THE Home Secretary has ratified the Police Arbitration Tribunal\u2019s ruling and agreed that redundancy will not be introduced for police officers in England and Wales.<\/p>\n
Theresa May said she had \u201cdecided to accept the Tribunal\u2019s recommendation not to implement measures to introduce compulsory severance at this time.\u201d However in a warning to police officers, she added: \u201cThis remains a reform I believe government and the police should continue to consider.\u201d<\/p>\n
Neil Bowles, chairman of South Yorkshire Police Federation, said: “After three years of catastrophic reforms of police pay and conditions, our members will be pleased to hear that sense has been seen and the independence of the office of constable is to be preserved for the time being.<\/p>\n
“What worries me about this statement is that the Home Secretary refers to PNB which, of course, we know she is abolishing so the question of compulsory severance and uncertainty remain.”<\/p>\n
In December, the Police Arbitration Tribunal\u2019s decided that introducing officer redundancy to the service would be a \u201cmomentous change\u201d and that the case for bringing it into the service was not \u201ccompelling\u201d.<\/p>\n
The three person arbitration panel, chaired by Prof John Goodman CBE, \u201crejected\u201d recommendation 46 of the Winsor 2 pay and conditions review, which wanted: \u201cThe introduction of a system of compulsory severance for police officers with less than full pensionable service from April 2013.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to the Tribunal ruling \u2013 which was published on 20 December \u2013 \u201cthe Tribunal recognised that for the Staff Side the introduction of compulsory severance would represent a momentous change\u201d and \u201cthe Official Side presented compulsory severance as a measure of last resort\u201d.<\/p>\n
It added: \u201cThe Tribunal was not convinced that the introduction of compulsory severance would set in train negative practices, such as targeting particular officers or groups of officers for compulsory severance, in the manner suggested by the Staff Side.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Staff Side\u2019s presentation of the possible damaging effects on the \u2018psychological contract\u2019 between officers and forces was, in the Tribunal\u2019s view, more persuasive.<\/p>\n
\u201cOfficers were required to accept a number of sacrifices and restrictions in their personal lives and, on occasion, put themselves in harm\u2019s way. The knowledge that despite making these sacrifices, an officer could still then be subject to compulsory severance as part of workforce planning was, in the Tribunal\u2019s view, detrimental to the mutuality of commitment between officers and forces.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a ministerial statement on Thursday 13 February, Mrs May also said she had \u201cdecided to accept [the PAT\u2019s] recommendation on restricted duties and will implement the reforms it has put forward.<\/p>\n
She added: \u201cThese reforms build on the changes we have already implemented following the two reports of the Winsor Review. We remain committed to the Review\u2019s principles and objectives, in particular linking pay and skills, and modernising management practices.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr Bowles added: “We await the new regulations [on restricted duty] and how they will deal with disability and prevent discrimination under the Equality Act.”<\/p>\n
Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood, ACPO\u2019s National Policing Lead for Reward and Recognition, said: \u201dAlthough we might question some of the rationale behind the Police Arbitration Tribunal decision, we accept the decision not to introduce compulsory severance at this time.<\/p>\n
\u201cChief constables reluctantly supported compulsory severance because of concerns about the financial situation beyond 2016 but it was always seen as a last resort, only to be used when there were extreme budgetary pressures.\u201d<\/p>\n