POLICE chiefs yesterday said that their alternative proposals to the
Sheehy Report would put up to 2500 more constables on the beat at no
extra cost to the taxpayer.
Their plans were less complex and less costly, Home Secretary Michael
Howard was told in their official response to the controversial Sheehy
plans.
The Association of Chief Police Officers said that it had already
planned to cut senior officers by 350 by the end of this year, saving
#11.8m, which could be used for 976 extra constables -- but for the Home
Office's ''extremely disappointing'' refusal to give them the go-ahead.
The ACPO proposals are only marginally different from those arrived at
by the Scottish chief constables and the two staff associations, a fact
acknowledged yesterday by Dr Ian Oliver, chief constable of Grampian and
chairman of ACPO(S).
Dr Oliver said: ''It is encouraging that the senior managers of the
English service have recognised a similar thrust in the proposals that
we have. It would be a very unwise government that failed to take notice
of such professional advice.''
ACPO president Mr John Burrow, Chief Constable of Essex, acknowledged
the need for change and said that they welcomed parts of the Sheehy
report.
But the ACPO response, submitted to Mr Howard, rejected or watered
down the main proposals, such as fixed-term appointments,
performance-related pay, and salary and pensions changes.
Last week, the report's author, BAT Industries chairman Sir Patrick
Sheehy, said their proposals had been subjected to myth and
misrepresentation and accused police leaders who criticised them of
being demagogues.
Mr Burrow told a news conference at New Scotland Yard: ''The time for
'ya-boo' politics is over. Both sides have been guilty of assertion and
bluster. Neither side has a monopoly on wisdom and it is now time for
informed dialogue.''
Several chief constables have warned that they would consider their
position if the report was implemented in full.
But Mr Burrow, who accepted their response would set them at odds with
the junior ranks who have rejected the report outright, said that they
would not be ''holding a gun'' to Mr Howard's head by threatening to
resign.
They expected the Home Secretary to outline his thinking on the report
at the Tory Party conference in two weeks, followed by a Police Bill in
November, and hoped that their response would provide the basis for a
''sensible'' discussion on how to modernise the service.
ACPO's key differences with the report include:
* Fixed-term contracts for superintendents and above.
* The Sheehy inquiry based its pay proposals after taking an average
level from a study of 19 private sector companies.
ACPO said that pay scales should be based on the upper level, which
would mean recruits staffing at about the current level rather than
#2500 lower, although officers aged between 22 and 25 would earn less.
ACPO accepted that the pension scheme was a mess but rejected the
Sheehy proposal to increase retirement age from 55 to 60 and pension
qualifications from 30 years to 40.
Instead, it proposed a means for officers to leave after 20 years'
service and for those wanting to continue after 30 years to need chief
officer approval.
Hertfordshire Chief Constable Baden Skitt, chairman of ACPO's
personnel and training committee, said that over the next four years
they could reduce the number of senior officers from chief inspector to
chief superintendent by up to 600.
This, coupled with plans by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Paul
Condon to cut 450 senior jobs, would create sufficient savings to
recruit up to 2500 new constables.
He said that under the Sheehy proposals, 5000 officers from the rank
of sergeant and above would have to go to put 3000 back on the beat at
extra cost.
ACPO feared the proposals, which included scrapping three ranks
completely, would have a damaging effect on the service's ability to
respond to operational demands and be as inflexible as the existing
structure.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article