your say.
What the review will cover
The review is looking at several areas, including:
- How officers enter the police service
- The deployment of officers and staff (including overtime and mutual aid pay)
- Post and performance related pay (including special priority payments, competency related threshold payments and bonuses at all levels)
- How pay progression up the pay scales could be made fairer to officers, staff and the taxpayer, and whether the typical service length should be made more flexible
- How officers leave the police service (including ill-health retirement and possibly redundancy terms)
- How officer and staff pay and conditions of service are decided (including the structures of the Police Negotiating Board and the police staff council)
What they are asking from you
Your ideas for how pay and conditions should be changed to increase flexibility and efficiency, as well as reducing costs given the historic budget deficit, would be particularly helpful. All submitted ideas will be considered. The best ideas may be included in the review's recommendations.
The deadline for giving your views is 29 October 2010.
As the review is reporting in two parts, there will be a second opportunity to give your views in March 2011. More details will be given closer to the time.
This is a relatively new approach to consultation, so you are asked to bear with them. If there are problems with the system they will solve them as soon as possible. The forum's posts will be moderated to remove offensive language.
So that the review can consider all proposals, they have limited posts to 200 words. If you have suggestions or comments that you believe require more space, send them to email@example.com Please note, however, they cannot respond to all individual emails.
Please take the time to consider each of the short questions below and submit your suggestions, or comment on others' ideas. All ideas can be treated anonymously if you wish - you do not need to leave your email address unless you want to.
We have reprinted a few of the responses below each question to give you a flavour for the ongoing debate. In addition, we will capture ALL of the responses and update them regularly until the deadline date of 29th October. The total responses will be posted as a link below each question as they are compiled.
I wouldn't change anything. I've been a police officer for 20 years and in that time I've worked a moderate amount of overtime. In my experience officers have usually earned what overtime they get paid and let us not forget that when a police officer is working overtime it is time they are not spending with their family so why shouldn't decent renumerication for it. Leave things as they are.
9 October at 13:36
Because of the unique role police officers perform and the restrictive home life afforded to us because of our vocation we should be re-numerated properly for extra hours or work incurred. There is an overtime burden because there are too few officers, or too many inside flying desks. Recent programmes to reslove this haven't increased officer numbers on the streets, because of the recruitment freeze and natural wastage. The only fair way I can see to resolve this is to salary Sgt's and Constables, like with the Inspectors, and to ensure and monitor that all officers share the burden. I don't agree with that, but its better than reducing the rates, because all goodwill will go out of the window.
09 October at 11:12
I came here from the inspector gadget blog. PLEASE READ IT.
Overtime payments do not require changing. The correct deployment of officers in the first place would negate the need for much overtime to be paid. Governmnet targets such as the Policing Pledge have emphatically not been scrapped but have been rebranded/renamed and continue to blight our working lives with meaningless "public satisfaction" targets. If these teams of office dwelling officers would put back onto the streets to actually Police them, there would be enough officers to meet demand without excessive overtime payments. It would also "increase public satisfaction" as the public would see more uniformed Officers, which is what they always say they want. The Government could also say that it had put X amount of officers back onto the streets, saved money, cut red tape and increased public confidence. A win win situation for all involved.
08 October at 14:59
Absolutely not. The bonuses awarded to Superintendents and ACPO have led to the performance culture which now pervades this organisation. You now hear quotes like "its all about performance" and even "performance, performance, performance." Funnily enough coming mostly from Superintendents.
If the Home Secretary wants crime reduction to be the main focus then stop giving "performance" related pay.
Whilst at it you could look at the perks given to most ACPO officers by way of subsidised vehicles. In my force I reckon the bill is about £150,000 for what amounts to a personal vehicle. Mercedes - Lexus - Range Rover.
CRTP is a nice reward for top of scale officers but no-one is seriously expecting it to survive this review.
9 October at 13:13
Superintendants and ACPO bonuses should be scrapped they are paid enough as it is. Any bonuses for target delivery should be paid to the front line officers.
9 October at 12:53
As a service we are here to prevent and detect crime! It is what we are paid to do so why are ACPO and others receiving bonuses for what we are already paid to do? This should be stopped, this breeds a culture of chasing performance targets which effect bonus payments rather than putting the victim first.
Figures are regularly manipulated to portray the image ACPO and below who receive such bonuses want to portray. This puts pressure on those responsible for delivering performance to 'massage' statistics.
CRTP should remain and all other bonuses should be removed!
09 October at 11:42
Why should higher ranks within the police force get bonus payments for the work that staff who get paid half their wage are completing?? Why is it the one holding the whip is receiving a bonus? I've been in the police force eight years and 99% of the time the highest ranking officer at incidents during the times of 1700hrs and 0900hrs is an inspector.
Generally higher ranks don't work 24/7 shifts, they work 9-17hrs only work monday to friday, behind a desk. Do other companies in the private sector spend the same amount on their bosses?
Take away all bonuses and increase the basic wage of those officers who are working 24hr shifts 365 days a year, are missing time with their families, being injuried on duty and keeping this country safe from within.
The current SP payments are unfair and badly allocated to departments and persons who know they shouldn't really have it! the objective was to reward frontline officers and help retain staff in those posts... The goverment need to focus on keeping the PC's, PS's and inspectors and look at what those on over £45,000 a year are doing to earn it!!!!
08 October at 11:06
I think one major one would be to look at how the pay of non front line officers who work nice 9-5 weekends off hours could be reduced to take into account that they no longer work nights and anti social hours, and are not in a possibly confrontational and dangerous role so they should be therefore paid more in line with what a civilian post would be paid for the same job. As I think that would discourage people applying for these office jobs just to get paid the same for not having the hassle of hours that affect your family and social life.
I obviously realise that some more office based jobs require a great deal of skill such as high tech crime officers etc but as an example lets be honest are the civvy intell officers being paid over 30k a year I think not.
09 October at 11:18
Very simple...this is what you signed up for. It should be two yrs probation min 5 yrs patrolling before you can apply for promotion et al. As a graduate I am dismayed that accellerated promotion still exists. Graduates are qualified to pass exams NOT police. You have to gain the knowledge and experience on the streets!
08 October at 13:10
Pay those who work 24/7 shifts pay a shift allownace and those who don't work 24/7 have the shift allowance deducted from their pay. In almost every profession (even police support staff roles) working shifts attracts a shift allowance. The police service needs to reflect modern pay and awards on this thorny issue and reward those working physically demanding shifts. It is a nonsense that officers working nights are paid the same as someone with a Mon-Fri job. I accept that Mon-Fri jobs come with a different set of pressures it is high time that 24/7 front line officers are properly recognised and rewarded. P.S I work Mon-Fri ! I often hear that it will be difficult to administer such a system and it will only lead to officers wanting to leave Mon-Fri posts to obtain the enhanced rate of pay. In this IT age administering such a pay system should not be a barrier to implementation and if there is a migration to 24/7 posts individual services can manage that.
08 October at 10:44
The main thing about SPP is clarity. They should be paid to certain roles published in the year prior to the payment then if you chose to jump from one role to another you know whether or not that role is subject to SPP. There will always be arguments, complaints and dispute until it is made clear.
On a side note Response/Front line policing has become the most attractive role due to recent structural changes so is this trying to suggest that these would not get it. There is now a waiting list to go on response.
I see the SPP as a 'danger money' type payment. SPP should be seen as a way of recognising that the officer faces confrontation, works shifts and gets their hands dirty on a regular basis and should be recognised apart from those who work in offices, never sees an angry person, a volatile witness or attends a dead body or nasty RTC. It cannot be right that all officers (as above) recieve the same renumeration dependant on level of service.
09 October at 14:02
SPP should be scrapped. It has always been devisive and leads to the "haves" and "have nots". It has also been abused by some forces in its allocation and used as a "weighting allowance" for being stationed in a certain area.
its to be maintained then Government should stipulate who gets it to ensure consistency.
October at 13:58
I think SPP should only be awarded to Officers in a front line shift working role. It should also only be offered to Officers below the rank of Inspector.
However, if it is to be offered to front line shift working roles, then it should be offered to all front line shift working roles. Not some, all.
I do agree that there should be certain criteria, such as you are not eligible if you have less than 3 years service.
Although, if the organisation can not organise this properly and fairly, then don't have it at all. Instead put it towards a better use.
In its current format, it is not fairly distrubuted at all.
09 October at 13:32
SPP should be given to all officers in front line who work unsociable shift patterns. It is not fair that officers who work 24/7 shifts and deal with the public face to face day in day out should not be rewarded for it.
09 October at 12:52
SPP's are divisive and should be scrapped for all Officers apart from those working on response in a 24/7 capacity. All other SPP's for specialist posts and departments should be removed.
The way the system is worked out is extremely subjective and does not take account of how many applicants there have been for a particular post in the previous 12 months.
09 October at 11:25
It depends on the circumstances. It is never "nice" to force someone to retire due to reasons beyond their control.
That said - there is widescale abuse of the current system with officers using it to their advantage.
Money would be wasted having trained an officer and experience lost if they have to be medically retired.
The system could be left as it is providing more robust action is taken against the lead swingers. In genuine cases I am sure no-one objects.
If officers working shifts received shift allowance (which was removed from officers not working shifts) then this would reduce the overall cost of officers on restricted duties.
9 October at 13:08
Any officer who is on restricted duties due a work related injury should be fully supported by the goverment and the people of this country the same as our soliders currently fighting abroad.
However a seriously reduced fitness entry programme has now seen a influx of over weight and underfit officers who are a disgrace to the uniform now wearing it rather tightly!!
***Bring in mandatory yearly physical's and health checks.***
Some officers worked very hard on fitness to get into the job and still look after themselves where others do not and the one's who don't take more sick leave and cost the force more money!
Speed up ill health retirement and use civilian staff to fill the posts and pay them less then half to officers who are being paid £30,000 a year to answer the phone or carry files from one floor to the next.
08 October at 11:41
This is a tricky one 'There for the grace of God go I'. I have been injured both on and off duty and on each occasion I have been fortunate to return to full duties. However when officers are barely out of their probationery period and then obtain an injury, how fair is it on the Tax Payer to pay that officer for the next 10-20 years or so as a sworn-in Constable, who will never be allowed to carry out the duties of an operational officer again. A suggestion would be to give that officer up to a two year period for full recovery and if this is not achieved, depending on the cause of the injury i.e. duty related, give them a lump sum £10,000 and offer them a support role in the Police Service,which they could accept or refuse and resign. This is just an idea and something that might encourage those individuals that have and expect a full Police pay for the rest of their service and who are quite happy to sit back and let that happen, which as mentioned could be for 20+ years. Harsh but where else would this be allowed?
07 October at 19:52
I feel strongly that if someone is injured as a result of their job, then the job should look after them. I have less sympathy for people who get recurring injuries as a result of sport for example. I think one of the obvious solutions to redusing sickness is to provide incentives and facilities for people to keep fit and healthy - a decfent initial fitness test (the current one is a joke), an annual fitness test, and subsideised force gyms. People who have good sickness records should also be recognised.
07 October at 19:11
With the appropriate level of support that the individual deserves. Base ill health retirement on proper impartial medical evidence and eliminate the culture of dissaffected officers discovering back injuries as they near the end of their service.
07 October at 18:18
Restricted duties occur for many reasons and officers injured in the course of duty should retain full pay and lots of support during their restricted duties. Officers who can't perform police duties for various other reasons and who can't or won't return to operational duty should be civilianised and paid accordingly.
07 October at 17:04
09 October at 15:30
As you spend longer in the service then rates should increase. Likewise, if you make a point of gaining invaluable skills, I think you should be rewarded. Maybe then, those who choose to take the easy way out might think about bettering themselves for their own benefit and for the benefit of the Police Service.09 October at 15:12
Time served is by far the best and fairest way of moving up the pay scale. If you do the job and are good at it then you get CRTP when you reach the top scale. If you dont do the job very well, then you should be dealt with regards reviews etc. Do you not think that reducing someones pay because they dont meet performance targets is going to demoralise them even more than the police service is already.
Leave things as they are and look at ways of reducing costs involved in the running of the job not messing with police officers lives and pay with which they and their families rely on.
09 October at 12:58
I would like to say that individual performance should be rewarded and a pay structure should reflect that. However as a Senior Manager I know how subjective this could be and would urge that this course of action is not taken. This would be down to the manager's interpretation on what constitutes good performance.
There are a number of variables that effect performance and figures cannot be the only measure. If managers are relied upon to implement this in a fair and equitable way then there is too much room for personalities to come into the equation.
Therefore the only fair way would be an incremental scheme based on level of service. Bonuses for Commanders etc who achieve performance should be removed as the individuals that achieve them are further down the rank structure!
09 October at 11:31
senior officer should be made to be more accountable since time and time again i see money wasted (in millions) in pursuit of projects that fail or are planned with lack of vision. This is for the manager to prove they have achieved a particular competency and hence gain promotion. they do this to the detriment of the force and should be dealt with accordingly. so the above question could be dismissed with the savings made.
09 October at 8:15
I can't strike, talking about striking could lead to imprisonment. When I got married I had to seek permission. When I moved house I had to ask permission. There are jobs that my wife can't do. I'm limited in doing other work. I can have no political affiliation. There are organisations I can't join. I'm on duty 24 hours each day, being accountable for my actions/inaction off duty. I search decomposed bodies, deliver death messages, give medical attention when there are no ambulances, sort out people's issues when there is no social worker, negotiate with people wanting to commit suicide when no-one else will listen. Society's buck stops here. I've been assaulted, have arrested someone carrying a firearm and others with knives. I work all hours of day and night, am regularly retained on duty and my duties are changed at short notice. This all impacts on my family. My children get unwanted attention because of my job. I accept all of this because I knew I would receive decent pay and receive a pension which would compensate me and my family for this. I am too old to change career. Please consider the fairness of your decisions.
09 October at 6:12
In response to the question and in the interests of fairness, police terms and conditions should be immediately changed to give them the right to strike. Successive governments have clearly taken advantage of the fact the police lack this right and we've been repeatedly shafted over the past 17 years or so starting with the Sheehy report back in the early 90's.
I, like everyone else, signed up to pay 11% of my salary into a pension fund for 30 years which was to provide me with an agreed 2/3's final salary pension when I retired. As far as I'm concerned this is a contract and I want it honoured. The fact that the country is in a state isn't my doing - I upheld my end of the bargain and I expect the government to do the same. They're playing with fire on this one, right to strike or not. There's more than one way to skin a cat as they say and if we all suddenly decided to do everything "by the book", believe me, the system would grind to a halt.
08 October at 18:24
Over many years the service has increased support and management numbers to cover many tasks that never used to be part of policing, whilst front line services have been withdrawn (in many cases correctly - no-one regrets the end of Abload escorts) from some "traditional" roles. Do we really need 6 different ways of measuring our performance? My for alone employs 41 people on just measuring performance and checking with the public if we got it right. We have more officers from Sgt>>>ACC just at HQ than we had in the whole force when I joined. Being so bureaucratic and management-heavy is draining the budgets long before anyone gets to look at front-line resources. That is unfair on taxpayers.
This is an opportunity to look beyond merely tweaking the pounds and pennies, so we can make the organisation fit for purpose for the future. That is not a quick-fix, but would be worth taking the time to do.
What you must not do is con people who have given up their whole life for this job out of a big chunk of their pension.
08 October at 13:20
In conclusion . . .
There have been a few concerns expressed about the safety and confidentiality of posting views on the review site.
At the Police fringe meeting at the Conservative Conference in Birmingham this week, we spoke to Nick Herbert, the policing Minister and Paul McKeever the Fed Chairman.
They were anxious to state that officers should have no fear of expressing themselves, as the review team want and value genuine rank and file input. They have taken the extraordinary step of setting up a website for this very purpose. it was stated that officers should have no fear of voicing their views and this is why anonymous contributions are not discouraged. The Federation are contributing to the process through direct dialogue with Tom Winsor and his team. Tom is decsribed as a no nonsense man, who will take all views and comments into account for this review.
From the meeting and Nicks comments, they are taking an objective view and want rank snd file input rather than merely relying on ACPO contributions, which are focused more on protecting their own interests.