Tweet
Since the late 1970s, after an inquiry by Lord Edmund-Davies, police pay has been increased annually on September 1. It was linked to an index which took into account the absence of the right to take industrial action and to make sure police pay did not fall behind other groups of workers. While the index has changed over the years, it has provided fair – but not excessive – pay rises.
In July of last year, the official side of the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) offered 2.325% payable from September 1, with the Home Office indicating they would stage the award. This was rejected by the staff side (representing all police officers), which tabled a fairer and more transparent offer of 3.94%. This included an element of compensation for moving from a private sector index to a public sector facing index. Public sector pay rises are falling and private sector rises are increasing. If the previous index had been used, this would have produced a 3.39% increase.
As no agreement was reached, the matter was submitted to the Independent Police Arbitration tribunal, which recommended an increase of 2.5%, backdated to September 1 2007. Unlike police staff pay, the home secretary is required to ratify the award for it to be implemented in law.
Well, the home secretary failed to ratify the award in line with the tribunal’s recommendations. Instead, she decided it should be payable from December 1 – effectively cutting the award to 1.9% – saying this was to keep in line with the government’s inflation target. The government uses the Consumer Price Index to measure the rate of inflation at 2.1%.
However, the Retail Price Index shows inflation to be 4.2 %, while the Standard and Poor Index shows inflation to be running at 7%.
Sir Clive Booth, a distinguished civil servant and Labour Party member, was asked by the Home Office in 2006/2007 to undertake a review of the police pay system. In his report he said that we should move from the previous index to a public sector facing index. He also said that the PNB should be replaced by a pay review body in line with other public sector workers, but, as it is correctly argued, we are not like other public sector works for the following reason.
We are banned by law from taking any form of industrial action. If we did, the government would have to empty all the prisons of criminals, just to fill them up with police officers.
We regularly face danger in the course of our duties and are expected to put ourselves at risk to protect the public. Police officers are required to present themselves for duty when ordered and cannot refuse. There are restrictions on our private lives, we cannot join a trade union and we are accountable for our actions – whether on-duty or off-duty. We are also expected to deal with incidents even when we are off-duty.
Although you can compare some of our role with other jobs, the demand and requirement of the office of constable cannot be compared with any other profession. It is important to note that our colleagues in Scotland were paid the increase in full and police staff have been awarded 2.5% backdated to September 1, 2007 as the home secretary cannot interfere with their pay rise.
It was quite clear from leaked Home Office documents that the Home Office always planned not to honour any pay award, so what trust can we have in the Home Office and the home secretary ever again? While we have acted in good faith, others haven't. Even when we proposed a three-year pay deal to prevent things coming to this stage, the Home Office refused to countenance it. We have played by the rules, but the government has not.
At the end of February, federated ranks (from constable to chief inspector) will be balloted on whether, in the absence of independent binding arbitration, we want the Fed to lobby for full industrial rights. I have already made my mind up, but only time will tell how others will make up theirs.
Written by a serving Officer of the Metropolitan Police
In July of last year, the official side of the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) offered 2.325% payable from September 1, with the Home Office indicating they would stage the award. This was rejected by the staff side (representing all police officers), which tabled a fairer and more transparent offer of 3.94%. This included an element of compensation for moving from a private sector index to a public sector facing index. Public sector pay rises are falling and private sector rises are increasing. If the previous index had been used, this would have produced a 3.39% increase.
As no agreement was reached, the matter was submitted to the Independent Police Arbitration tribunal, which recommended an increase of 2.5%, backdated to September 1 2007. Unlike police staff pay, the home secretary is required to ratify the award for it to be implemented in law.
Well, the home secretary failed to ratify the award in line with the tribunal’s recommendations. Instead, she decided it should be payable from December 1 – effectively cutting the award to 1.9% – saying this was to keep in line with the government’s inflation target. The government uses the Consumer Price Index to measure the rate of inflation at 2.1%.
However, the Retail Price Index shows inflation to be 4.2 %, while the Standard and Poor Index shows inflation to be running at 7%.
Sir Clive Booth, a distinguished civil servant and Labour Party member, was asked by the Home Office in 2006/2007 to undertake a review of the police pay system. In his report he said that we should move from the previous index to a public sector facing index. He also said that the PNB should be replaced by a pay review body in line with other public sector workers, but, as it is correctly argued, we are not like other public sector works for the following reason.
We are banned by law from taking any form of industrial action. If we did, the government would have to empty all the prisons of criminals, just to fill them up with police officers.
We regularly face danger in the course of our duties and are expected to put ourselves at risk to protect the public. Police officers are required to present themselves for duty when ordered and cannot refuse. There are restrictions on our private lives, we cannot join a trade union and we are accountable for our actions – whether on-duty or off-duty. We are also expected to deal with incidents even when we are off-duty.
Although you can compare some of our role with other jobs, the demand and requirement of the office of constable cannot be compared with any other profession. It is important to note that our colleagues in Scotland were paid the increase in full and police staff have been awarded 2.5% backdated to September 1, 2007 as the home secretary cannot interfere with their pay rise.
It was quite clear from leaked Home Office documents that the Home Office always planned not to honour any pay award, so what trust can we have in the Home Office and the home secretary ever again? While we have acted in good faith, others haven't. Even when we proposed a three-year pay deal to prevent things coming to this stage, the Home Office refused to countenance it. We have played by the rules, but the government has not.
At the end of February, federated ranks (from constable to chief inspector) will be balloted on whether, in the absence of independent binding arbitration, we want the Fed to lobby for full industrial rights. I have already made my mind up, but only time will tell how others will make up theirs.
Written by a serving Officer of the Metropolitan Police
