Details

Published: 31 January 2012

The Home Secretary has announced that she will accept in full the decision of the Police Arbitration Tribunal in respect of the recommendations in the Winsor Review’s first report. This document attempts to explain the changes proposed in the first report from the Winsor Review and how far they have been modified by the recent decision of the Police Arbitration Tribunal.

1) Overtime

Winsor recommended the following:

• Casual overtime should be reduced from time and a third to just plain time
• The minimum hours for being recalled between duty should be abolished and instead paid at plain time for the hours worked plus travelling time.
• Officers should no longer receive double time for working on a rostered rest day with less than five days’. Instead all rest day working with fewer than 15 days’ notice should be at time and a half.
• Police officers should be able to nominate seven days in addition to 25 December which will count as their public holiday entitlements. If they have to work on those days with less than 15 days’ notice, they will receive double-time, but an ACC must authorise the cancellation of their nominated public holiday.

The PAT has modified these proposals. While the recommendations in relation to recalls to duty, rest days and public holidays have been retained, all casual overtime will still be payable at time and a third rather than plain time. This will also apply to any travelling time for recalls between tours of duty.

2) On-call

Winsor recommended a national on-call allowance of £15 for each occasion of oncall after the officer in question has undertaken 12 on-call sessions in the year.

The PAT did not make an award, meaning that this recommendation was not accepted. In explaining why it did not make an award, the PAT stated that the proposed level of £15 was “rather low”, given:

• The high level of skills required to be possessed by officers who are on-call.
• The proposed 12 on-call sessions qualifying period.
• The fact that an amount of £23 per session has been applied in Scotland.

The PAT agreed with Staff Side that the issue of on-call should be examined as part of Winsor Part Two.

3) Variable Shift Arrangements

Winsor recommended that Chief Officers will no longer need JBB agreement before bringing into operation a variable shift arrangement (VSA).

Unfortunately the PAT accepted this recommendation. Now Chief Officers will only need to consult, rather than agree, a VSA with the local Joint Branch Board. They will also have to consult with the affected officers and take full account of their individual circumstances, including the likely effects of the new arrangement on their personal circumstances. New shift arrangements should not be brought into effect earlier than 30 days after the communication of the decision of the Chief Officer.

4) Part-time working

Winsor recommended that an officer wishing to return from part-time to full-time working, must be appointed within two months if the force has a suitable vacancy, and within four months of the written notice being received.

The PAT has accepted this recommendation.

5) Mutual Aid/Held in reserve

Winsor recommended that:

• The Hertfordshire Agreement should no longer apply for officers on mutual aid, and that officers should be paid for the hours they are required to work each day, plus travelling time to and from the place of duty.
• That the definition of ‘proper accommodation’ should be revised to describe a single occupancy room with use of en suite bathroom facilities. Where such accommodation is not provided, the officer should receive a payment of £30 per night. The current definition of ‘higher standard accommodation’ should be removed and not replaced.
• Officers held in reserve on a day and who have not been paid for any mutual aid tour of duty that day, should receive the on-call allowance of £15 for that day.
• The PAT has modified these proposals:
• The PAT has awarded that officers on mutual aid who are unable to return home are to receive a new 'Away from Home Overnight Allowance' of £50 per night, as well as payment for all hours worked plus travelling time to and from the place of duty.
• The PAT has accepted the definition and payment level in respect of ‘proper accommodation’.
• The PAT has not made an award in respect of an on-call allowance (see above).

6) Pay increments

Winsor recommended that all officers below the top of their pay scale should be suspended at that increment for a two-year period.

The PAT has modified these proposals. The first three steps on the constables’ scale will be excluded from the proposed suspension.

7) Competence Related Threshold Payments

Winsor recommended that Competence Related Threshold Payments (CRTPs) should be abolished.

The PAT has modified these proposals. CRTPs will remain in place for those who already receive them, but there will be a two-year freeze on new applications.

8) Special Priority Payments

Winsor recommended that Special Priority Payments (SPPs) should be abolished all outstanding SPPs should be paid on a pro-rated basis.

The PAT has accepted this recommendation.

9) Housing Allowance

Winsor recommended that:

• Housing replacement allowance should remain, but that it should not go up for an officer if their personal circumstances change, for example if they receive a promotion.
• The existing framework, by which the amount an officer receives reduces when he or she lives with another officer also receiving the allowance, should remain.

The PAT has accepted this recommendation.

10) Role-related pay (EPAA)

Winsor recommended that an interim Expertise and Professional Accreditation Allowance (EPAA) of £1,200 per annum should be introduced for officers in the following categories:

• Professionalising Investigation Programme (PIP) accredited detectives
• Officers accredited to Public Order Level 1 or 2
• Officers in possession of Authorised Firearms Officer status
• Officers who have worked in Neighbourhood policing for three years

These roles were chosen without any apparent transparency and Staff Side hade concerns that they would lead to an increase in the gender pay gap. There was also evidence that forces would restrict the numbers of officers which could access these roles.

The PAT did not make an award, accepting Staff Side’s view that rewarding officers in particular roles or with specific skills should be properly examined in Part two of the Winsor Review, looking at longer term reform.

11) Unsocial Hours Payments

Winsor recommended that all constables, sergeants, inspectors and chief inspectors should receive an additional 10 per cent of their basic pay, on an hourly basis, for any hours worked between 8:00pm and 6:00am. This allowance would not be pensionable.Winsor estimated that officers on a standard eight-hour alternating shift system within a four-team pattern would receive an average unsocial hours allowance of:

• Constables – £1,200 per annum
• Sergeants – £1,500 per annum
• Inspectors – £1,900 per annum
• Chief Inspectors – £2,100 per annum

The PAT has accepted this recommendation.

What happens next? Clearly officers will have questions about the implementation of the PAT ruling. The PAT did not specify a deadline for any of its recommendations to be implemented, but it did envisage that the necessary changes to administrative processes to implement its recommendations would have been completed by 1 April 2012.

Subsequent to the Home Secretary’s announcement, we expect a Home Office Circular and draft determinations for consultation within the Police Negotiating Board, which would set out the timeframe in respect of the implementation and detailed operation of the changes set out in the PAT ruling.

IAN RENNIE

General Secretary

30 January 2012

Details

Published: 08 November 2011

We can confirm that the PAT hearing concluded on 22 November 2011 and that their decision is now awaited.  No timescale was given for the decision.  We will keep you informed of any developments.

Ahead of the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) meeting today, Tuesday 8 November, to consider the recommendations from the Winsor Part One Report, please find the below statement from Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales:

“Following the failure to agree between the Official Side and Staff Side at July’s Police Negotiating Board meeting, the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) will meet today, Tuesday 8 November, to consider the recommendations from the Winsor Part One Report. The decision to go to the PAT was reached after there was a failure to agree at the final PNB meeting. The Official Side failed to accept an alternative set of proposals put forward by Staff Side which offered equivalent fiscal savings to those proposed as part of Winsor Part 1 recommendations. Details of the negotiations remain subject to the PNB/PAT process but we remain hopeful that the arbiters will agree with our concerns about the Winsor Part 1 recommendations and find in our favour.  We expect the Home Secretary, Theresa May, to keep the promise she made last year to  police officers of England and Wales to fight our corner and honour the negotiation process and the decision of the PAT.  We remain committed to fighting for the fairest deal for police officers throughout the UK and will endeavour to keep you updated every step of the way."

Details

Published: 01 July 2011

There has been a significant rise in the number of officers receiving Regulation Notices which refer to the Misuse of Force computer systems.

Everybody should be aware of the logon notification with regard to accessing  and using  the force systems, and yet it would appear that many of you are ignoring the warning.

It is therefore necessary to re issue some advice on this matter and in particular draw your attention to a Joint Branch Board Circular No. 030/2010 which is titled "APPLICATIONS FOR CRIMINAL / MISCONDUCT ADVICE IN RELATION TO THE USE OF POLICE COMPUTER SYSTEMS FOR A 'POLICING PURPOSE'".

The misuse of the computer systems and its data is taken very seriously as highlighted in the following paragraphs from the document:

Officers who access computer systems for a non authorised purpose are liable to be prosecuted for the criminal offences of 'unauthorised access' under section 1 Computer Misuse Act 1990 or obtaining or disclosing or procuring the disclosure of data for a 'non authorised purpose' under section 55 Data Protection Act 1998.

Offences of this nature can be punishable with imprisonment. Officers are also liable to face
misconduct proceedings for failure to meet the appropriate standards of 'confidentiality' or 'orders and instructions' and these can be assessed as gross misconduct.

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of reading this document below thoroughly.

JBB Circular

APPLICATIONS FOR CRIMINAL / MISCONDUCT ADVICE IN RELATION TO THE USE OF POLICE COMPUTER SYSTEMS FOR A 'POLICING PURPOSE'

Police Officers are in an extremely privileged position in that they have access to both the Police National Computer (PNC) and Force Intelligence Systems on a daily basis. Many requests for legal assistance are received from members who have been served with Regulation 15 notices in relation to their use of police computer systems.

In an effort to get a clearer understanding of what constitutes and what does not constitute a "policing purpose" in connection to any checks of police computer systems, advice has been obtained from Russell Jones & Walker.

Chief Officers are authorised to retain, control and use data for a "police purpose". This essentially means the investigation, detection and prevention of crime. Whilst almost all police officers can access police computer systems for an authorised purpose, there have been many examples of officers accessing systems for a non authorised purpose. This Circular is therefore intended to give some guidance on what is a non authorised purpose.

Officers who access computer systems for a non authorised purpose are liable to be prosecuted for the criminal offences of 'unauthorised access' under section 1 Computer Misuse Act 1990 or obtaining or disclosing or procuring the disclosure of data for a 'non authorised purpose' under section 55 Data Protection Act 1998. Offences of this nature can be punishable with imprisonment. Officers are also liable to face misconduct proceedings for failure to meet the appropriate standards of 'confidentiality' or 'orders and instructions' and these can be assessed as gross misconduct.

Generally, an authorised purpose is the investigation of crime. However, it would be a mistake for a police officer to conduct or request a check on a police computer system in any matter that related to them personally, without first obtaining the approval of a line manager.

For example, conducting a vehicle check on a vehicle registered to a neighbour, or on a vehicle registered to an estranged partner's new partner, or accessing a crime report in relation to a friend, who has been a victim of crime, are likely to be viewed as checks for personal reasons and not for a legitimate police purpose.

The reported case of DPP v BIGNALL 119981 1 Cr. App. R 1 suggests that if a police officer has general authority to access police computer systems he does not commit the offence of unauthorised access contrary to the Computer Misuse Act. However, in this case the Divisional Court made it clear that the officers could have been prosecuted under the Data Protection Act or dealt with under the police disciplinary proceedings. This was confirmed in the later House of Lords case of R V Bow Street Magistrates Court Ex p. Allinson (No.2) 120001 1 Cr. App. R. 61 which additionally said that the fact that a police officer had a general authority to access police computer systems did not mean that he had authority to access for a non authorised purpose.

Most Forces have issued internal standard operating procedures (SOPs) which define the limits of a police officer's authority to access police computer systems. Any departure from these SOPs is likely to be viewed as a non-authorised purpose which could result in the officer being prosecuted or disciplined. Officers should familiarise themselves with their Force's SOP. However, the best advice is that if there is any doubt as to whether a particular check is authorised or not, an officer should obtain the approval in writing of a line manager before conducting any such check.

'Police Friends' should be careful in relation to conducting any checks in the preparation of the defence on behalf of an officer facing investigation or proceedings. Friends will be aware of the penultimate paragraph of page 9 of the Home Office Guidance on Police Misconduct, Unsatisfactory Performance and Attendance Management Procedures which provides guidance on the role of the friend and states It is not the role of the friend to conduct his or her own investigation into the matter.

Whilst R v Chief Constable of The North Wales Police force ex parte CON NAH (which is in the Police Federation Conduct Manual 2008) confirms that a friend is entitled to prepare the accused officer's defence, including the interviewing of witnesses without the interference of the Force or the investigating officer, it would not be appropriate for the friend to conduct checks on the police computer system to ascertain whether a complainant or witness was 'known to police'. Paragraph 351 of the IPCC Statutory Guidance (April 2010) also confirms the Information Commissioner's view that a routine enquiry on the PNC for any previous convictions of a complainant is a breach of the data protection principle that information should be used for the purpose for which it was collected, i.e. the prevention and detection of crime.

As such information would be a matter of record; the appropriate course would be to invite the investigating officer to conduct such checks under the Guidance paragraph 2.117. This would protect the friend from any suggestion that this was an unauthorised access.

From the research conducted it can be concluded that there is very limited legitimate access to police computer systems and if the access is not in relation to the investigation, detection or prevention of crime then that access will be deemed as for a non authorised purpose.

To further emphasise the seriousness of non authorised access, a recent crown court case involved an officer who accessed a force intelligence system in relation to checks on their and an expartners motor vehicle. This access resulted in several charges of 'Misconduct in a Public Office' and a subsequent sentence of 9 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years.

In sentencing the officer the Judge said; 'In the modern world it is axiomatic (self evident/obvious) the police must hold huge amounts of information about all citizens. ....It is vital we all have confidence in its safekeeping and those who have access to it. Any misuse of that access by a public servant brings the system into disrepute. It undermines the trust the public may have in the police"

This gives a clear warning to members of the seriousness in which non authorised access of police computer systems is viewed and it is essential that if any member has a doubt about the validity of a particular check, they should seek guidance and authority from a supervisor or manager before carrying out such a check. If authority is not given then the member should not carry out the check.

This needs to be borne in mind when assessing requests for legal assistance in accordance with the 'Funding Criteria' as although any checks may have occurred whilst the member was on duty, if they have not been conducted for an authorised purpose as outlined above, then they cannot be construed as being in the performance or purported performance of their duties as a member of a police force and therefore funding for legal advice and/or representation is likely to be refused.

The contents of this circular need to be clearly emphasised and brought to the attention of the wider membership.

If you have any queries with regard to this circular, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Deputy General Secretary

Details

Published: 24 March 2011

MP’s Surgeries

House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear ......................

Federation Open Meeting – 19 September 2011

This is to inform you that the Police Federations within the West Midlands Region, being Staffordshire, West Midlands, West Mercia and Warwickshire, held the above mentioned open meeting at the Burlington Hotel, New Street, Birmingham.

The meeting was attended by over 400 police officers, 60 of which were from Staffordshire Police, who all wished to voice opinions on the proposed 20% cuts to the policing budget and the subsequent loss of 16,000 police officers nationwide.

Within Staffordshire the financial glide path to 2014-2015 signifies a loss of nearly 400 officers from a Force establishment of 2100 to 1770 police officers.

The meeting was themed around the publication of a booklet, which documented individual officers’ experiences whilst policing the August riots in the West Midlands region.

I have enclosed a copy of this booklet for your attention and I know you will agree that it is an impactive document which highlights the substantial bravery, commitment and goodwill that police officers invest in their role to protect the communities within our region.

This commitment and goodwill is tested to the limit when we have politicians, such as the Prime Minister, coming back from holiday claiming it was their actions that stopped the violence.  This is completely untrue as operational policing decisions are, and quite rightly should be, the decisions taken by senior police officers.

Even whilst the riots were still on going Mr. Cameron commented that this will not change the Government’s position on Police Reform.  This has been viewed by the rank and file police officers as derisory as to their commitment over this testing period of time.

No doubt a substantial number of police officers within Staffordshire will be communicating with you on this subject and as the Secretary of their representative body, I look forward to receiving your views on this document and what support you can continue to give to Staffordshire Police officers who remain committed to keeping our communities safe.

Yours sincerely,

Dean Colley
Joint Branch Board Secretary

Support From Unison

Paul McKeever, Chairman of the PFEW has recevied a supportive letter from the General Secretary of Unison wishing the Police Federation a successful Open Meeting on 13 July 2011.

Royal Commission

Colleagues,

Q)    Why do we want a Royal Commission into Policing?

A)    Because we want a Police Service that properly reflects the needs of the public it serves. The last Royal Commission took place way back in 1962 when our community and the policing of it was very different, (the Police did not even have radios back then), and a lot has changed in the mean time. Over the years there has been a lot of tinkering with the service, but nothing which has properly and objectively looked at Policing as a whole. Now, more than ever, is the time for a complete "root and branch" review to enable the Police to deliver a much better service to its communities.

We are rightly proud of the reputation and standing of the British Police Service the world over and together we will do all we can to preserve all that is good about it.

A senior Tory peer has called for a Royal Commission into policing - something which the Police Federation has also been urging, but which has been strenuously resisted by successive government ministers.

The call came from Viscount Bridgeman in a Lords debate on policing ahead of the Police Bill, which will introduce elected 'crime commissioners' to replace police authorities and create a new national crime agency in place of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency.

The peer, who is the Conservative's spokesman for home affairs in the Lords, said that there had been radical changes in virtually everything that affects police work since the last Royal Commission in 1962.

"Is it not time for another Royal Commission which would, I hope, pre-empt the need for a succession of piecemeal police legislation to which we have been subjected in the recent past?" he asked.

A Police Federation spokesman calls on everyone who cares about policing to support the campaign for a Royal Commission on Policing. " With the abolition of Police Authorities, the election of Police Commissioners, reports and recommendations by Hutton and Winsor and the selling of Police functions to the private sector it is clear that the future of Policing can only be established through a Royal Commission. This piecemeal approach to Policing must end. "

A Police Federation spokesman said: "Big things are asked of the police. But when it comes to the fundamentals, we seem to ask the wrong questions at the wrong time.

"After 40-plus years of knee-jerk legislation, it's time for some fresh thinking on the role of the police - what society's expectations are and how we police the 21st Century.

"The reforms which police have faced over recent years have been piecemeal. A new law here, a new regulation there - all lead to confusion of perspectives and policy.

"Not since the 1960s has government stopped and asked: 'What do we want our police to do, how do we want them to do it and what rights and responsibilities do the police and society have towards each other?'

"Given how society, culture, history, the economy and the country have changed since the 1960s, it's now time to take a long, hard look at all the issues and ask some somewhat overdue long-term questions."

TO ASSIST YOU WE HAVE NOW OBTAINED PRE-PRINTED POSTCARDS WHICH CAN BE SENT TO YOUR MP.  THESE WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE FORTHCOMING ROADSHOWS.  IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND PLEASE COLLECT ONE FROM THE FEDERATION OFFICE.

Lobbying Your Local MP

As part of the campaign strategy that is continuing to roll out, the Federation website now contains a lobbying tool which enables members to email their MPs directly.

This is the link which we encourage you to click on: http://www.polfed.org/get_involved.asp

The first campaign focuses on supporting  Early Day Motion No. 1604, the tabling of which was secured following contact that West Mids JBB had with one of their MPs.

It works by first entering a postcode. The user is then taken through to an area where they will see the template email that has been automatically produced and addressed to the appropriate MP for that postcode. The user can then simply enter their details and send it off or they can choose to change the wording if they so wish. We are planning to create other email campaigns in this way, each focussing on different topics – we will keep you posted. Lobbying your MP is important for a number of reasons:·

• To influence a decision which is about to be made by parliament;
• To gain their help with your campaign - MPs can take a number of actions: submit parliamentary questions, write a letter to the relevant minister, arrange a meeting with the minister responsible.
• To force an MP to show where their allegiances lie

You can lobby your MP by:·

• Setting up a meeting
• Writing a letter or email
• Using the local media

How to find out your MP’s contact details: Who is my MP?

You can find out who your local MP is by typing your postcode into this website theyworkforyou.com

You can write to your MP at the House of Commons by addressing your letter:

MP’s name
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Staffordshire MP's

Details

Published: 08 March 2011

23 November 2011

The PAT Hearing concluded yesterday and their decision is now awaited.  No timescale has been given for the decision.   We will update you with any further developments.

9th May 2011

A letter has been sent to the PFEW Chairman from Tom Winsor regarding the timetable for Part 2 of his review.It indicates that the Consultation Document will be out shortly, that the consultation period will run until August 2011 and that the final report will be published in January 2012.

Tom Winsor states "I should not wish Part 2 to distract from this important work.  It is the opinion of a considerable proportion of the people who are interested in Part 2 that the scope of issues to be considered are too complex and potentially critical for the future of the police service for it to be rushed in the short time between the publication of Part 1 and the end of June 2011.  As I know you appreciate Part 1 was necessarily constrained by the need to recommend changes which, if accepted, could be brought into effect in time for the beginning of the new pay year in September 2011.  That timetable meant that it was necessary for the review to defer to Part 2 some of the more complex and difficult subjects in the terms of reference.

For these reasons I asked the Home Secretary for an extension of Part 2 to 31 January 2012.  She has agreed to this.  This additional time enables the review to include three months for consultation, to enable you and your colleagues to provide fully developed, considered and detailed submissions."  He went on to say "I envisage that Part 2 will consider and address some of the fundamental issues that have been facing policing for some time, including:

• the basic pay of police officers, including the quantification of the 'x-factor'
• whether invididual contribution or performance should affect pay
• whether skills or roles should affect pay
• polie officer entry routes, including considering direct-and multi-entry routes
• the length of the officer career, including a consideration of the idea of short-medium-and long-term commissions
• the negotiating mechanisms themselves; and
• the phased introduction of some or all of the recommended reforms."

3rd May 2011

A Federation newsletter is now available giving an update on both the Winsor and Hutton reports, also detailing what activity is  taking place.  The newsletter is available from your local Federation Representative or by following the link :

www.polfed.org

14th April 2011

On 7 April, at the first meeting of the PNB Pay & Conditions Working Group, the Official Side presented Staff Side with a letter in respect of the Winsor Recommendations.

This statement will be available on the PFEW website  www.polfed.org and we will keep you updated on the progress of the negotiations. I thank you for your continued support.

4th April 2011

Responding to the Written Ministerial Statement released today by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, stating all proposals put forward by Tom Winsor will go to the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) and Police Advisory Board (PAB) as a matter of urgency, Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales says;

“Whilst these are merely proposals at this stage we remain extremely disappointed that Tom Winsor's report fails to demonstrate any evidence based methodology or reasoning. Even more disappointing is that the Home Secretary is choosing to put forward a flawed report of personal views, not evidence, to the Police Negotiating Board.

"We expect the Police Negotiating Board will give each proposal the in-depth analysis and consideration it deserves before any decision on any of the proposals is made. To make any changes to police terms and conditions, the unique working arrangements and special relationship the police have in society must at all times be borne in mind.

“Whilst police officers understand that these are just proposals at this stage, they are putting their last ounce of faith in this government to honour the processes and procedures in place to protect their unique working status. It is therefore incumbent on the Home Secretary that she honours the decisions of the negotiating machinery.

“Many of the proposals put forward in the Winsor Report cause grave concern and consternation amongst the rank and file, particularly as some officers would suffer a pay cut of up to £4000.  It is clear that police officers will be the biggest victims of the financial cuts in the public sector as this would be in addition to a two year pay freeze and possible increased pension costs. The 20% budget cuts imposed by this government will not only see a reduction in the numbers of officers fighting crime but will also impact on the unique working arrangements of police officers which reflect the dangerous and often thankless job they do.”

21st March 2011

On Friday 18th March 2011, we became aware of the circulation of an e-mail communication from Tom Winsor to Chief Constables requesting their urgent assistance and co-operation in ensuring that their police officers and staff are properly informed about the likely effects of the implementation of his review of pay and conditions. He asked them to circulate a letter and a ready reckoner that is also available on his review website, which he states officers and staff can use to dispel misleading information about the effects that his proposals will have on police pay.      This resulted in my communication below, from which it is clearly evident that Tom Winsor is being selective as to the information he wants officers to focus on and is a blatant attempt to generate support for his proposals by creating uncertainty and division between officers. This is particularly disappointing considering that the Home Secretary has yet to inform the Police Negotiating Board as to which of his proposals she considers should be the subject of negotiation. The adoption of this strategy by Tom Winsor clearly shows that his review, which proposes to remove almost £500M from police pay, can now be seen for exactly what it is, a cynical attack to reduce police pay and conditions.

It is important that you are aware of the full facts and not fooled by this misleading information provided by Winsor. I have therefore asked your local Federation to bring this information to the attention of your Chief Constable, requesting that they give my communication equal prominence with that of the Winsor Pay Calculator in any of their communications, including the force website. I would hope that as good employers and leaders of the service, Chief Constables would want to ensure that their officers are aware of the full facts. I await confirmation of their support and will keep you informed of their co-operation, however it would be inappropriate not to congratulate Simon Ash, the Chief Constable of Suffolk, who I understand is the first to refuse. We can only hope that this is not an indication of his support for the Winsor proposals, particularly as he represents ACPO on the Official Side of PNB, although one would hope that he would represent the views all the Chief Constables not just his own.

To ensure that you are fully informed, I also include below my earlier communication of 11th March that includes previously circulated information identifying the detrimental impact the Winsor proposals will have on officers’ pay and conditions.

We are grateful for your continued support during this difficult time for policing.

18th March 2011

Dear Colleagues

I would like to draw your attention to the following website which shows the effect on an officer’s income of the Winsor recommendations: http://review.police.uk/publications/review-recommendations.

After inputting the required information, many members will find that their pay falls as a result of these changes.  Even for those whose pay appears to rise, it is important to remember that these calculations only show changes to income in cash terms.  Inflation is currently running at 5% and is forecast to be close to this level for at least the next 12 months, so the value of basic pay will fall as a result of the two-year pay freeze which the Government wishes to impose upon us.  These calculations also take no account of the fact that under the Winsor recommendations officers will not move up their pay increments. This means that if an officer is not at the top of his or her pay scale, their pay will actually be lower than it would otherwise have been, despite any increases that result from Mr Winsor’s recommendations. I should also point out, for your information, that while Mr Winsor factors in pension contribution increases, these have yet to be discussed by the Police Negotiating Board, and we have been assured that discussions will take place there before any increases are implemented. In common with all other employees, though, from April 2011 there will be several changes to the income tax and national insurance regimes. In particular:

• The income tax personal allowance will rise to £7,475, but the salary level at which employees begin to pay the higher rate of income tax (40%) will fall from £37,400 per annum to £35,000 per annum.
• Employee national insurance contribution (NIC) rates will rise from 11% to 12% for those who earn between £139 a week and up to £817 a week and from 1% to 2% for those who earn anything over £817 per week.

The effect of this is that employees with total earnings of more than £35,000 a year will find themselves paying more in income tax and national insurance contributions.  I hope that you find this information helpful to understand the true impact of the Winsor recommendations on you take home pay. The PFEW will engage fully on negotiations over these recommendations, but we have no intention of agreeing to any changes which would see a fall in our members’ pay and conditions of service. As I have tried to do throughout this process, I will continue to keep you updated on developments.

Dowload The Winsor Review (Adobe PDF)