Winsor Review/PNB Update for Chairs & Secs 13/14 Sept
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Winsor Review/PNB Update for Chairs & Secs 13/14 Sept Hello, everybody, welcome to the Doom and Gloom Slot, known as the Winsor Review Update, as presented by yours truly….. As you will all be acutely aware, we are now at the position where the majority of the recommendations, following a failure to agree are all going before a Police Arbitration Tribunal or PAT. Clearly, whilst this is not the best option, The PAT is an independent body who look at written submissions put before them by all sides in the event of a failure to agree and then make their decision accordingly. Interestingly though, when we entered into a conciliation process with Peter Harwood from ACAS, the last step before registering the failure to agree at the full Police Negotiating Board (PNB), he made two points. Firstly, that in a lot of cases conciliation works but secondly, he said: “this is different, politics are involved and it’s big”. However, we have little or no control of the outcome and the decisions, if indeed any are made, prior to the inception of Winsor Two, The Reckoning. We have been working hard on our submission to this panel, and you, the Constables, are represented on the Staff Side by myself and Paul Davis. Unfortunately the PAT is the end result of some three months hard negotiating on several fronts within PNB and at one point we were engaged on weekly meetings in Central London with pre-meets with the constituent parts of Staff Side the day before to ensure we had the correct strategy, correctly presented to the Official Side. You will also all be aware that our substantive offer, whilst it ‘surrendered’, so to speak, the SPP pot and offered concessions around casual overtime i.e. amending time and a third to plain time for the first two hours (thereafter reverting back to time and a third) and regaining the Queen’s half hour, made more savings than those which Tom Winsor had alluded to within his report. We also added costings into our submission that he had not entered in his paper – such as the ongoing diminishing value of the Housing Allowance that those of us who joined prior to 1994 enjoy – and also the offer from the Chief Police Officers Association (CPOSA) and the Supers Association not to pursue the extra figure they are currently entitled to as part of their housing allowance remuneration package. Within the Staff Side I must also add that we enjoy strong support from both the Supers and Chief Officer representatives who recognise the value and worth of the Federated ranks as well as the value and worth of the Regulations we work to and how our efforts save a considerable amount of time, finance and bring a deal of worth to the organisation – unlike some members and component parts of the Official Side and I shall leave it to your imaginations who I refer to. However, the Official Side rejected our offer, stating that it did not “deliver the level of ongoing financial savings we are looking for”, nor did it “deliver the level of reform that we want” to our terms and conditions that they were also after…… in a nutshell it seemed to us that in the end game this was not purely about making savings within the service (as per the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review paper in October 2010) but the dismantling of the service as we currently see it and the potential introduction of terms and conditions along the lines of the Sheehy Report in P Barker Page 1
Winsor Review/PNB Update for Chairs & Secs 13/14 Sept
1992. One of the comments made in July of that year came from Alan Eastwood,
then Chair of the National Federation, who said:
“The Sheehy report reduces the police service from being a dedicated vocation to
being just another job. Its authors have understood little or nothing of ….. policing.
Sheehy has devastated police morale. The report is divisive, negative and even
oppressive……it emasculates [reduces the power or effectiveness] the negotiating
rights of the rank and file officers.”
He also stated that it would be another blow to police self-esteem when morale is
already low.
Some things never change…..particularly scary when you read through the basic
tenets of Sir Patrick Sheehy’s Report 1993 and can see almost direct lifts within the
Winsor Review 2011.
However, out of the 62 recommendations within the Winsor Part One report, only
the following are not being submitted to the PAT, and have either been agreed within
Staff side in full or within a separate component part (i.e. within Supers, for
example):
Status of Winsor Part One Recommendations
The following recommendations from the Winsor Part One Report have been agreed
in principle by the PNB (although there are others relating solely to Chief Officers):
Recommendation 31 – Chief Officers should recognise whole teams, both
officers and staff, with a team recognition award payment of £50 to £100 each for
outstandingly demanding, unpleasant or important work, or outstanding work for
the public.
Recommendation 46 – The link between the Motor Vehicle Allowance for police
officers and that for local authorities should be re-established from September
2011.
Recommendation 48 – Officers’ maternity entitlement should increase from 13
weeks at full pay to 18 weeks at full pay with officers having the option, with the
agreement of their chief officer, to spread the final five weeks of maternity pay
over 10 weeks at a reduced rate.
Recommendation 57 – The criteria for the use of the powers in Regulation A19
should be amended, with service-critical skills and performance being explicit
considerations.
Recommendation 58 – As quickly as possible, police forces should be provided
with the ability to offer voluntary exit terms to police officers, substantially on the
terms contained in the Civil Service Compensation Scheme 2010.
There was a failure to agree on the remaining recommendations, which have now
been referred to the Police Arbitration Tribunal:
P Barker Page 2Winsor Review/PNB Update for Chairs & Secs 13/14 Sept
Recommendation 2 – Police constables, sergeants, inspectors and chief
inspectors should receive an additional 10% of their basic pay, on an hourly
basis, for hours worked between 8:00pm and 6:00am (non-pensionable).
Recommendation 5 – Determination Annex E, made under Regulation 22 of the
Police Regulations 2003, should be amended to require the chief officer to
consult, rather than agree, with the local joint branch board and individual officers
in connection with the bringing into operation of a variable shift arrangement.
That consultation should take place over a period of at least 30 days. Before
making his decision, the chief officer should be required to consult 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.
Recommendation 6 – Determination Annex G, made under Regulation 25 of the
Police Regulations 2003, should be amended to replace time and a third
premium pay for casual overtime with plain time. The minimum hours for being
recalled between duty should be abolished and instead paid at plain time for the
hours worked, with travelling time.
Recommendation 7 – Determination Annex H, made under Regulation 26 of the
Police Regulations 2003, should be amended to remove double time premium
pay and the notice period of five days for working on a rostered rest day. Time
and a half premium pay should be payable for working on a rostered rest day with
fewer than 15 days’ notice.
Recommendation 8 – Determination Annex H, made under Regulation 26 of the
Police Regulations 2003, should be amended to allow the payment of overtime at
double time for 25 December and seven other days chosen for the next financial
year by the officer before 31 January. Cancellation with fewer than 15 days’
notice should require the authority of an Assistant Chief Constable.
Recommendation 11 – Police officers on mutual aid service should be paid for
the hours they are required to work each day, plus travelling time to and from the
place of duty. Where those hours coincide with the unsocial hours period, or the
duty has been required at short notice and they are eligible for the new overtime
rates, the officer should be paid at the applicable premium rates.
Recommendation 12 – 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.
Recommendation 13 – 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.
P Barker Page 3Winsor Review/PNB Update for Chairs & Secs 13/14 Sept
Recommendation 20 – Police officers and all members of police staff below the
top of their pay scale should be suspended at that increment for a two-year
period commencing September 2011.
Recommendation 25 – The chief officer bonus scheme should be suspended for
a two-year period commencing September 2011.
Recommendation 27 – The bonus scheme for superintendents and chief
superintendents should be suspended for a two-year period commencing
September 2011.
Recommendation 29 – Competence Related Threshold Payments should be
abolished from 31 August 2011 and all outstanding CRTP payments up to that
date should be paid on a pro-rated basis.
Recommendation 33 – Special Priority Payments should be abolished from 31
August 2011 and all outstanding SPPs up to that date should be paid on a pro-
rated basis.
Recommendation 34 – An interim Expertise and Professional Accreditation
Allowance of £1,200 per annum should be introduced from September 2011 for
officers meeting the skills or length of service criteria in the four stated priority
functions. It should be paid monthly and pro-rated where an officer works part-
time. It should be removed when an officer leaves the qualifying role.
Recommendation 43 – The replacement allowance for housing should remain.
However, the amount an officer receives should not increase from 31 August
2011 with changes in personal circumstances, such as promotion. The existing
framework, by which the amount an officer receives reduces when he lives with
another officer also receiving the allowance, should remain.
Recommendation 44 – A national on-call allowance for the Federated ranks
should be introduced from September 2011. The amount of the allowance should
be £15 for each occasion of on-call after the officer in question has undertaken
12 on-call sessions in the year beginning on 1 September. An on-call occasion
should be defined as the requirement to be on-call within any 24-hour period
related to the start-of-the-police-day.
Recommendation 45 – The national on-call allowance should be reviewed by the
Police Negotiating Board three years after its introduction in the context of better
management data.
Recommendation 59 – Regulation 5(4) of the Police Regulations 2003 should be
amended so that an officer giving written notice to return from part-time to full-
time working, must be appointed by the Police Authority within two months if the
force has a suitable vacancy, and within four months of the notice being received.
As may be seen form the content of those items that are not going to the PAT, many
of them relate to the senior ranks and do not have direct consequence to ourselves. I
would also point out that there are also a number of recommendations that relate
directly to support/civilian staff – such as Recommendation 60, which relates to the
current system of severance for police staff, or Recommendation 50, which relates to
first-class travel expenses for police staff members being published quarterly on the
P Barker Page 4Winsor Review/PNB Update for Chairs & Secs 13/14 Sept force’s website - as opposed to warranted officers and I shall not relate those for obvious reasons. The PAT, I am informed, can be likened to an employment tribunal or indeed any other tribunal upon which we sit as Reps, in that evidence is submitted in written form by all parties in the first instance and any questions can be raised by the panel on that evidence prior to the hearing. At the time of the hearing the individuals representing each side can also be ‘cross-examined’ over their submissions or any other statements that are made. At this time, unfortunately, I am unable to give you a likely date for the sitting of the PAT although we believe it will be sometime in November, the date for the announcement of the outcome, which should be 28 days after the hearing (although a crystal ball would be of use…) or even whether the Home Secretary will accede to and accept any decision coming out of the PAT. I suppose, however, that we must be careful for what we wish for on occasion. That being said, we do not know whether the PAT will give a response to their deliberations with them coming so close to the publication of Winsor Two – which we are informed will be in January 2012. The PAT evidence is being put together at the same time as the Winsor Two Response and as such we must maintain our strategic position. We also have to ensure that each submission mirrors the other and builds on the comments that we made during the deliberations on Winsor One. Winsor Two – The Reckoning At this time, we have had only the same information as yourselves with reference to the content of Winsor Two and I have previously drawn attention to the comments that are contained within Tom Winsor’s question and answer page on the internet: http://review.police.uk/ Unless I am misreading the comments that are contained within this ‘page’, for want of a better word, I have yet to see a supportive comment from any entry in relation to this latest review of our remuneration and conditions. It will be interesting, to say the least, how these comments are interpreted. For our part, we are keeping a log at the office, in the Research Dept, of all the comments that are appended to this document to ensure that a full and truthful account is produced by Winsor – as he seemed to be a tad confused in his interpretation of comments that were passed onto him by officers in Winsor One. That being said, the link to those responses was unavailable last week, (I have our Research Dept at Leatherhead looking into this as we speak) but in any event the closing date for responses was Monday this week (12th September). P Barker Page 5
Winsor Review/PNB Update for Chairs & Secs 13/14 Sept With specific reference to our submission to Winsor over Part Two, we have recently completed a submission document, prepared from a Constables’ point of view, which we have submitted to the JCC for inclusion in the initial Staff Side submission to Winsor’s team. In order to complete this document we have re-engaged the services of the HR company, Pilat, who initially were instrumental in the creation of the Branthwaite report and we have also looked into the content of previous reports, such as The Hay Report and ‘Unique’ - The CCC response to the Sheehy Report in 1992, which looked at the role of the Constable and also some potential job evaluation tools. Of course, as soon as we have the definitive final submission document we will share that with you – but until that time, as per anything else that is part and parcel of this fast-moving feast, we are obliged to play the game with our cards close to our chest, after all, when playing poker, you do not show your hand to those you are playing against….. Pension Issues The next meetings in relation to the ongoing Pensions issues as revealed by Lord Hutton and the potential contribution rate rises are to be discussed in a series of meetings commencing this afternoon and tomorrow (14 th and 15th September). These meetings have been arranged as a result of a letter sent to Ian Rennie from the Home Secretary on the 29th July. In the body of this letter, she states: “The Government accepted Lord Hutton’s recommendations as a basis for consultation with public sector workers and trade unions on long term reform of pension arrangements”…….and later on states: “The Government announced plans to make £2.8 billion savings per year by 2014-15 through increasing public service employee pension contributions”. In a nutshell, the figure that is being discussed at this stage, and I stress the word ‘discussed’ as nothing has been definitively decided at this stage, is a total increase between April 2012 and April 2015 of 3.2% on our contributions. There have already been several meetings of the Pensions Technical Working Party with the Home Office as represented by Peter Spreadbury and these discussions are continuing. What complicates the overall issue is that we still do not know the current value of the Police Pension Schemes (despite the recent increase in commutation rates) and whether this increase will have any effect on that value. Also, following on from the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in October last year, the decision was made not to implement any contributions for the armed forces for their pensions. Whilst clearly, I do not have any issue with those members having a pension commensurate with the severe risks they face, it seems that, unless I have got it wrong, the entire burden of that cost is being foisted upon the public sector P Barker Page 6
Winsor Review/PNB Update for Chairs & Secs 13/14 Sept
pension schemes. Again, this is a point I shall be pursuing later. At the meeting this
afternoon we will also be producing a draft response to the Home Secretary prior to
Thursday’s meeting. Whilst the letter initially has requested ‘views on the proposal’
by the end of September, we have already requested a concession to the 20th
October deadline in line with the consultation date given to other unions. To date we
have not yet received a reply.
As and when there is any further information on this most vital change in our ongoing
circumstances we will let you know at the earliest opportunity. I am unable to even
tell you at this stage what if anything is proposed to be done with the current
schemes we currently have as I simply do not know.
That being said, there are currently several electronic e-petition avenues that we can
pursue to raise our issues within the Commons. To force a debate on any e-petition
item, there is a minimum requirement of 100,000 signatures required. These are:
1) Public & Private Pension Increases - change from RPI to CPI. As at yesterday
morning there were 46,725 signatures already. The link to this is:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1535
2) As we discussed at length yesterday, the next petition we should be
subscribing to is one demanding there is no reduction in our numbers.
Currently there are only 13,800 signatures on this petition. There are in total
nearly 140,000 of us in the service (plus families); this really needs pushing
and pushing hard. The address you need is:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3920 . This link is already on both the
front pages of the JCC intranet and internet.
These petitions literally take less than two minutes to complete, please push your
members and their families to go onto the site.
My final point today is in relation to the recent ‘paternity circular’ that was issued by
the PNB, (PNB Circular 11-4 Additional Paternity Leave) in relation to fathers also
having access to paternity leave, KIT days and other facilities currently available
under the maternity arrangements. Please be aware that the calculators have not
been amended yet and that there will be confusion as to which rate is available as
per the current problems being experienced by female officers accessing their KIT
day payments. We have made the relevant authorities aware – again watch this
space.
I would like to leave you with the following comments that have been made by the
Home Secretary during her attendance at the Supts Conference this week:
“The Prime Minister and I are determined to open up police leadership to bring in the
skills necessary to succeed. Police leaders of the future may not have started out as
Constables. The police can learn from senior people outside policing…..”
P Barker Page 7Winsor Review/PNB Update for Chairs & Secs 13/14 Sept Following that statement she also said: “Winsor One and Winsor Two will allow more modern working practices”. To ensure that her message was not lost, in closing she reinforced her message by stating simply: “Reform is needed now and it will happen”. And on that note, that concludes my update….. Paul Barker Paul Davis CCC General Secretary CCC Deputy General Secretary P Barker Page 8
You can also read
