Government plans to tackle anti-social and drunken behaviour will fail as cuts to policing mean there are simply not enough officers to provide the police presence the Prime Minister is calling for, according to the leader of Derbyshire Police Federation.

In a speech on Wednesday, David Cameron promised to tackle the “scandal” of drunkenness and alcohol abuse and suggested the use of American style “drunk tanks” - cells where people sober up overnight.

He also said there should be more police on patrol in hospitals to help deal with drunken and anti-social behaviour in accident and emergency departments.

“While supportive of efforts to try to tackle this problem, yet again, as happened during the recent public service strikes, police officers are expected to fill the gaps and deal with a society-wide issue caused by years of failing to deal with binge drinking,” says Mark Pickard, who leads Derbyshire Police Federation which represents the county force’s constables, sergeants and inspecting ranks.

“The Prime Minister throws these ideas into the melting pot but yet again he fails to consider who picks up the pieces when the wheel comes off as undoubtedly it will with this crazy idea.

“This is yet another soundbite from a Government that will not listen to the people who deal with these issues on a daily basis.

“Throughout the country, the police, particularly in large towns and cities at weekends, struggle to keep a lid on the problems caused by excessive drinking and Derbyshire is no exception.

“The longer licensing hours mean that officers now cannot accurately predict when and where trouble is likely. The old licensing hours meant we knew that most people would be out on the streets at 2.15am and thus we catered for that. There is now a longer period in which trouble could flare.

“There are regularly queues in custody areas while people wait to be booked into their ‘en suite’ room for the night.”

Mark is also critical of the Government for looking to America for solutions and is opposed to ‘drunk tanks’ where a number of people are detained in one cell.

“In this country, we do not do this for sound reasons. These people are often prone to violence or illness. People entering custody are subject of a ‘safer detention’ policy and ‘drunk tanks’ would fly in the face of our well tried procedures.

“Imagine having 10 people in a ‘drunk tank’ and they all become violent, as undoubtedly they will, how would that be dealt with?

“As per current procedures, when these 10 fall asleep they have to be woken regularly to check on them.  This is staff intensive – staff we cannot afford to lose due to the cuts to the policing budget.”

The Derbyshire inspector has his own ideas for how the Government should tackle the problems caused by people who are drunk.

“When trying to control excessive drinking, they should look at the law of the land, which is quite simple - bar staff should not serve people who are drunk,” Mark explains.

“If Mr Cameron wants to do anything to sort the problem he should invest in police or local government licensing teams to robustly ensure that landlords and licensees abide by the law.

“It has been shown that where the laws are robustly upheld licensees take more responsibility.

“Mr Cameron’s suggestion is as daft an idea as that of the previous Prime Minister who wanted police to take a drunk to a cash point so they could pay an on the spot fine. Where is that idea now?”

The Government is due to publish its alcohol strategy for England later this year but in the meantime its current proposals have also been criticised by the national chairman of the Police Federation.

Paul McKeever says: “The Prime Minister’s suggestion of ‘putting more police on patrol in hospitals’ to help deal with problems of drunken and anti-social behaviour would be a laudable solution if the police service wasn’t struggling to meet the current workload.

“We are already trying to cope with 20 per cent cuts to our budgets imposed on us from the Prime Minister and his Government. We simply do not, and will not, have the police officers or the resources to assist the health service with protecting properties such as hospitals.

“Over the next two years we will see 34,000 police officers and staff cut from the service so it will be nigh on impossible to provide the level of service that the Prime Minister speaks of.

“Unfortunately, this announcement demonstrates that the Government has addressed a very serious issue such as alcoholism in a very isolated way. Tackling binge drinking from the point of view of the Department of Health without considering the implications for other public services is unhelpful and is likely to fail.

“To recommend locking people up in so-called ‘drunk tanks’ to resolve the issue of binge drinking is dangerous. People who are very drunk can be vulnerable and often require medical attention so locking them in a confined space is not an effective solution. Police stations are not the right places for people with alcohol problems. We should be looking closer at finding treatment for the problem rather than sticking a part-time solution over the issue.”

Derbyshire Police Federation has backed a new national campaign warning the Government ‘enough is enough we won’t take any more cuts’.

A poster has been published by the Constables’ Central Committee (CCC) of the Police Federation of England and Wales and is the start of a campaign to raise public awareness of the potential damage the Winsor review could cause to the police service.

Tony Wetton, Derbyshire Police Federation constables’ rep for the operations department, has warned the planned changes in Part 2 of the Winsor review are ‘political meddling in policing and will have grave consequences’.

And Tony Howarth, Chairman of the Derbyshire Constables’ Branch Board, said: “This is about the effect on constables who will be hardest hit by the current outcomes, especially those whose next pay points are three to 10.

“I have spoken to several over the past few days and the majority have pretty strong views about how this has left them. At the end of the day they are the future of policing and some have to make very difficult decisions about their futures. If it wasn't for the current employment situation I am sure we would lose more than we have already. When things do get better I am sure their loyalty will be tested.”

The posters feature the phrase ‘Enough is enough’ emblazoned across the top with a powerful picture of officers in riot gear.

Tony Wetton said: “The Government, through the Home Secretary, has demonstrated that it thinks it can ride roughshod over us and the negotiating procedures. Public support and the consequent pressure on politicians will be crucial in the next stage.

“The message is that police officers have taken a massive hit in their terms and conditions but have reluctantly accepted this, putting their personal detriment aside without complaining, maintaining a dignified and professional attitude and getting on with the job of delivering policing and protecting the public.

“The emphasis will now be on how the potential changes will seriously impact on the level and quality of service the police will be able to deliver to local communities, and that those same police officers will not accept an erosion of that service to their communities.

“Please be reassured that Derbyshire’s Joint Branch Board is playing a very active part in influencing action at the centre.”

Click here to see the Enough is enough poster.

The Home Office has issued a circular on increased police pension contributions.

The circular follows the Home Secretary’s announcement on Monday that contributions to the police pensions schemes will increase from 1 April 2012 for the year 2012 – 2013.

Proposed increases in the next two financial years will be discussed at the Police Negotiating Board.

For more information, follow this link to the Home Office circular:

A Home Office circular publishing the Home Secretary’s decision on the findings of the PAT, the PNB’s recommendations and PABEW’s advice is now available.

The circular does not provide any further detail or clarity to what has already been published within the Winsor Part 1 report and PAT decision.

We are working very hard to ensure that the changes to Regulations and Determinations provide sufficient detail so that these changes to our pay and conditions of service are implemented consistently across the 43 forces,” says Ian Rennie, General Secretary of the Police Federation.

Follow this link to read the Home Office circular: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-publications-strategy/home-office-circulars/circulars-2012/006-2012/.

The Home Secretary yesterday ratified the ruling of the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) on the recommendations of the Winsor report, Part 1.

Theresa May also approved the nine recommendations already agreed at the Police Negotiating Board.

The Police Federation has put together a document explaining how the changes and modifications put forward by the PAT will affect officers.

Ian Rennie, general secretary of the Police Federation, explains: “Clearly, officers will have questions about the implementation of the PAT ruling. However, the PAT did not specify a deadline for any of its recommendations to be implemented, but it did envisage that the necessary changes to administrative processes to implement its recommendations would have been completed by 1 April 2012.

“Subsequent to the Home Secretary’s announcement, we expect a Home Office Circular and draft determinations for consultation within the Police Negotiating Board which would set out the timeframe in respect of the implementation and detailed operation of the changes set out in the PAT ruling.”

Click here to see how the changes will affect you.

Officers in the police pension scheme will see their contribution rates rise for 2012 - 2013, following an announcement by the Home Secretary yesterday.

However, proposed increases for the following two years will be further considered at the Police Negotiating Board (PNB).

Theresa May has confirmed she will implement the first year of increases to police pension contribution rates (i.e. 2012 - 13), in line with the proposal put to the PNB in July last year.

Contributions increases for members of both the PPS and NPPS from 1 April 2012 will be tiered as follows:

Tier 1: those on basic annual salary of under £27,000 (equivalent to constables with less than two years’ service);

Tier 2: those on basic annual salary of more than £27,000 but less than £60,000 (equivalent to constables with two years’ service or more to chief inspectors); and

Tier 3: those on a basic annual salary of £60,000 and over (equivalent to superintendents and above).

The actual increases are as follows:

Tier 1:

PPS – n/a

NPPS – 0.6% increase (a contribution rate of 10.1%)

Tier 2:

PPS – 1.25% increase (a contribution rate of 12.25%)

NPPS – 1% increase (a contribution rate of 10.5%)

Tier 3:

PPS – 1.5% increase (a contribution rate of 12.5%)

NPPS – 1.25% increase (a contribution rate of 10.75%)

Ian Rennie, general secretary of the Police Federation, explains: “The proposal from the Home Secretary that was sent to the Staff Side of the Police Negotiation Board for consultation in July 2011 included proposed increases to the police pension contribution rates, which were in accordance with the recommendations within the Hutton review of public sector pensions and were to be phased in over three years from April this year.

“Within our response to the consultation we identified our concerns that police officers were being consulted on year-on-year increases for the next three years whereas other public service groups were being consulted on the increase for 2012 - 13 only, with the increases for 2013 - 14 and 2014 - 15 being subject to further consultation and discussion.

“The Home Secretary has now decided that it would not be right to implement all three years of increases for police officers when other public service schemes are only implementing the first year. Instead the Home Secretary has decided to implement the increase for 2012 - 13 and will ask the PNB to consider the proposed increases for 2013 - 14 and 2014-15 in line with other public service schemes.”

The Home Secretary has accepted the ruling of the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT).

Theresa May announced that she would abide by the PAT decision in a speech today.

She explained that the full package of reforms was not just about saving money but also about allowing police forces to face the future and tackle crime.

The Government, she said, wanted to cut bureaucracy, enable national procurement programmes and allow chief constables to recognise officers with certain skills and specialisms.

She also praised police forces that had saved money, freed up officers to return to the front-line and provided the visible policing communities wanted.

In an TV news interview after making the speech, Mrs May said the PAT decision would lead to savings of £150 million.

The Home Secretary has also accepted the nine recommendations from the Winsor report that had already been agreed through the Police Negotiating Board and therefore not referred to the PAT.

To read the full report on the PAT decision, click here.

Representatives of the Home Office gave an update on the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) ruling at a meeting of the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) yesterday.

The Federation has been calling on the Home Secretary to ratify the ruling since it was announced last Monday (9 January).

At PNB it was confirmed:

• A decision from the Home Secretary on whether to ratify the PAT ruling would be made shortly. No timeframe was given.
  
  
• After the decision, a Home Office circular would be issued to forces. This will be followed by draft Determinations on which there will be statutory consultation with the PNB.
  
  
• The decision on the PAT ruling was being taken in isolation from any consideration of the second part of the Winsor review, which is also due for publication shortly.

The Official Side has agreed to a Staff Side request for a meeting of the PNB Joint Secretaries to discuss the draft Determinations when the Home Office circular has been issued outlining the Home Secretary’s decision.

Home Secretary Theresa May says she will consider the PAT ruling ‘very carefully’ before giving her decision.

Ms May was responding to a letter from Federation leaders asking that she ratify the PAT decision.

The Home Secretary’s letter can be viewed by clicking on the link below.

Police Arbitration Tribunal Decision

Federation leaders are considering the impact on officers now that the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) has announced its ruling on the Winsor Part 1 report.

The PAT decision was published on Monday, with most of Winsor's recommendations being accepted.

However, a number were modified, notably the panel decided casual over-time should continue to be paid at time and a third, ruled an ‘away from home allowance’ of £50 per night should be paid to officers engaged in mutual aid and called for CRTPs to remain in place for officers who already received them.

"Since the PAT decision came out we have been contacted by many Federation members asking how the findings will affect them. While we appreciate officers' concerns, the plain answer is that we don't know yet," says Ian Godfrey, Secretary of Derbyshire Police Federation.

"Firstly, the Home Secretary has not confirmed - or otherwise - if she will ratify the findings. Secondly, if she does ratify, the Police Negotiating Board will meet to discuss and agree the finer points and implications.

"Until all that is done and the changes are formally confirmed, we are simply speculating. Be mindful of the findings and have a good read of them by all means: discuss them with colleagues but also remember nothing has changed just yet.

"The Staff Side to PNB still have an opportunity to minimise some of the disadvantages delivered in the findings. I think we should continue to acknowledge and support the work they have put in and trust them to do their best to finalise things for us."

For more information, please click on the links below.

Full Award
Winsor Part 1 PAT Submission
PFEW Guide to Winsor Part 1 negotiations