The policing and criminal justice minister insists that, although tough decisions have to be taken on funding, pay and pensions, he’s “a fierce supporter of the police” and “determined to help officers do their job in every way I can, whether it’s by reducing bureaucracy, dealing with inefficiencies in the criminal justice system or eliminating targets and central direction that gets in the way.”
Herbert wants to restore professional discretion and give officers the space to exercise their judgement. He also wishes to encourage high quality training and a new focus on skills.
According to Herbert, the Government has no choice but to deal with the fiscal deficit. “It’s in the whole country’s interests, including police officers and their families, that we do so,” he said. “Failure to tackle Britain’s overspend would mean higher interest rates threatening the recovery, and even deeper cuts down the line.”
The current Government didn’t cause the deficit, and neither did police officers, but the unavoidable truth is that it has to be tackled now.
“The police service spends over GB pound 14 billion of public money every year,” explained Herbert, “so we cannot exempt it from making savings. I’ve heard it said that the police received a poor funding deal compared to, say, defence, but that’s not true. We all know that the Armed Forces are having to make savings that also involve very difficult choices, but the comparison is false because policing receives a quarter of its income from local taxpayers.”
Real terms reduction of 14%
In practice, no one force will actually receive a 20% reduction in their overall funding. If forces freeze their precept this year, but increase it in line with official forecasts over the next three years, then on average they’ll face a 14% real terms reduction in their funding.
“That means that they will have 6% less cash in four years’ time,” asserted the minister. “The reductions are challenging but manageable and, if forces make the savings in the right way, they can protect frontline policing services for the public.”
As far as Herbert’s concerned, when 80% of police expenditure is spent on people, forces have to look at their overall pay bill to save money. “We are driving savings in the non-pay areas as hard as we can,” he said. “For instance, we want a renewed focus on procurement and IT to save GB pound 350 million a year, but we cannot ignore pay.”
You may have read in the national media that the coalition is asking everyone in the public sector earning above GB pound 21,000 per annum to accept a two-year pay freeze. “Of course I appreciate that no-one welcomes their pay being frozen,” said Herbert, “but the savings – another GB pound 350 million a year – will be crucial to help forces when it comes to protecting jobs.”
The Government is also having to take some tough but essential decisions on pensions as there’s a real need to rebalance the increasing cost of public sector pensions. The current system – wherein increased costs fall largely on the taxpayer – is unsustainable.
Value and cost of public service pensions
In his interim report published last October, Lord Hutton found that the value and cost of a public service pension has increased by around a third over the last 50 years because of longer life expectancy. Most of these extra costs have been met by the taxpayer.
“Like others,” added Herbert, “I know that police officers and staff are concerned about the prospect of increased pension contributions. While I recognise that officers pay high pension contribution rates compared to other public service workers, it’s also true that contributions are paid over a shorter period than others [30 or 35 years] and that police pension schemes provide very valuable benefits.”
In the aforementioned report, Lord Hutton published analyses that explored the relative benefits of public service schemes. Even taking into account the high contribution rates paid by officers, the value of their pension schemes is higher than all other major public service schemes save for the Armed Forces.
“I don’t believe that it would be fair to exempt police officers from increased contributions when others in the public sector, including those earning less, are being expected to pay more,” explained Herbert.
Position requires particularly careful consideration
Lord Hutton’s final proposals include setting a new normal pension age of 60 across the uniformed services, including police officers. The Government recognises that the position of the uniformed services, including the police, will require particularly careful consideration.
“We will set out proposals in the autumn, and any changes to police pensions would be subject to the usual consultation process with the Police Negotiating Board,” confirmed the minister.
According to the Government, the key underlying principle for all these decisions is fairness. All public sector workers are being asked to take their fair share of the burden. “Incidentally, since I have been asked this question by many officers, politicians are certainly not exempt.”
Ministers have taken a 5% pay cut and accepted a pay freeze for the next five years. MPs’ allowances have been reformed, and their pensions are about to be. It is, of course, right that they should play their part.
“There is also an issue of fairness as between the public and private sectors,” continued Herbert. “Many people who work for companies have already experienced the harsh impact of the downturn, and we need to be fair to taxpayers, too. That’s why we asked Tom Winsor to look at police pay and conditions. His view was that the existing arrangements for police remuneration are outdated and unfair.”
Ploughing savings back into new benefits
Herbert has expressed concern that the Police Federation is drawing officers’ attention to the allowances which Winsor recommends should go, while conveniently ignoring the new benefits which he proposes.
“It’s true that Winsor proposes a net saving, rising to some GB pound 200 million a year,” said Herbert. “This is 2% of the pay bill, but he suggests that the majority of savings should be ploughed back into new benefits, such as allowances for officers who work anti-social hours or have particular skills.”
Herbert stated that it’s simply not true every officer would lose from Winsor. Many would gain. “I would encourage officers to read Winsor’s report for themselves and to fill in his online ‘ready reckoner’ so that they can see the true impact of the proposals on their own pay packages.”
Winsor’s proposals will now be considered by the Police Negotiating Board.
“I understand the concern of officers about the potential combination of pay and pension changes,” outlined Herbert, “but when others in the public sector would be affected too, I do not believe that it would be right, as some have suggested, to exempt the police from the difficult decisions which we are having to take. Indeed, to do so could damage the important relationship between the police and the public they serve.”
Fierce supporter of the police service
Herbert is also sorry to hear it suggested that the action the Government is having to take on funding and pay means that the coalition doesn’t value the police service.
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” stated the minister. “I’m a fierce supporter of the police. Last week, for instance, I was vocal in backing the officers who protected the public and property, facing totally unacceptable personal attack, when violence broke out on the streets of London on 26 March.”
Herbert is “determined to help officers to do their job” in every way he can, whether that’s by reducing bureaucracy, dealing with inefficiencies in the criminal justice system or eliminating targets and central direction that gets in the way.
“I want to restore professional discretion and give officers the space to exercise their judgement, and I want to encourage high quality training and a new focus on skills. That’s what Peter Neyroud’s report on leadership and training is all about, and we’ll now consult on his ideas.”
Belt-tightening exercise for police officers
Herbert is all-too-well aware that, in common with others who work in the public sector, the Government is asking officers to tighten their belts. “I particularly feel for the police staff and some officers whose jobs may be going altogether,” he said, “but, taken together, the savings from a pay freeze and Winsor would amount to over half a billion pounds a year.”
If forces aren’t able to save this sum, they will be forced to make deeper cuts, equating to around another 10,000 police officer jobs. That is the stark but simple choice.
“The police do difficult and dangerous work,” concluded Herbert. “They cannot strike. We must recognise this, treat officers fairly and pay them well. We must continue to value, in the Prime Minister’s words, the finest police service in the world, but we must also take some tough decisions and do the right thing for the whole country. I hope police officers will recognise that.”
BTP reduces senior ranks by 20%
A statement issued this afternoon by the British Transport Police (BTP) confirms that it has reduced senior ranks by 20% to help boost front line policing.
Twenty one officers of chief inspector, superintendent and chief superintendent rank have taken voluntary severance under a scheme designed to save GB pound 9 million over the next five years.
The BTP’s chief constable Andy Trotter said: “I am determined to protect our front line service from budget cuts. I want more officers out there, particularly late at night, to tackle crime, anti-social behaviour and to provide a visible reassurance to the public.”
Trotter added: “I have taken swift action to reduce back office costs and senior ranks. This has been a quick and cost-effective way of reducing salary costs which safeguards money that will help increase the visibility and availability of front line officers and staff.”
Ensuring BTP has the leadership and resilience to improve its service following the departure of these experienced officers is now a key management task for 2011-2012.
