Home Secretary’s threat of pay cuts risks police anger

With police already facing a two-year salary freeze, Home Secretary Theresa May said it was better to review pay and conditions than shed thousands of jobs.

The overtime bill – which cost the region’s four forces £31.3m in 2009/10 – is certain to be one area to be looked at when Mrs May considers a review into pay and conditions to be published next week.

Mrs May also suggested more forces should adopt lone patrols rather than sending out officers in pairs to free up more police to get out on the beat, although forces in the region insist they already do this where appropriate.

But officers have warned that morale in forces will be hit by the comments and accused her of “undervaluing” the work of officers, even though she went to great pains to praise them in her speech in London yesterday.

Mrs May said she wanted action on pay to be as fair as possible but warned: “Up and down the country, police officers and staff I speak to – as well as ordinary members of the public – say they would prefer us to look at pay and conditions rather than lose thousands of posts.”

Last night Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation which represents rank-and-file officers in England and Wales, said: “She clearly undervalues what we do, despite what she says.

“Words are cheap, but actions speak louder. Clearly she does not value us as much as she says she does.”

Mrs May said that in any organisation where three-quarters of total spending went on wages, pay would have to be considered when cutting costs.

But Mr Reed said officers were already making a “considerable sacrifice” through a two-year pay freeze set to save £350m.

He added: “Officers and their families are making that sacrifice. Whatever other cuts come on top of that will have an adverse effect on morale,” he said.

Mr Reed added he was “disappointed” that Mrs May’s warning undermined a review of police pay and conditions by former rail regulator Tom Winsor, which will report next week.

“She clearly has undermined that report and its independence,” he said.

“This makes a mockery of the independent report Mr Winsor has undertaken and the engagement with police stakeholders.

“The hollow words of praise from the Home Secretary are meaningless today. She has made police officers across the country feel completely undervalued.”

But Mrs May, who said she will not see the findings of the Winsor review until it is published on Tuesday, added that “extraordinary circumstances” mean the Government must reform terms and conditions to keep officers on the streets.

Previous attempts to overhaul pay and conditions have failed in the face of fierce opposition from rank-and-file officers, and she can expect a similar response if she attempts to increase pension contributions or overhaul overtime payments on top of the freeze.

The last review, carried out in June 1993 by Sir Patrick Sheehy under then-home secretary Kenneth Clarke, recommended abolishing jobs for life, introducing fixed terms of service and scrapping overtime payments.

But most of the recommendations were never implemented after a high-profile campaign by the Police Federation.

Although overtime bills are very high, officers argue that much of it is inevitable as it is simply not possible to leave work if a shift ends in the middle of attending a road collision or investigating a crime.

Mrs May praised the work of officers and said: “No home secretary wants to cut police officers’ pay packages. But with a record budget deficit, these are extraordinary circumstances.”

She also pledged that any officers who break health and safety rules by putting themselves in harm’s way to protect others will not be prosecuted.

Peter Fahy, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, said rank-and-file officers were “realistic” and hoped wage cuts would save jobs. “I think most of our staff would obviously understand that bargain,” he said.

Rob Garnham, chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, agreed that pay and conditions could not be ignored when so much spending went on wages.