FAIR PLAY FOR POLICE - THE POLICE PAY AND CONDITIONS REVIEW - HAVE YOUR SAY

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 contact@policereview.gsi.gov.uk    Please note, however, they cannot respond to all individual emails.

 

The questions

 

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.

Chris:

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

Gary:
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

Dan:
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

 

Fergal:

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

M S:

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

M:
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

Patrol 24/7:
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

  

Dave:

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

Vince Smallbone:

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

Glen :

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

Matt:
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

Jon:
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

Darren:
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

Neil:
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

M:
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

Jon:
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


Patrol 24/7:
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

Mick CLYNE:
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

Ben Gillard:

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

S:
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

Andrew:
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 

Craig:

I would suggest that this stays as it is, time served with the proviso that you gain a suitable appraisal (PDR) each year. If there are no issues you progress, if not you don't until the issues are addressed.

09 October at 15:30

Charlie:

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

Neil:
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

M:
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

nick:
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

GJT:
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

PCS:
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

Mike:
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.

AND TONIGHT MATTHEW, SIR HUGH ORDE WILL BE . . . . .

Sir Hugh Orde, dreaming of his hero . . . .

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!

TOP 10 HIGHEST PAID COPS - ARE THEY REALLY WORTH IT??

Should you be near your TV this evening, you might want to watch "Panorama: Because we're worth it - The Taxpayers Rich List", on BBC One Monday 20th September at 2030BST and then available on BBC iPlayer. 

We were contacted by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism a few months ago advising that they were preparing this program for Panorama and they were specifically interested in the pay and bonus structures of the Chief Police Officers. 

Readers will not be surprised to learn that Chief Officers feature frequently in the highest paid Rich List the public sector. What should be born in mind though, is that theis program was completed before the 2.5% pay rise that the Chiefs too have enjoyed since September 1st. So even the astronomic figures quoted are understated.

We have shown the TOP 10 HIGHEST PAID police personnel above and would ask the question "Are they really worth this much?" Furthermore, is it right that these highly paid, self serving ACPO ranked officers should have a total say in the pay and conditions of the rank and file?

In a report we will publish over the coming weeks, we will show that even based on basic salary:-

14 Chief Officers are paid a basic of £150,000+
6 Chief Officers are paid between £140 to £150,000 per annum
26 Chief Officers (inc Met Deputies) are paid between £130 and £140,000 per annum.

More than 38,000 government workers are paid over £100,000

In the most detailed analysis of government salaries ever undertaken, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveals just how many high earners there are at the top.

More than 38,000 government workers are paid over £100,000, and 9,187 earn more than the Prime Minister (£142,500), according to the Bureau’s public sector pay database.

The findings put an end to the myth that the public sector worker trades high pay for job security and gold plated pensions.

The revelations will also come as a shock to central government, whose best estimate puts the number of high-earners at just 25,000, a miscalculation of more than 50 per cent.

The data also reveals that despite years of legislation and campaigning aimed at achieving gender equality in the public sector, the glass ceiling has hardly cracked, let alone, been smashed.

Among public sector workers paid more than £100,000 only one in five are women.

The Public Sector
The scale and scope of the public sector has exploded since Labour came to power in 1997. Then it employed 5.2 million people, but over the last 13 years that has jumped to 6.1 million.

Pay has ballooned too. The government’s wage bill has jumped 29 per cent in five years to hit £157.7bn. At the top the figures are still more dramatic. The pay for the highest three per cent of public sector jobs has risen by a massive 64 per cent in the past decade.

As the government grapples to restore the country’s battered public finances, it is the public sector that will bear the brunt of the cuts. Already the government is talking of stemming public pay, with pay freezes and cuts to bonus payments.

But critics fear that most of the cost cutting will be made at grassroots level rather than among those at the top – and yet according to this new data Britain’s highest paid public servants cost the country nearly £5bn a year.

According to Cabinet Office Minister Sir Frances Maude: “You don’t need to pay stupendous amounts to get good people. You can square the circle of having really good people not on telephone number salaries and massive built in bonuses. That public service ethos is very important.”

Every sector is represented from fire fighters to police chiefs, army bosses to teachers, doctors, civil servants and quango directors, regulators and council heads, with many sectors paying hundreds, if not thousands of staff more than the £142,500 paid to their ultimate boss, the Prime Minister. The National Health Service (NHS) alone pays nearly 6,500 employees more than David Cameron.

The prime minister and his cabinet took the 5% pay cut when they formed the government at a time of record deficits and a sluggish economy.

In collaboration with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Panorama requested pay details from most of the UK's publicly funded organisations, including local authorities, schools, universities, the BBC, the NHS and the government agencies known as quangos.

When the Government start applying the fiscal scalpel to policing, they should start at the top.


THERE ARE TOO MANY CHIEFS. MANY OF THEM ARE PAID TOO MUCH.

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH INDIANS AT THE FRONTLINE OF POLICING.

THESE ARE FUNDAMENTAL BASICS. THE GOVERNMENT MUST REVERSE THIS PROFLIGATE TREND IF THERE IS TO BE ANY HOPE OF RESTORING FAITH IN THE SERVICE, MORALE IN THE TROOPS AND CONFIDENCE IN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SERVICE.

"CHRISTMAS FOR CRIMINALS" - AN IMPASSIONED PLEA FOR THE FUTURE OF POLICING BY PAUL MCKEEVER - CHAIRMAN OF THE POLICE FEDERATION OF ENGLAND & WALES

Paul McKeever - Chairman Police Federation

of England & Wales

As supporters of the front line police officers in the UK, we are in total support of the efforts of Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation of England & Wales. Paul is not afraid to put his head above the parapet and stand up for the rank and file officers when it is clear that their position is being unfairly compromised or threatened.

Paul and support team, together with Federation representatives from forces all around the country were aghast recently, when the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), in a digraceful act of betrayal to their junior colleagues, compiled and forwarded a secret document to the Home Office, making 49 recommendations that included drastic slashing cuts to the pay and conditions of federated ranks. In a totally self serving and deceitful act, the Police chiefs submitted the secret document to the Home Office ahead of severe public spending cuts, suggesting that hundreds of millions of pounds could be saved. No recommendation was made by ACPO to accept any reductions to THEIR numbers or conditions.

ACPO have courted contraversy all too often in recent years, with many examples of profligate spending and nefarious activities with a shameful disregard for the rank and file officers who actually police our streets and keep us safe.

We are pleased to reprint here, an informed and impassioned plea from Paul McKeever, regarding the proposed budgetary cauts to UK policing, asking why other areas of the public sector are ring fenced, yet policing, which affects the quality of all of our lives, every day, looks set to face fiscal cuts that will impact on us all. To download the full transcript click here. Alternatively, click on the images below to enlarge.

Over to you Paul ....

SHOULD THE FEDERATION HAVE PARITY WITH ACPO ON POLICE REFORMS?

WE MAKE NO APOLOGY FOR THE LENGTH OF THIS ARTICLE.

ITS CONTENT IS IMPORTANT TO EVERY RANK AND FILE POLICE OFFICER.

We have all witnessed the ACPO leaking of the "Secret Document" to the Home Secretary suggesting, among forty-nine recommendations, that the pay and conditions of the federated ranks be dramatically slashed. Police chiefs submitted the secret document to the Home Office without reference to the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) and without reference to the Federation and oblivious to the rights of rank and file officers.

We wrote about it first on Thin Blue Line and then in our article "The case against ACPO"

Readers may recall it was ACPO that conveniently didn’t tell the Police Federation that they had done it. It was ACPO that met with the Police Federation and the Superintendents’ Association, pleading for unity to resist the Government’s plans for elected commissioners to replace police authorities – after they had submitted their plans.

In response to hearing of the leaked document, Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: "We are extremely disappointed that such an important paper has been leaked into the public domain, causing much anger and distress amongst police officers throughout England and Wales."

It is time that the rank and file officer was given a voice and the recognition the role and the experience deserves. In any future reforms, the Federation should take its place alongside ACPO in any negotiations and consultations with the Government and elected officials over police reform. The front line should not be placed lower down the priority list, it should be up there, with equal ranking to ACPO with an equal voice, presented in unison, as one body. The current state of affairs, where ACPO have all the power, authority and political interference cannot be satisfactory.

Senior Officers and the rank and file must be reconciled as one service. It cannot not be acceptable that the Federation hear about important decisions from leaked documents or other sources. They must be a visible part of the process, not merely an afterthought This will take a monumental shift of culture from the Chief Officers, to accept that this is an essential element in achieving reforms that will last. If they fail to do this, this Government will spend its administration umpiring the contrary view of ACPO and the frontline.

We have posted an article to the forum pages of Police Oracle and to the Police Debate Group on Linked In.

On prior track record, at the very least ACPO have shown themselves to be self serving, manipulative, deceitful and disloyal to the rank and file whose trust they should be looking to rebuild. If the federation were granted parity with ACPO in any future negotiations, there might be a chance of some fair play being dished out when the reform proposals are presented.

As a result of our article on the Oracle Forum there are some serious irregularities that raise considerable cause for concern about the structure and membership of the PNB.

The Police Negotiating Board

According to the PNB website "The Police Negotiating Board (PNB) was established by Act of Parliament in 1980 to negotiate the hours of duty; leave; pay and allowances; the issue, use and return of police clothing, personal equipment and accoutrements; and pensions of United Kingdom police officers, and to make recommendations on these matters to the Home Secretary, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers. It is governed by a Constitution ".

Section 61 of the Police Act 1996 states:

The Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom

(1) There shall continue to be a Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom for the consideration by persons representing the interests of—
(a) the authorities who between them maintain the police forces in Great Britain and the Royal Ulster Constabulary,
(b) the persons who are members of those police forces or of that Constabulary or are police cadets,
(c) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and
(d) the Secretary of State,

of questions relating to hours of duty, leave, pay and allowances, pensions or the issue, use and return of police clothing, personal equipment and accoutrements.


The latest constituents of the PNB are:

Official side (Full PNB): 

Secretaries of State (Home Secretary, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Scottish Ministers)
The Association of Police Authorities of England and Wales (including one member representing the Metropolitan Police Authority)
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
The Northern Ireland Policing Board
Association of Chief Police Officers (to include the Metropolitan Police Commissioner) -ACPO
Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland - ACPOS


Staff Side (Full PNB)


Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (England and Wales) - CPOSA
Scottish Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association - SCPOSA
Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales
Association of Scottish Police Superintendents
Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland
Police Federation of England and Wales
Scottish Police Federation
Police Federation for Northern Ireland

Now, according to the The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) own website,

"ACPO is not a staff association (the separately constituted Chief Police Officers' Association fulfils that function). ACPO's work is on behalf of the Service, rather than its own members. The Association has the status of a private company limited by guarantee. As such, it conforms to the requirements of company law and its affairs are governed by a Board of Directors."

The 'separately constituted Chief Police Officers' Association', however does not appear to have its own website and we can find very little information about them.

Similarly ACPOS state on their website "We are an independent organisation registered in Scotland with Companies House (company number SC310956) as a company limited by guarantee. We are also a charity registered in Scotland (no. SC039323)."

Again the SCPOSA does not have its own website and we can find very little information about them.

Section 64 of the Police Act 1996 states

Membership of trade unions :

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a member of a police force shall not be a member of any trade union, or of any association having for its objects, or one of its objects, to control or influence the pay, pensions or conditions of service of any police force.

(3) If any question arises whether any body is a trade union or an association to which this section applies, the question shall be determined by the chief registrar of friendly societies.

(5) Nothing in this section applies to membership of the Police Federations, or of any body recognised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section as representing members of police forces who are not members of those Federations.

ACPO’s objectives are stated on their website:

"ACPO's objectives do not include “to control or influence the pay, pensions or conditions of service of any police force.”

All of this raised some questions:

(1) If ACPO's objectives are not "to control or influence the pay, pensions or conditions of service of any police force.” then what purpose, role or use do they have in sitting on the Official Side of the PNB? As far as I can see they cannot make any contribution to negotiations without their members being guilty of contravening Section 61(1) of the Police Act 1996.

It seems abundantly clear that by virtue of these submissions, ACPO are proposing to control and influence the pay pensions and (in other sections) the conditions of service of police forces. Albeit that they may say that these were submissions to the Home Office only, by failing to include the other members of the PNB they have acted in isolation which suggests they are more concerned with satisfying political masters than abiding by police protocols. Without scanning the full constitution of the Police Act, (which I will leave to the federation) I could not confirm that a prima facie contravention has occurred. On the face of it though, it appears most likely.

(2) In any case how can Chief Officers sit on both the Official Side (as ACPO) and the Staff Side (as CPOSA). Is there not a conflict of interest there? Which is the subgroup of the other? Is ACPO a subgroup of CPOSA or is it the other way round? Who controls who? Either way there must be partiality involved. Why for instance can't a subgroup of Superintedents, or a subgroup of the Federated Ranks, also sit on the Official Side?

We have not been able to locate any official trace of the constititional format of CPOSA. Companies House searches, Trade Association directory searches have proved fruitless. We find references to Senior Officers being the regional respresentative for CPOSA but to date we've been unable to get any further. Again, this is a question we will put to the federation. They must have some constitutional information so we can check if there is a conflict issue, which it would seem there is. It seems rather pointless having a staff side and an official side if both sides can have representatives and if it is correct that federated ranks can only sit on one side yet Senior Officers can sit on both reveals yet another anomoly.

(3) If a group of Chief Officers have decided to form a private company, why is that company allowed to take part in any negotiations involving the terms and conditions of police officers who are public servants?

The decision to form a private company would have had a degree of appeal only if the intentions were to disguise or conceal some of its activities as far as we can see. This is clearly the allegation that is facing ACPO and there may well be substance to the allegations. The evidence revealed in the media and as per our reports certainly seems to support this suspicion. (The uncontrolled and unaccountable spending is just one example). The present format of the PNB seems to allow for ACPO to be represented. but their status does present a serious cause for concern and potential embarrassment for them.

(4) Which Home Secretary actually authorised the membership of ACPO on the Official Side in the first place?

The first annual report of the PNB covers the period 11 February 2000 to 4 April 2001. The Home Secretary from 2 May 1997 to 8 June 2001 was Jack Straw under Tony Blairs Labour administration.

(5) If Chief Officers sit on both the Staff Side as CPOSA and the Official Side as ACPO, how can any discussions between the Staff Side members, ie the Federation, the Superintendents and Chief Officers be conducted in confidence? !!!!

In our view, they can't.

No doubt the abuse of these principle are what Paul McKeever is most aggrieved with.

THE SECRET ACPO DOCUMENT
A major cause for concern we would say is Recommendation 26:

"There are real concerns that the antiquated manner of operating that exists within PNB at the current time will not be capable of delivering at speed and thus will inhibit the ability of the Service and government to rectify existing issues and ensure the necessary flexibility that will be required to manage the workforce through this difficult and challenging period of critical workforce reform".

Recommendation 26 : ACPO accordingly urges the replacement of PNB with a pay review body.


Our fear for the rank and file here, is that the PNB may indeed be antiquated, but specifically, why would it not be capable of delivering at speed etc etc? This whole section stinks to high heaven of a "rush through" job to show the Government how powerfully and effectively ACPO can effect required cuts. However, this is at the expense of the federated ranks and the non federated ACPO ranks remain unaffected and ring fenced. Rushing through a replacement review body suggests the PNB doesn't permit the flexibility that ACPO would want with engineering cuts to federated pay, and by replacing it with a pay review body where they would wish to exercise tighter controls.

One industrious and keen officer over on the Oracle forum has dug his heels in ans contacted the PNB for clarification of some of these issues. Here is an extract:

THE POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD (PNB)

From: XXXX
Sent: 26 August 2010 12:19
To: Blase Bill (OME)

Subject: Enquiry re constitution of PNB

Dear Sir,

I am interested in the history and constitution of the Police Negotiating Board and have downloaded your first Annual Report 2001 which includes Appendix E Short History of the Police Negotiating Board and also PNB Circular 01/19 which provides the revised Constitution published in August 2001. I was hoping you could clarify a couple of points:

I have noted that in the revised Constitution, the list of members of the Official Side (Full PNB) includes the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (incl the Met Pol Com) and Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS).

I have also noted that the list of members of the Staff Side (full PNB) includes the Chief Police Officers Staff Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.

According to the The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) own website,

"ACPO is not a staff association (the separately constituted Chief Police Officers' Association fulfils that function). ACPO's work is on behalf of the Service, rather than its own members. The Association has the status of a private company limited by guarantee. As such, it conforms to the requirements of company law and its affairs are governed by a Board of Directors."

The 'separately constituted Chief Police Officers' Association', however does not appear to have its own website and I can find very little information about them.

ACPOS similarly state on their website "We are an independent organisation registered in Scotland with Companies House (company number SC310956) as a company limited by guarantee. We are also a charity registered in Scotland (no. SC039323)." There does not appear to be a separate 'Chief Police Officers' Association in Scotland'.

Can you clarify why ACPOS in particular (because their specific name appears) can sit on both the Official Side and the Staff Side of the PNB ? Is there not a conflict of interest there? Also if a group of Chief Officers have decided to form a private company, why is that company allowed to take part in negotiations involving the terms and conditions of police officers who are public servants?

Can you also clarify whether the Chief Police Officer's Association and the Chief Police Officers' Staff Association are one and the same or different entities ? I can understand the presence of this body on the Staff Side but can't understand why a subgroup, or perhaps all of them, would want to form a private company called ACPO or ACPOS, and be given the right to sit on the Official Side also.

I hope you can throw some light on this area for me.
Thank you

And this is the reply that was received:

Dear Mr X

The Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA) is constituted separately from ACPO. The Chairman of CPOSA is Paul West (Chief Constable of West Mercia Police), and any enquiries about the association should be directed to him.

Concerning ACPOS, to the extent that there is any potential for a conflict of interest, it is for the Independent Chair of the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) to manage this in a way which upholds the public interest.

Any representative body needs to have legal personality to operate effectively. The structure of a company limited by guarantee is used by many charitable and other organisations for this purpose.

Yours sincerely

Bill Blase
PNB Independent Secretariat

First impression? What a fudge of an answer. Did you think the same?

Until they show that CPOSA is a formally structured entity, to outward appearances it just seems like a bunch of Chiefs who have gathered together in an unofficial club with an official sounding name. Who could blame anyone for supposing this, when there is no website, no trace of them on companies house and no open declaration of their status.

This raises the question.... If they have no legal status what the heck are they doing on the PNB staff side? Indeed, what is the justification for their presence on either side of the PNB as a persona non grata group? Call me a suspicious cynic (wouldn't be the first time) but it looks like a surreptitious ploy to place a set of spying representative eyes within the camp of the staff side.

Interesting that he should direct the writer to Paul West, a Chief Constable for clarification. Perhaps it is hoped that this will discourage the majority from asking the awkward questions that need to be asked.

John Randall is the Independent Chair of the PNB. The Chairman is appointed by the Prime Minister. The role of the Chair is to to "supply a neutral, independent voice in the negotiations and to assist in bringing the parties to agreement, through support, informal mediation and conciliation". As best as we can make out from the site, he has been Chair for 6 years (2004). He is a member of the Labour party. Our guess is that he might obfuscate when confronted with the conflict of interest question.

We hope we're wrong, but let's think this one through. He was appointed by Tony Blair whilst labour were in power. Randall is a member (not merely a voter) of the labour party. This is the labour party who are under such attack for the manner in which they have let policing deteriorate and elitism (ACPO) proliferate. We would be surprised if he could ever be classed as politically independent and would expect him to be defensive about having allowed CPOSA to remain on the PNB under his watch. Perhaps the question we should be asking is how a paid up political member can ever be viewed as independent? We know that ACPO and their ilke have been party politically biased toward Labour (I have written about their allegiances previously) mainly because their self serving interests were best served under Labour, whereas they were treated with an indifferent political attitude by prior administrations.

An independent status that is suspect is hardly in the public interest as Blases' second paragraph suggests.

Yes "Any representative body needs to have legal personality to operate effectively. The structure of a company limited by guarantee is used by many charitable and other organisations for this purpose".

Quite right. So shouldn't CPOSA have a visible legal personality to back this up? Otherwise, we must question their integrity and motives for having a presence on the PNB. With regard to the reference to a company being limited by guarantee (ACPO), this is nothing more than a smokescreen to disguise activities. Otherwise, they would be open to freedom of information requests, which up until recently, they have resisted. Indeed, Heather Brooke, the journalist who broke the MP scandal and Sean O'Neill (Times Crime Editor) had their FOI requests about Chief Officer bonuses blocked by ACPO. My guess is that they felt the hieracrch of the police was too powerful an animal to take on. However, the Telegraph were more successful, but only when it became clear that labour were on their way out. Again, we have written about this on this site and in our reports.

All in all, this is a very sordid and clandestine arrangement.

A few final summary points to consider:-

1. It is time that the Police Federation were granted full parity with ACPO on matters as sensitive as Police Reform, pay and pensions
2. ACPO should not be permitted to submit proposals to the Home Secretary on matters relating police pay, pensions and even reforms, without the prior input of the federated rank and file representation.
3. The status of ACPO as a company limited by guarantee MUST be questioned and sorted
4. The constitutional and legal status of CPOSA must be confirmed, transparent and legal
5. The PNB should not be chaired by an individual who is a paid up member of any political party. The chairman must be totally INDEPENDENT.
6. There should be distinctly separate sides on any board that negotiates pay. There should be a "Staff" side and and "Official" side, whose members are truly representative of the bodies they are accountable to.
7. It cannot be right that CPOSA (representing Chief Police Officers) have a presence on the staff side of the PNB.
8. Private companies and groups of individuals without a visible legal entity or formal constitution have no proper place in these discussions.

Until these fundamental principles are corrected, the interests of rank and file officers will be compromised.

We will be asking the Police Federation to contribute their views on the matters contained within this article and to the Police Reform Debate.

In the meantime, what are your views? For matters that affect the rank and file officer, isn't it time the Police Federation were given equal parity to ACPO so that a balanced and collective police voice is presented?