Police '˜won't apply for top jobs unless we throw in big perks'

The Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA) said the heavily-criticised system had to strike a balance between value for money for the taxpayer and the need to recruit the best people for the top policing jobs.

Chief Constable Mark Polin, chairman of the CPOSA, spoke after an investigation by the Daily Mail revealed the extent to which senior police officers are taking advantage of taxpayer-funded expenses and perks.

Freedom of Information Act responses revealed that some senior police officers are claiming ‘allowances’ of up to £32,000 a year, including for day-to-day spending and household bills, as well as charging the public for private medical insurance.

One of the revelations was that Humberside Police’s chief constable Justine Curran took a rent allowance towards what the newspaper described as “her turreted Victorian house in East Riding of Yorkshire”, despite having already received a £39,000 relocation bonus when she moved there in 2013.

Last year it was revealed that Mrs Curran, whose force was heavily criticised for its efficiency last year, received £215,000 in the 2013/14 financial year. This included £143,000 annual salary, relocation fees of £39,0000 and an pension scheme contribution of £34,000.

Separately, the Mail reported that Sir Stephen House, a former West Yorkshire Police divisional commander who went on to lead Police Scotland, took 57 days of annual leave despite claiming a pay package of £212,500.

In 2013 an investigation by The Yorkshire Post revealed the widespread provision of lucrative extra benefits and pay to chief police officers outside of tightly restricted national agreements.

Police pay is subject to national regulations set in 2003, supplemented by formal directions issued by the Home Secretary, but many former police authorities - which were replaced by the regime of police and crime commissioners (PCCs) in 2012 - set up local pay and benefit packages for their chief officers.

Jonathan Isaby, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “The nation still has a huge budget deficit … it seems completely absurd that taxpayers should be forking out for the enormous pay and perks … The policing budget is already stretched thinly and it really has to be asked whether this is the best use of taxpayers’ money.”

Humberside Police declined to comment on Mrs Curran’s pay arrangements. When approached by The Yorkshire Post, the force sent a copy of the statement from the CPOSA.

CPOSA chairman Mark Polin, said the system had to strike a balance between value for money for the taxpayer and the need to recruit the best people for the top policing jobs.

He said: “The CPOSA on behalf of all chief officers, has long sought clarity on the national remuneration framework, including allowances and annual leave, and continues to do so. We favour absolute consistency and transparency on these issues, with investigations and appropriate action against any misuse.

“There is a concern - shared by CPOSA, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Home Office and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary - that the number of applicants for top positions in the service is declining.

“Any system must strike the right balance between fair reward and value for taxpayers, allowing us to attract and retain talent across the country.”

Humberside Police and Crime Commissioner Keith Hunter, a former chief superintendent elected to his post in May, said: “This is a story which has surfaced previously and there is little new in the points reported.

“The fact that it has been recycled by the Daily Mail suggests that the newspaper is attempting to soften up its readers on behalf of the Government for some fresh assault on police finances.

“I have seen this approach many times over the years. Trying to equate chief officers’ salaries and perks with the ability of forces to provide adequate policing services to the public in the face of ongoing and destructive cuts to police funding is a typical deceptive tactic of the government and its outriders.

“Of course there is little or no sympathy for chief officers from many members of the public because of their generous salaries but there are national negotiating and oversight arrangements and that is where the issues should be considered, not on the basis of comparisons to the artificially suppressed salary of the Prime Minister, the value of whose perks and earning potential after a short period of office are never referred to in such stories.

“Chief officers of police carry huge responsibilities and when compared to other chief officers and chief executives (even just within the public sector) are nowhere near the top of the pile when it comes to remuneration.

“Fairness and openness is required in this matter as with all such matters in the public sector and if any individuals are operating with a lack of integrity then they should be challenged as individuals rather than attempting to vilify all senior officers.”

Home Secretary Amber Rudd said the allowances given to Britain’s most senior police officers, some of whom reportedly earn more than the Prime Minister, should be transparent and “open to scrutiny by the communities they serve”.

“Professionalism and integrity must be at the heart of all aspects of policing, and we expect the highest standards from those officers leading our forces,” Ms Rudd said.

“Directly elected PCCs are rightly responsible for decisions about the pay and allowances of their chief officers, and we are clear that these should be transparent and open to scrutiny by the communities they serve.

“I am adamant that police forces cannot be opaque about such important matters, and I fully expect all forces to publish details of how they are spending taxpayer money.”

Steve White, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which represents rank and file officers, said it was important that funding was “appropriately aligned and managed fairly”.

He said: “Long hours, cancelled leave and unpaid overtime are everyday realities for our members. This isn’t out of choice but instead necessity.

“At the same time there is a continuing drop in both overall and frontline officers and increased sickness across the service. We are creaking under the pressure.

“When the stark reality is that this situation is unlikely to change without increased investment, it’s important that current funding is appropriately aligned and managed fairly. With reducing numbers and a squeeze on pay and expenses for the majority, now, more than ever, officers want to know that there is parity across the board.

“In a current policing structure that doesn’t allow for a reduction in the number of forces in England and Wales, it’s easy to see why eyebrows are raised at the cost of keeping 43 chief officers in post and whether this is really the best use of public money.”