Claim for on-call allowance set for arbitration after failure to agree is registered
11 February 2010

Despite the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) deciding in August last year that police officers should receive a national on call allowance, negotiations to agree a payment have failed after the Official Side finally offered a derisory £10.

Failure to Agree a National ‘On Call' Allowance

10 February 2010

At the beginning of August 2009, the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) determined that there should be a national on-call allowance. It was referred back to the PNB to negotiate the level of payment. Despite a willingness on our part to enter into constructive discussions, we have been met with nothing but delaying tactics from the Official Side. It is now over five years since this claim was first tabled and six months since the PAT decided that there should be a national allowance.

The Official Side tabled an offer for the first time on 22nd January at the PNB meeting. This offer was a derisory £10 - an offer significantly below the Staff Side claim, below the amount paid to police staff (between £25 - £30 per day) and below the amount currently paid to many police officers through an SPP or local allowance.

This flat rate offer fails to recognise the greater level of disruption to the family lives of officers when they are required to be on call on Rest days compared to a Duty day.

The principal aim of this claim has always been to reduce the amount of on call by introducing a financial cost that will disincentivise Chief Officers from placing officers on call unnecessarily and using it as a cheap option to provide operational cover.

The current claim is based on the rate of pay of a five-year constable for each period of up to 24 hours of on call:

• For a duty day, a rate equivalent to 0.1 percent (£30.26).
  For a rest day, public holiday or free day, a rate of 0.2 percent (£60.52)
  For a period of annual leave, a daily allowance paid at the rate of 0.5 percent (£151.30).

There is no policing requirement within Regulations and Determinations for officers to be on call. Officers undertake 'On Call' voluntarily, usually as part of performing a specific policing role.

Forces have come to rely too much on the goodwill of officers who put their personal and family lives on hold when they are off duty. Disappointingly, the Official Side of PNB is unwilling to recognise this commitment and the matter is to be referred back to the PAT to determine the amount of the allowance.

The Constables Central Committee has put together a series of commitments they believe are crucial to securing an effective and flexible police service. An electronic and hard copy of ‘The Real Policing Pledge' is being emailed and posted to all MPs, Peers, Welsh Assembly members and Prospective Parliamentary Candidates of all parties in England and Wales, asking them to sign-up to ‘The Real policing Pledge'.

The CCC is asking current and aspiring politicians to pledge their support to:

• Uphold the Office of Constable as the bedrock of modern policing
• Maintain the number of warranted police constables in England and Wales
• Ensure that all constables are adequately trained to do their jobs
• Commit to maintain an effective ratio of police constables to support staff on community policing teams
• Honour the Police Negotiating Board (PNB)

Politicians are being asked to tear off and return a reply slip on the hard copy or to pledge their support online at www.realpolicingpledge.co.uk/

As politicians sign-up to the pledge their details will be listed on the Constables section of the Police Federation of England and Wales website so you can see if your local MPs, Assembly Members, Prospective Parliamentary Candidates have signed up.

 Changes by Government to Legal Aid Provision Spell Increased Costs to Police Federation 

In recent years the government has made significant changes to the criminal legal aid system from the removal of enhanced rates for all, to means testing in magistrates' courts.

  

Currently the Federation provides a first class service to members, which involves full legal advice and representation for duty related matters at no extra cost to members other than subscriptions paid. This includes the services of highly qualified solicitors who specialise in criminal and misconduct matters.

  

The proposed changes could dramatically change this picture. The government proposals are a three-pronged attack on the legal aid system; firstly from October this year, the government will introduce a restriction on central fund awards when a non-legally aided defendant is acquitted.

  

This means that costs will only be recovered at the legal aid rate. Until now, the Federation has been underwriting costs of defending members for duty related offences because members are generally ineligible for legal aid in the magistrates' court due to means testing.

  

Solicitors have previously been able to recover costs which were deemed reasonable in successful cases. This will now cease.

  

Secondly, the current government will implement Crown Court means testing from January 2010. Defendants wanting legal aid will have to complete a detailed means assessment of income, outgoings and assets, including those of any partner and property.

According to the formula, members are all likely to be assessed as having disposable income above the set rate and therefore will be liable to pay a significant proportion towards their own legal costs.

  

However, we are pleased to confirm that the Federation has agreed in principle to negate the need for all members to be means tested by privately funding representation in relation to duty related criminal matters within the crown court.

  

Previously all crown court costs for members acquitted were met by legal aid.

Thirdly, the governments has announced the introduction of Best Value Tendering (BVT) where any solicitor(s) wanting to provide a legal aid service for police station attendance must apply for a contract from the Legal Service Commission. Only those with a contract may provide legal aid advice.

  

The Federation has also agreed in principle to privately fund criminal advice and representation for duty related matters in the BVT areas.

  

All these changes, without an agreement from the Federation to fund, could compromise the service that we are proud of and that our members value. It is crucial for members to have the confidence that if and when they need legal advice or representation they have the best available and that those dealing with their case are well versed in criminal law and police misconduct.

  

The introduction of BVT also presents a potential conflict of interest where legal teams are representing both sides - the public and the police.

The Federation has complied at every stage of the consultative process but our hand is being forced to either continue to provide the current service to our members which will have substantial financial consequences or surrender to the changes resulting in a significant reduction in service.

  

Yet again the Federation and its members are bearing the consequences of a government cost cutting exercise, where the priority is the bottom-line not the frontline. The Federation is however committed to continuing with the current service provided to its members