Police Pay Process Needs Urgent Reform
The police pay process is “rigged” and should be reformed, South Yorkshire Police Federation said.
Steve Kent said the Federation would not engage with the Police Remuneration Review Body until it allowed for a fairer process.
The body provides independent advice to the Government on pay and conditions for police officers up to and including the rank of Chief Superintendent.
Over the summer, it was announced officers would receive a pay rise of 4.75% – an offer dwarfed by some offered to other public sector workers.
However, Steve believed it was a “pointless” process due to the recommendations made by the body having no binding effect.
He warned many suggestions had been “frequently ignored or not adopted” over the past few years.
Steve said: “We need binding arbitration, we need the review body where the results have to be adopted by Government.
“The Government just needs to recognise that it’s not fair and it’s not right, and it’s almost a perverse process.”
Steve called on the Government to look at the situation objectively and decide whether it thought police officers were being afforded a level playing field when it came to pay.
He said the new Labour Government had the “perfect opportunity to wipe the slate clean” and work with the Federation going forward.
He urged the Government to “restore some of the relationships that policing has had with previous Governments”.
He added: “We need to get police pay back to where it should be and stop us being some of the poorest paid officers in the western world.
“The Labour Party being a party that is there to stand for individuals rights and worker’s rights, I think it’s a bit odd that they wouldn’t consider changing it.”
Steve’s comments came after PFEW Acting National Chair, Tiff Lynch, also branded the police pay review process “rigged”.
She said: “The Government hand picks the members, constrains their remit and decides the outcome.
“It’s like a football match where one side selects the opponent’s players, referees and has a veto over the result.”