PAY AND CONDITIONS - MEMBERSHIP CONSULTATION EXERCISE

The result of the vote on the 'Heads of Agreement' (reproduced below) was 'faxed to all stations, departments and officers on secondment outwith the force;

CONSTABLES % SERGEANTS % INSPECTORS % OVERALL%

Reject Accept Reject Accept Reject Accept Reject Accept

99.25 0.75 97 3 83 17 97.75 2.25

In anticipation of continuing media interest in our vote, I prepared the following Media Release which was embargoed until noon on the date of the vote;

The result of the vote on proposals to alter the terms and conditions of the Federated ranks was announced today (8^th February 2002) with 97.75% of officers voting to 'reject' the package.

Announcing the vote, Branch Secretary John Finnie stated. "This result provides a very clear signal, not only to David Blunkett the Home Secretary, but perhaps more significantly, to our own national negotiators who have been clearly shown to be out of step with the officers they're charged with representing."

"Mr Blunkett imposed his own agenda on a ridiculously short time scale and expected our negotiators to accept inferior terms and conditions. Regrettably, our negotiators didn't disappoint Mr Blunkett and agreed a package, which has quite understandably been viewed by the Membership as a serious attack on their working conditions. This sense of a 'sell-out' has been felt most by our already hard-pressed front-line officers, the very men and women Mr Blunkett and others purport to care about most".

"Throughout this flawed process, the Home Secretary has continually interfered, undermining the Official Side's negotiators, indeed, as recently as last week, a full month after the negotiations concluded, the Home Office took out inaccurate and misleading newspaper advertisements which only served to further infuriate our Members."

"I'm sure this vote will be replicated in other forces and I hope that the Home Secretary will respond to the result in a statesman-like manner, think again, and put an end to the cynical spin and misrepresentation which has so far characterised his involvement with the Police Service'.

Where we go from here is, as yet, far from clear, however, as in the past, I will ensure you are kept fully appraised of every step along the way. The Board would like to thank Members for both the level and nature of response to the consultation process.

JOHN B FINNIE, JBB Secretary, 21^st February 2002

Reproduced in full below, are the General Secretary's two latest updates;

1. "PAY AND CONDITIONS -MEMBERSHIP CONSULTATION EXERCISE

Over these last few weeks in Scotland, thousands of police officers of the federated ranks have been casting their vote to accept or reject the Heads of Agreement Package on pay and conditions. It would appear that there has been a massive response, which is precisely what we were looking for. The votes are now being counted and the results will be reported to the PNB on Monday 25^th February. I will issue a further Bulletin on that date laying out the Scottish and UK results for your information along with any other update I can give at that time.

Two things have happened recently. On 28^th January 2002, the Home Secretary issued a press statement making changes to the Heads of Agreement package. The Home Secretary announced that he wanted the public holidays on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday and Easter Monday to continue to be compensated at double time. (The last two are not public holidays in Scotland). He also said that other religions could choose their own four days. His press statement says that, "He would also explicitly ring-fence the position of officers undertaking diplomatic protection, undercover work, surveillance work and kidnap cases to ensure they did not lose out under the proposed deal." I do not know what that means.

On 29^th January, I was in attendance at a Conference in London principally about the wider reform agenda in England and Wales and during a short question and answer session I asked the Home Secretary why he had made the announcement the previous day. I told him the consultation exercises in Scotland and Northern Ireland were almost complete and that his announcement was very confusing, unhelpful and outwith the proper process of the PNB. The Minister of State, John Denham, answered for the Home Secretary. He said the announcement had been made to clarify some matters in the package and in response to concerns raised by police officers he and the Home Secretary had spoken to. He acknowledged that the timing would be an issue for Scotland and Northern Ireland but said no more about it. (The England and Wales consultation exercise took the form of a ballot on 6^th February.) I did not get the opportunity to respond.

On 30^th January, an advert appeared in the national press entitled "New pay offer for Police Officers". The advert directed readers to an 0800 telephone number where they could hear John Denham giving information about the 'offer'. Some of the information was inaccurate and confusing.

The Staff Side Secretary (my opposite number in England and Wales) has written to the Home Secretary and the independent Chairman of the PNB, and I have written to our Minister for Justice as produced below. The last paragraph of the letter reminds you of what happens from here on in.

"Dear Mr Wallace,

Proposed Reform of Police Pay and Conditions Service

I refer to our previous correspondence on this subject and write again to express out concern about aspects of this negotiation.

You may recall that in my letter to you dated 28^th November 2001, I laid out the background to the negotiations and brought you up to date as at that time.

Since then, the PNB Joint Working Party has worked hard to conclude negotiations on a "Heads of Agreement" package which is subject to provisos, one of which is that the package is subject to ratification by each Side of the PNB.

During the negotiations, in fact actually during a weekend negotiating session in London, the Home Secretary was quoted as saying he would like to pay officers on the toughest beats up to £3,000 to keep them on the streets. At no time during the negotiations was this discussed. Also over that weekend, it was reported that the Home Secretary had said that if the PNB did not reach agreement he would legislate. This was not conducive to a good negotiating atmosphere.

On Monday 28^th January 2002, the Home Secretary announced changes to the Heads of Agreement document but they are by no means clear. It appears that he wants the public holidays on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday and Easter Monday to continue to be compensated at double time. (The last two are not public holidays in Scotland). He also said that other religions could choose their own four days. His press statement said that, "He would also explicitly ring-fence the position officers undertaking diplomatic protection, undercover work, surveillance work and kidnap cases to ensure they did not lose out under the proposed deal". I do not know what that means.

As you may know, the membership consultation exercise being undertaken in Scotland is different to the one being carried out in England and Wales. In England, they are holding a 'polling day' on Wednesday 6^th February. However, in Scotland, during the second or third week in January 2002, each member of the federated ranks received a copy of the Heads of Agreement document and a reply slip by post. They were instructed to return the reply slip to their Joint Branch Board office by 8^th February 2002. In fact the vast majority of the reply slips were returned before Monday 28^th January and the Home Secretary's announcement.

In addition, on Tuesday 29^th January 2002, an advert appeared in national newspapers entitled "New pay offer for Police Officers" with the logos of ACPO, the APA and the Home Office thereon. This advert, and the information accessed through the 0800 telephone number readers were directed to in the advert, are inaccurate and confusing.

The announcement and the advert has resulted in a flood of calls to my office from police officers who are very confused, frustrated and angry at what they see as entirely inappropriate interference by the Home Secretary.

Added to the Home Secretary's previous actions in relation to these negotiations, viz,

·1 discussion of negotiable matters outwith the PNB

·2 the resultant suspension of long standing negotiations

·3 the resultant re-drawn negotiating agenda and ridiculously short time-scale, and

·4 inaccurate and unhelpful public statements during the negotiations.

this latest 'intervention' amounts to an intolerable situation and, on behalf on my members, I want to protest to you in the strongest possible terms and ask that you use your influence to try to ensure a satisfactory outcome to a most unsatisfactory process.

The results of the membership consultation exercises are to be reported to the PNB on Monday 25^th February 2002. As you know, if both Sides of the PNB accept the Heads of Agreement package it will be become an Agreement of the PNB and be submitted as a recommendation to the Secretaries of State and Scottish Ministers. If there is no agreement, under the terms of the PNB Constitution, the matter moves to conciliation and arbitration if necessary. In my view, it is vitally important that the outcome is an agreed one, whether through negotiation, conciliation or arbitration, rather than an imposed one.

Yours sincerely, Douglas J. Keil, QPM, General Secretary "

2. "PAY AND CONDITIONS

Attached are the results of the Scottish consultation exercise on the Heads of Agreement document. As you will see, across Scotland, there was a 81.84% response rate and a 94.07% rejection of the package. I understand the results from England and Wales and Northern Ireland are similar. The results will be reported at a meeting of the Police Negotiating Board to be held on Monday 25^th February 2002. The Federations, recently described as "Byzantine" and "out of touch with their members", will provide evidence of it's members views - not guess work, or anecdote, but overwhelming evidence that the proposals contained in Heads of Agreement document were totally unacceptable.

A Federation press release was issued on Friday 22^nd February 2002 as follows:

" Scotland's 15,000 police officers have overwhelmingly rejected a new pay package. In the first vote of its kind in the history of the police service, on a 81.84% turn-out, a massive 94.07% of Scotland's police officers in the ranks of constable to chief inspector have rejected the package. It is believed that votes in England and Wales and Northern Ireland have produced similar results. (A note of the Scottish results is attached.)

The Police Negotiating Board for the UK (PNB) had been forced by the Home Secretary to put together the best package it could on a set of proposals devised by the Home Office over a matter of weeks at the end of last year. The pay and conditions package was subject to ratification by police officers.

Doug Keil, general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation said: "Police officers in Scotland have sent an unequivocal message to the Home Secretary. They have confirmed that the proposals were unacceptable and inappropriate for the police service."

The proposals included a £400 increase to basic pay and the promise that schemes for special priority payments and bonus payments would be worked up over coming months. Some allowances would be abolished or reduced and, most controversially, overtime rates would be cut from time and a third to time and a fifth, from time and a half to time and a third, and from double time to time and a half.

Doug Keil said: "It completely backs up the Federations' position. I have never met a police officer, and that includes many chief constables, who thought that cutting overtime rates was either fair or workable. The current rates are not excessive and cutting them would have penalised the officers on the frontline. The £400 increase to basic pay was seen as an insult and plans for special payments and bonuses were seen as divisive and unworkable. There was insufficient detail about how these new pay schemes would work and police officers simply did not trust that they would come to fruition. We persistently made these points during the negotiations but were virtually ignored."

The results of the votes across the UK have to be reported to a meeting of the PNB on Monday 25^th February. The Constitution of the PNB dictates that should there be no agreement, the process moves to conciliation and arbitration. However, Mr Blunkett has warned that if there was a "no" vote it would be "disastrous" for the police service.

Doug Keil said: "Mr Blunkett has already interfered in this negotiation to an unprecedented extent. He has also interfered by making new announcements on the package during the voting process in Scotland. I have never known police officers to be so angry about Home Office proposals for pay and conditions, and that includes the time of the Sheehy Inquiry. All that police officers want is a fair and workable pay system and a fair and workable negotiating system. If there is no agreement on Monday then there must be conciliation and, if necessary, arbitration. Any imposition by the Home Secretary would definitely cause us to question the fairness of the negotiating process and our conditions of service."

This 'negotiation' is far from over and the outcome is far from certain, but at this stage, I thank you for taking part in the consultation process. I also thank those of you who have written to your MP's. Together with your Joint Branch Board representatives I will

continue to keep you updated on the process and, perhaps, seek your assistance again should the need arise. Douglas J. Keil, QPM, General Secretary "