Author Archives: Vince Howard

Morale plummets as your job stress grows and pay dwindles

You have told us that your personal morale is continuing to drop, with the way you are treated being the biggest contributor. As demand continues to grow and impact on overstretched police forces, nearly two thirds (60.2%) of you who responded to our 2017 pay and morale survey said your personal morale was low – nearly 5% more than last year. A staggering 85% blamed it on the way police as a whole were treated.

Thank you to those of you who took the time to respond to the survey. The findings have been covered extensively by local and national media, enabling us to send a powerful message to the government and the public. The results will also be used as evidence in our 2018 submission to the Police Remuneration Review Body at the end of the year, as well as providing welfare information for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies (HMIC), the College of Policing, the Home Office, politicians and other stakeholders to open debate, contribute to consultations and reflect your views on a range of topics.

Our routine arming survey is now closed.

Thank you to those of you who took part in the routine arming survey. The findings will be published towards the end of this month. To find out more about the work we do to support those of you who carry firearms, please visit our national website.

Police Drivers Are Still Vulnerable


Attending our national conference I was dismayed to hear that you still find yourselves vulnerable to potential prosecution whilst engaged in response or pursuit drives.

A campaign led by a member of the Interim National Board is underway to get legislation changed, to ensure that officers who engage in pursuit and response drives can be afforded better protection.

What needs to change, and why?
The current legislation leaves police drivers vulnerable: it is illegal to engage in pursuit or response drives. This is because there are no exemptions in the current legislation that take into account the high level of specialised training officers are given. All driving standards are measured against that of a “competent and careful driver”.
According to the law, ‘dangerous driving’ includes speeding, ignoring traffics signals, or overtaking dangerously. There can also be liability for causing others to drive dangerously.

Officers who have engaged in pursuits or response drivers have, in the past, been charged with dangerous driving, even if no complaints were made, and no one was injured (the outcome is not the matter that should be considered although it almost always is the catalyst).

Police drivers are trained to the College of Policing standard. However this standard is not supported by the current law.

What we are doing about it?
The Police Federation is working to have this changed, and wants appropriate legislative change that reflects the high standard to which Police Officers are trained to be taken into consideration.

Since 2012, work done by the Police Federation of England and Wales helped lead to the Crown Prosecution Service creating the Crown Prosecutors Guidance.

Work continues to bring about a change in legislation to protect officers.

What should you do?

You have a sworn duty to uphold the law and should drive in a way which is lawful and does not contravene the laws of dangerous or careless driving.

You are advised not to undertake any manoeuvre which may well fall outside the standard of the careful and competent non-police driver.

Further advice can be sought via info@avsomfed.org or your local representative.

PC Keith Palmer

Given the incredibly sad nature of the events that took place in London yesterday which saw PC Keith Palmer lose his life protecting others whilst simply doing his job, I felt it appropriate to share some of the commentary regarding this event.

‘A service left numb following police officer death’

“No words can capture how members of the policing family will feel after today’s horrific events,” Steve White, Chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said.

The Prime Minister has paid tribute to the “exceptional bravery” shown by police officers following Wednesday’s terrorist attack which left one officer dead.

An MP has called for a permanent memorial to the police officer who died protecting Parliament in a terror attack that struck at the heart of Britain’s democracy. Police Constable Keith Palmer was one of five people – including the suspect – killed as he tried to intercept a terrorist believed to have driven through crowds on Westminster Bridge before storming the entrance to the Houses of Parliament. PC Palmer, part of the Parliament and Diplomatic Protection Command, was stabbed to death confronting an attacker who had already fatally injured three other people.

Policing is a difficult and dangerous job and there is no doubt in my mind that the public are thankful for those officers who do it every day.

We must also remember the members of the public who lost their lives in this incident and those injured by this terrible act, we wish them all a speedy recovery.

Should you wish you can donate to the Police Dependants’ Trust which provides financial support to injured officers, their families and loved ones when things go wrong.

Our thoughts and prayers and most sincere condolences go out to PC Palmer, his family, friends and colleagues. He will not be forgotten.

Judges’ pensions Employment Tribunal: Implications for Police Officers?

The Employment Tribunal on judges’ pensions has been reported as a victory. But who wins? The ET ruling was on a narrow part of pension legislation, and ruled against a provision that unions across the public sector had fought for. It is possible that the success of this challenge could have unintended consequences to the detriment of some Federated members.

The case was solely about transitional protections, and whether these caused direct discrimination by age, and indirect by gender and ethnicity.

The judge was very clear that he was not ruling on wider public sector pensions’ reform, as this is a matter of public policy.

What are transitional protections?
Transitional protections are a mechanism that was lobbied for by unions – including PFEW – to protect members.
The aim is to ensure those members who cannot remain entirely in “old” schemes, are given special arrangements to help them adjust.

What does the judgement say?
The judgement does not state that either judges only subject to the new scheme (without protection) or in the old scheme have been treated illegally.

It only states that those judges afforded transitional protection have been treated in a way that causes discrimination. In fact, the judge goes further, and states that those with transitional protection have been treated better than they could have been. When considering whether transitional protections were a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, the judge considers whether they may have been “excessive” and states that an option might have been to simply follow Hutton’s recommendation that accrued rights under the old scheme be protected. The judges’ schemes both protected old rights and offered transitional protection. (As do the police schemes).

What might be the next steps in this case?
There are a number of things that may happen:

  • The Ministry of Justice may appeal. However, if it does, it will actually be forced to adopt the position the unions initially argued for – i.e. that transitional protections are a good thing.
  • The Ministry may not appeal, and instead seek to remove the unfairness.

There are a number of ways the Ministry might do so:

  • The Ministry could offer all judges the same protection that members with transitional protection get – but that would cost more money from the public purse – possibly an additional £80,000,000 for judges alone. (The same across the public sector would cost billions of pounds).
  • Bearing in mind that the unfairness has been deemed to be insofar as those with transitional protections have been treated better (in the judge’s view) than they might have been, one option may be to remove transitional protections completely.

This would reduce the cost to the public – possibly by £28,000,000.
Unfortunately if this latter course is taken, some members of the pension scheme lose out. Ultimately it would mean no member of the pensions’ scheme will gain from the claimants’ win, in this ET.

What is the PFEW doing?
Nationally and locally we continue to monitor the situation. We believe that transitional protections are a good thing, are deeply disappointed that this case may have consequences that the litigants did not anticipate, and are concerned this may cause pension scheme members to lose money.

We believe it is important that we act in the best interests of as many of our members as possible and that transitional protections offer a better pension for more members.

The ET decision is only binding on the judges, not on any other employers, although it may be referred to in other ET cases.
The judges’ position is different in many respects from the police position. However, it remains to be seen whether – in fighting the one common element of schemes, the transitional protection – the litigants have opened the door to poorer pension provision in the public sector?

Highlight professionalism with Body Worn Video

The roll out of Body Worn Video (BWV) continues and so does the value of it as research has shown a reduction in complaints against Police of 93%.

The Federation strongly support the use of BWV, as it provides a valuable layer of accountability and transparency, whilst showing the professionalism, honesty and integrity shown by officers on a daily basis.

We all know the corrosive nature of any complaint either against ourselves or our colleagues and the detrimental effect of what are often long, drawn out investigations.

BWV gives officers the ability to use their discretion to deal with situations in a way that best suits the public and we have been given assurance by the Chief Constable and the Head of PSD that there will be no ‘fishing trips’ for misconduct.

Today, Friday 2nd December saw the value of BWV footage in providing early resolution to complaints against officers and bringing about a swift decision by the IPCC of no requirement for an investigation.

In one case two officers detained a male who was violent and threatening upon arrest. This was witnessed and a complaint made of excessive force. The footage captured on the BWV quickly exonerated both officers, showing them to have acted reasonably and proportionately in light of the violence they faced.

The other case involved serious injury following Police contact, requiring an automatic IPCC referral. Again the officers, utilising their BWV from the start of the incident, provided investigators with an accurate account of how the incident unfolded and the significant efforts made by officers to help the individual.

We have been given the technology that not only provides unchallengeable evidence, but more importantly offers protection to you and your colleagues against malicious and vexatious complaints.

Your job is difficult, demanding and often dangerous; BWV shows that in high definition, so have confidence in using BWV to highlight your professionalism and switch it on!