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.