Police cuts – the legal landmine lurking for ministers
The claim
“We want to see police on the streets fighting crime, not stuck behind their desks fighting paper.”
David Cameron, Prime Minister’s Questions, March 11, 2011
The background
The Government’s drive to reduce the national deficit means cuts across the board, and the 43 police forces in England and Wales haven’t escaped the axe.
Police budgets are being cut by 20 per cent over the next four years. But ministers say sharing back-office functions and other efficiency savings mean the frontline won’t be affected.
Now, as FactCheck found out earlier this month, there’s a good deal of confusion about what “frontline” really means, but that’s another story, which may or may not be cleared up by Wednesday’s report on the definition of the term by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.
David Cameron and Theresa May have repeatedly said they want to see officers fighting crime rather than getting bogged down in paperwork.
But police forces up and down the country have announced that they’ll have to lose police officers to implement the budget cuts being handed down from Whitehall.
There’s only one small problem: you can’t make a police officer redundant.
And FactCheck has learned that that simple fact could mean the Government is in for a whole world of pain when it comes to stretching the thin blue line.
The analysis by Patrick Worrall
Nobody knows exactly how many police jobs will have to go to satisfy the need for cuts, but with about 80 per cent of police budgets spent on staffing costs, it’s obvious that someone – whether police officers or civilian staff – will have to go.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is sticking to its most recent estimate of 12,000 officers to go over the next four years.
Labour puts it slightly higher – at 12,500 in the same period.
And the Police Federation says 5-6,000 will go a year. So they’re talking about a fall of 20-24,000 officers by the next General Election.
Now police forces have various options if they want to slash the numbers of officers.
They can sit around and wait for people to quit, retire or die – that’s “natural wastage”.
And on paper, it’s likely to play a significant role. The Police Federation says up to 5-6,000 officers could be lost every year through natural wastage.
So technically if a police force did a complete freeze on recruitment for four years in a row, they just might be able to avoid getting rid of serving officers.
Given the need to make budget cuts now and the unpredictability of natural wastage that’s extremely unlikely, and we know that some forces are having to go further.
So how else can they slim down?
Some have been using an obscure police pension rule – regulation A19 – to force officers who have been serving for 30 years to retire.
Labour have released figures showing that 13 forces intend to use this power and 1,138 officers have either been forced to retire already or will have to go by 2015.
Yvette Cooper is extrapolating from those figures and suggesting more than 2,000 would be axed under A19 if other forces followed suit.
ACPO thinks that there might be some Labour spin at work here. A spokesman told us: “A19 is not being used by all forces. Police chiefs won’t want to use it unless they have to.
“Forces actually have to prove to the Police Authority that they need to use it. It’s not being widely used.”
So if a chief constable doesn’t want to go down that road, what can he do? Well, nothing.
The problem is that a fully-sworn police officer is technically not an employee of a police force but a servant of the Crown, and as such, cannot be sacked.
That presents the Government with a bit of a problem if it wants forces to go through with its cuts programme.
Take Greater Manchester Police, one of the biggest in the country, which is shedding 1,377 uniformed officers over four years.
A recruitment freeze means 860 officer jobs will go through natural wastage.
The force is considering using regulation A19, but chiefs estimate that will only lead to 100 or 200 officers being forced to retire.
That leaves a shortfall of more than 300 officers, and as the law stands, there’s no other way of getting them off the books.
The only option appears to be losing civilian staff members and getting police officers to do the jobs that would have been done by them.
That’s what the Police Federation has been expecting to happen for a while. Vice Chairman Simon Reed said: “We had been removing officers from backroom roles and replacing them with support staff.
“That has been a Government programme for a number of years and it’s worked. Now that’s going to be reversed. Those civilian roles will need to be back-filled by police officers.”
The Guardian has now reported the contents of leaked memos from Warwickshire police authority that appear to show that the process has already begun.
Warwickshire has reportedly drafted up to 150 officers to cover back-office functions of civilian staff who have been made redundant.
There’s no suggestion the force has acted unlawfully, but other police authorities who want to follow suit will have to tread very carefully if they don’t want to blunder into a legal minefield.
FactCheck can reveal that the unions are bristling for a fight over “back-filling”. And any worker who feels that they’ve been sacked unfairly so that someone else can take over their role can take it up with an employment tribunal, whether they are a union member or not.
Employment law expert Andreas White from Kingsley Napley said: “It would be a very unusual situation. It might even be unprecedented.
“Employers are free to restructure their workforce in order to make legitimate and necessary budget cuts. But the police have been given very, very challenging targets in terms of cutting their budgets.
“How exactly they go about doing that is a very contentious and difficult subject.
“I think they are probably quite likely to get a lot of lawsuits whatever happens. The public sector in general terms faces a lot more tribunal litigation than the private sector. The workforce tends to be much more unionised.
“They will have to handle it very carefully. However carefully they handle it, I think there are very likely to be all sorts of issues.
“The unions are challenging these things all the way.”
Ben Priestley, Unison’s national officer for police staff, told FactCheck: “Unison will challenge any instances where police officers are used to back-fill redundant police staff posts.
“If police officers are used to back fill police staff jobs, the government’s claims to create the most cost-effective public sector will be made a mockery of. The UK will employ the most expensive 999 call handlers, detention officers and police trainers.
“Police officers are a far more expensive resource than police staff, and should be out there on the streets getting on with the job of fighting crime.”
The Home Office insists that chief constables will be able to cut red tape so fewer backroom staff are needed and bobbies can stay on the beat.
A spokesman said: “We believe that police forces can make the necessary savings while protecting frontline services and prioritising the visibility and availability of policing.
“Forces must focus on driving out wasteful spending, and increasing efficiency in the back office. The effectiveness of a police force does not depend primarily on the number of staff it has, but rather on the way they are deployed.
“The Government will play its part by reducing bureaucracy, driving more efficient procurement, and working with forces to ensure that the savings of over £1bn a year identified by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary are delivered.
“By cutting out costs and scrapping bureaucracy we are saving hundreds of millions of pounds and hundreds of thousands of man hours.”
The verdict
The Government could be in for world of hurt if police chiefs don’t tread very carefully here.
If hundreds of civilian workers get the chop – and they feel they’ve been unfairly treated – the cost of litigation could add to the woes of police authorities.
And with the public service unions pledging to fight the Coalition’s cuts programme tooth and nail, this could be a golden opportunity for them to put the boot into Government plans.
In any event, the revelations in recent days over the use of compulsory retirement and the apparent secondment of officers into backroom roles mean David Cameron’s words ring very hollow.
It all lends power to what the Police Federation has been saying from the outset: you can’t make a 20 per cent cut without affecting the frontline.
Read more: Cutsmap – show us the spending cuts
Read more: Special Report – spending cuts check
There are 12 comments on this post
And stuff like this is happening in every department, everywhere. The Building Schools etc fund fiasco was the same, the aircraft carrier contracts with no aircraft to carry.
It’s like watching a very, very slow car crash.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am not advocating this as policy ,but following the Montreal Olympics in 1976 Quebec faced such an enormous budget deficit that all public servants including teachers underwent a pay cut. It was enforced for several years.
It did help to solve the problem but was not as you can imagine very popular.However wide scale redundancies were avoided as far as I can recall.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And what happens when the first murderer or rapist is aquitted because the paperwork wasn’t completed correctly, or a piece of evidence not filed as it should be.
This government seems to think that backroom staff equals people doing nothing. Presumably if they take over F1 Lewis Hamilton will have to pump up his own tyres and pump the petrol.
Or maybe David Cameron and the rest of them will have to write their own speeches and press releases and drive their own cars.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As this article suggests, the real story is whether local councils and other organisations such as the Police will actually cut the bureaucracy that seems to have grown up and consumed much of the extra spending that was poured in during the Labour years. Or whether they will resist and cut core services. Maybe even to make a political point, which is what happened in the 1980′s.
For example, some local councils seem to think that marketing and PR (eg. propaganda) are more important than core services such as libraries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
IS IT TRUE THAT 68% OF POLICE OFFICERS ON FRONT LINE DUTIES ARE SPEEDING PAST CRIMES ON THEIR WAY TO THE CHIP SHOP? NO CHIPS FOR THE OTHER 32% THEN. THE GOVERNMENT WERE USING 11% AS THEIR MEASURE OF POLICE ON FRONT LINE DUTIES WHEN IN OPPOSITION BUT ARE NOW QUOTING 68%. DEPENDS ON THE CASE THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE, I GUESS. HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE SUCH DISTORTIONS OF THE FACTS?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Saltaire Sam, I couldn’t agree more.
Unless, as a result of the Hutton and Winsor reviews, a complete change in the Criminal Justice System occurs, the weight of evidence for charging someone to court and convicting them, will stay as high as it is now. That requires “back office” staff to build files, ensure continuity of evidence, liase with witness before trial etc. If those police staff who carry out these essential roles are lost, who will have to do them? That’s right, a police officer. Who is supposed to be ” on the beat”.
And the idea of “visibility in the community” is a complete joke. Crime, potentially, is prevented by officers on the streets, but crime is in not detected that way. Detections come from pain-staking, sometimes laborious evidence gathering; interviewing witnesses, interviewing suspects, trawling for CCTV and gathering forensics.
You do most of that behind closed doors. You don’t do that driving around being “visible”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry but the police have let us all down -just to name a few Ian Tominson ,John Charles & Stephen Lawrence.
recently they have been found guilty of a rapes ,police brutality & thefts from raid !
The ipcc are overworked with complaints & we have all had enough.
Get rid they are a waste & make all officers dealing with the public wear cameras at all times.
Then maybe they will think twice about attacking a man in a wheelchair.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“recently they have been found guilty of a rapes ,police brutality & thefts from raid ”
What? All of them? Given the numbers of police officers the percentage of criminals in the ranks is pretty small. Certainly less than MPs. Several recently jailed for fraud out of only 600 or so.
So tell me how wearing cameras at all times goes with reducing buerocracy. All that footage has to be logged, indexed, and stored. In case you haven’t noticed the police make widespread use of CCTV and video where it makes sense – traffic cars, custody suites, evidence gatherers at demos, and so on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What do you mean by “civilian staff. Police officers in this country are civilians. They are civilians with limited extra powers in limited situations. When Peel founded the police he made this the basic principle. It is only in less happy countries that the police are not basically civilians.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Depends whose definition you read.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian
Anyway in the context of a piece about policing it’s meaning is quite clearly to seperate police and non police employees.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In every Police Force there are ‘specialist’ departments staffed by lame & lazy uniformed officers who do not want to undertake ‘Police’ duties – but wish to retain their full pay. The work they are doing was removed from civilian staff (who were being paid 50% less), just to keep them in a job – they cannot be made redundant. As a direct result, highly experienced civilian staff are being made redundant from ‘front – line’ duties such as front offices, communications, forensics etc. This is in order that their places can be filled by operational police officers who will be taken from patrol duties. Expect to see a drop of 20% in visible patrols. As a retired Police Officer I cannot beleive this madness. So thank you Mr Cameron for being so cost effective in keeping our streets safe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think you can safely say that anyone who refers to themselves as oldplod is unlikely to be a police officer as the term itself is disrespectful of serving officers and this would appear to be someone who is trying to appear that they have inside knowledge when actually they dont. And if it is you Mrs May then please just be honest enough to let us all know. Youve destroyed what morale was left in the police and unfortunately the poor old british public are about to suffer for your treachery. And having failed to protect our borders she is now intent on reducing the number of police officers within them. Lucky she isnt on performance related pay.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0