Police Pension Reform – Information
You will all by now have seen the impact of the increases in pension contributions in your pay packets and your attention has no doubt turned to the longer term proposals for the reform of police pensions.
In the first instance I have to advise you that NO formal proposals in respect of the police pension schemes in Scotland have been tabled. Despite this and in knowledge of the position in England & Wales, a number of informal meetings have taken place between representatives of trade unions (including the Scottish Police Federation), representatives of the Scottish Government and Scottish Ministers amongst others. These meetings have focused on broad principles and at each meeting the Scottish Government and Ministers have stressed their desire to “take a different approach” to that being pursued in England and Wales.

You will no doubt be fully aware the future of Public Sector Pensions across the whole of the UK was subject to scrutiny by Lord Hutton of Furness and his independent report is the basis upon which the UK Government is proceeding with wholesale reform. Central to these reforms is the desire to replace existing public sector pension schemes with career average (CARE) schemes by April 2015. You should also be aware that while Scottish Ministers have certain powers in respect of the legislation for police pensions, overall pension policy is a matter reserved to Westminster.

In this regard it is worth noting that the Scottish Government made clear their desire NOT to increase pension contributions across the public sector in Scotland, advising in the process the proposal had nothing to do with the question of affordability and was simply a cash grab. Despite this desire and numerous exchanges of correspondence, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Rt.Hon. Danny Alexander MP threatened that if Scottish Ministers did not pass on the increases proposed, the Scottish block grant would be cut by over £ 200 million. It is also worth noting this failed to recognise that the manner in which police pensions are funded in Scotland would have resulted in not one penny more being paid towards HM Governments deficit reduction plans. The Scottish Government’s position was also subject to comment by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP in his speech to the SPF Annual Conference on the 17th April. His speech can be viewed here

On the 27th March, the Home Secretary wrote to the Independent Chairman of the PNB asking the sides (Staff Side and Official Side) to consider and respond to the proposals for changes to the police pension scheme by the 22nd June. The details of the proposals can be found both on HM Treasury’s site and also in the FAQ on that site;

The Staff Side considered the Home Secretary’s letter at a meeting on 11th April 2012 and decided to form a working group to help formulate its response. This working group has scheduled a series of meetings between now and the 22nd June; the first of which is today (2nd May) and I will represent the interests of the SPF at this forum.
As I am sure you would expect, the Staff Side is privy to additional information, beyond that contained in this circular and the links above. That information was shared on a restricted basis and as such has not been circulated wider. However we are aware some of this information has been circulated to forces through the Official Side and it is apparent many members have formed the view the proposals amount to a ‘deal’ when in fact negotiations have yet to commence.
Although the Home Secretary’s letter relates to how a Career Average Police Pension Scheme may operate in the future together with suggested transitional arrangements, the complexities of these matters are such as to require Staff Side to take professional advice. It is to that end professional advisors have been engaged and will sit on the working group referred to previously.
The development of any future CARE Police Pension Scheme will involve consideration of the relationship between the accrual rate, the retirement age, the contribution rate of both the officer and the force, together with an uprating mechanism to maintain the value of the officers pension during their service. There are also significant complexities in relation to the transitional arrangements of both the 1987 and 2006 Police Pension Schemes. I recognise this technical detail may not be easily understood but be assured I, and the wider members of the working group, appreciate the relationships between each element and will strive for the best possible outcome. Clearly it will be exceptionally difficult to provide any substantial update during this period but once or if there is something to tell, I will have no hesitation in communicating with you.
I appreciate I commenced this note advising there have been no formal proposals in respect of the police pension scheme in Scotland and at the time of writing, that remains the case. This may however be a moot point as the ability of Scottish Ministers to freely negotiate on this important subject is significantly curtailed by preconditions imposed by HM Government in Westminster. I attach for your information copies of the correspondence exchanges between Scottish and Westminster Ministers detailing this information.
Therefore and whilst negotiations on “a different approach” will take place in Scotland, it is likely the basic structure of a new CARE police pension scheme in Scotland will be broadly similar to that proposed for England & Wales. However the SPF has an opportunity to seek to gain improvements at two levels (London and Edinburgh) and it is absolutely in our interests to work towards the best possible outcome through the staff side working group and attempt to build upon these outcomes in subsequent discussions with the Scottish Government.
Yours sincerely
Calum Steele

Social Networking and Employment

In the United Kingdom, police officers have different employment rights to other employees due to the nature of their employment. They cannot, for example, raise a claim of unfair dismissal. Despite this, recent developments in Employment law, particularly in relation to the use by employees of ‘social networking’ websites, may be of concern to police officers.

The term ‘social network’ covers a variety of popular websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Bebo, Myspace and Youtube. Unknown to many, the term even covers websites such as Yahoo! Answers and Gumtree. These websites allow individuals to interact with friends, family and even the greater public. The question is can social networking lead to a reason for dismissal of an officer?

The UK Position

There is a growing body of case law in the UK in relation to this area of law as a result of the increasing number of employees finding themselves in difficulty with their employers as a result of postings made on the various social networking sites.

In Apple v Crisp (November 2011) the Tribunal upheld Apple’s dismissal of Crisp, an employee, who had posted derogatory comments about the company on his Facebook page. Apple did have in place a Social Media Policy which prohibited any commentary on Apple products or any critical comments about the brand itself. Crisp contended that his comments were private as they were only visible to his friends but the Tribunal held that because his friends could easily copy and share the comments, they could not be considered protected communications. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that Apple could limit the right of its employees to freedom of expression where it was for the purposes of protecting its commercial reputation.

In Preece v JD Wetherspoons plc ET2104806/10, the claimant, a Mrs Preece, was employed by JD Wetherspoons plc (“the Company”) as a manager at the Ferry Boat Pub. Mrs Preece had agreed to the Company’s E-mail, Internet and Intranet Policy under which the Company reserved the right to take disciplinary action should the contents of any blog, including pages on websites such as Facebook, be found to cause disrepute to the organisation, staff or customers. During a shift at the pub, Mrs Preece became the subject of both verbal and physical threats from a group of customers. The customers were subsequently asked to leave the pub with the children of the customers in question later maing abusive calls to the pub.

That evening, whilst still on duty, Mrs Preece discussed the incident on Facebook and referred to one of the customers in question as a “hag”. Colleagues of Mrs Preece, as friends of hers on Facebook, were able to view her page and thereafter responded to the comments made by Mrs Preece. An individual subsequently complained about the comments and following a disciplinary investigation Mrs Preece was dismissed. Mrs Preece then raised a claim of unfair dismissal against her employer.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the dismissing officer held a genuine belief, on reasonable grounds, that Mrs Preece had entered into a Facebook discussion whilst on shift making many offensive and inappropriate comments in relation to the customers. Furthermore, the Tribunal also accepted that her comments could be read by a number of people. Mrs Preece maintained that her actions did not amount to an act of gross misconduct as the comments posted were private and restricted. As the comments were not visible on her public profile she argued that the comments were visible only to her friends and accordingly, were not in the public domain. She therefore contended that she could not be held to have brought the Company’s reputation into disrepute.

The Tribunal found Mrs Preece’s belief to be irrelevant and held that the comments she made were in the public domain. It was noted that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to freedom of expression did offer a defence to the claimant but that in the present circumstances, the right of the employer to protect its reputation outweighed any right the claimant may have in respect of freedom of expression.

In Gosden v Lifeline Project Ltd ET/2802731/2009, Mr Gosden was employed by Lifeline Project Limited (“Lifeline”), a charity assigning employees to HM Prison Service (“HMPS”). When off duty, Mr Gosden forwarded an offensive email from his home computer to the home computer of a Mr Yates, also employed by HMPS. Mr Yates then forwarded the email to another colleague at the workplace and it subsequently entered into the HMPS computer network. Lifeline dismissed Mr Gosden after concluding that he was guilty of gross misconduct as he had caused risk to Lifeline’s credibility. Mr Gosden subsequently raised an action of unfair dismissal against Lifeline but was unsuccessful on the basis that Tribunal held that the risk of forwarding the email to one of Lifeline’s biggest clients was reasonably forseeable to the employee and could potentially cause disrepute.

The Tribunal did consider the application of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which provides for everyone to have the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. The issue of concern was whether the email was private and to be seen by Mr Yates only. The Tribunal held that the email was intended to be passed on as it encompassed at the bottom, ‘It is your duty to pass this on’. Consequently, the email was found not to be confidential.

This particular case highlights how the underlying intention of the employee’s comments, even if they appear to be private, can lead to such comments being regarded as public and contrary to confidentiality.

Other Jurisdictions

The law in other jurisdictions is similarly adapting to the ever-imposing issue of ‘social networking’. The consequences of an employee posting material online and the employer’s discovery of the material are becoming increasingly apparent in the USA. In one particular case, a sheriff deputy was dismissed after the discovery of information on his Myspace page. Many other cases involving different sectors of employment have similarly dismissed employees as a result of posting material online. The objective of these dismissals was to protect the organizations concerned and any confidential information and employers are advised to ensure that a “social media policy” or something of similar effect is in place, in order to justify the dismissal of employees who post comments online which are detrimental to their business. Employees should therefore be aware that even if they believe that their social network profiles are private they may still be considered to be in the public domain for the purposes of employment law.

In Iceland, regulations are in place to impose confidentiality obligations on police officers. The regulations concern information on persons’ private circumstances that should ideally be kept secret; information regarding police working methods; and planned police measures and provide that such information should be confidential and not made known to the public. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume from these regulations that instances of comments made by officers in relation to their work or conduct on social networking websites will not be tolerated.

Police Officers

Scottish police officers’ obligations in respect of conduct are set out in the Police (Conduct) (Scotland) Regulations 1996. Regulation 4 provides that an act or omission of a constable shall amount to misconduct if it amounts to the conduct described within the Regulations. Such conduct includes actions likely to bring discredit on the police force, and discredit to an employer and bringing them into disrepute seems at the forefront of the case law which acts as a warning.

An indication of the treatment Scottish police officers could face in the event they fall foul of the pitfalls of posting on social networking websites can perhaps be taken from a Freedom of Information request carried out by the Press Association in England and Wales into disciplinary action taken against police officers in relation to their use of Facebook. The results of the request, as reported in The Telegraph1newspaper, showed that approximately 160 police officers faced disciplinary action as a result of postings on the social networking site.

Conclusion: What do these developments mean for police officers?

The risks of posting material on a social networking website are becoming more and more apparent.

Employees can attempt to distinguish and justify the material that they have posted on a social networking website as being within a ‘private’ conversation and not visible for others to see on the public domain. In the general context of employment law, however, this distinction has been shown to offer little protection where the employer is able to demonstrate that the posts of the employee have either had or were likely to cause a detrimental effect to the employer’s business.

In the specific context of police officers, it is therefore very likely that a conduct hearing or Police Appeals Tribunal would take a stern view of the conduct and the police officer concerned could be condemned and dismissed as a result of causing disrepute to a force, with little opportunity to provide a defence or litigate against the decision thereafter. Accordingly, police officers must be encouraged to take care when engaging in social networking of any sort even the most inconspicuous of remarks made to a friend could cost the officer in question his job.

“That this Annual Conference asks the Joint Central Committee to lobby the Scottish Government for the removal of the custody care functions and responsibilities from the Scottish Police Service.”

Secretary’s speech

Custody Care- Who Needs It?
“Ladies and Gentlemen, this motion proposed by Tayside Branch Board seeks to help our members, our service and the prisoners who we deal with. It recognises the risks and vulnerabilities of custody care and is designed to move that responsibility and the focus to others, better suited, better equipped and better resourced for this type of work.
I doubt there will be many in this hall that will not agree that the assessment, care and welfare of prisoners is the highest risk area of Policing.

We see some of the most vulnerable members of society coming through our Custody Suites, and the majority of prisoners are deemed to be High Risk. Police officers working in Custody Suites have to deal with prisoners who are suicidal, have mental health issues, are intoxicated, are drug dependent, have complicated medical conditions or who require to kept under constant observation. Often our prisoners have all of the problems.
It is no surprise then that there continue to be deaths in police custody, albeit less than in previous years. The reduction is down to a significant focus of our resources, training and attention to the care of prisoners. Tayside Branch Board do not believe that this function is a good use of our increasingly stretched police resources. We would like to see Police officers focusing their time, and effort on the policing function and outsourcing this important duty of care to an organisation that is better equipped to fulfil the function.
Let us be clear, this is not about, replacing the policing function, the legal process of accepting arrests and detentions, the administering of rights and the determination of a prisoners eventual custody disposal. It does not replace any police officers, other than those abstracted from the operational duties to backfill turnkey duties. This motion seeks to remove the responsibility, that ‘Duty of Care’ away from the Police and to another organisation.
The benefits are significant. Current custody care training is extensive and expensive . It covers skills ranging from food handling to Advance First Aid. There would be no need for abstracting police officers from the frontline to backfill for turnkey absence, training and leave.
Removing the risk will also allow supervisors to focus more on the policing aspect of their job, secure in the knowledge that prisoners are being safely looked after and that somebody else is taking on that responsibility and liability for their safety and welfare.
As a former custody Sergeant I would often tweak Brian Hanerahan’s immortal Falkland War phrase to, “I counted them all in and I counted them all out”. My number one priority was the care of those in my custody and leaving with everyone alive and accounted for became my primary focus. In a busy Custody Suite, with responsibility for legal process, custody decisions, a full time staff and for giving advice and direction to divisional officers, that was neither fair to them nor indeed for me.
The motion itself does not specify an alternative, that would not be appropriate. It highlights the problem and proposes to take it away. We can speculate on alternatives- putting custody care out to tender for example, just as we did with prisoner transfers in 2004. That process has been a success as no longer do we see police officers escorting prisoners between stations and prisons across the country. But privatisation has become a dirty word in policing and I personally would rather see this function stay in the public sector.
The Scottish Prison Service is a world class organisation that deals with exactly the same issues, risks and challenges as we do on a daily basis. The care of prisoners is however their core business. They can train staff and resource custody suites, more flexibly and efficiently than the Police.
Furthermore, in his 2010 Annual Report, Brigadier Hugh Monro, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, identified that the Scottish Prison Service could extend its contact with the recurring prison population beyond the prison estate. A view long advocated by our colleagues in the Prison Officers Association. The POA and Inspectorate see great merit in Prison staff being able to measure the effectiveness of their rehabilitation techniques and to be able to provide support and intervention to control repeat offending. Contact with prisoners who come into police custody would only enhance the positive rehabilitation and diversionary work being undertaken by the Prisons.
Colleagues, this is an opportunity for the Scottish Police Federation to make a stand on an issue that can affect us all. There continue to be deaths In Custody each year and anyone who has been through that experience will know how traumatic and awful that can be. We have an opportunity through this motion to protect our members from such events and to provide a better and more efficient service to all.
Please support the motion”

G4S is proud to be the official security services provider to 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. We’ll be providing a range of security services to over 100 competition and non-competition venues across the country. G4S Policing Solutions are now able to offer a number of fantastic opportunities for managers and team leaders to form the backbone of the security operations team.

These key roles include Command Centre Group Leaders, Search Team Leaders and Response Team Leaders and require a range of experience involved in effectively running an integrated security system: Security Management; Perimeter Intrusion Detection; CCTV; Metal Detectors and X-ray screening machines.

So if you have proven security management experience, and you want to be part of securing one of the greatest sporting events in the world, please email your CV to Olugbenga.Sowunmi@uk.g4s.com, where one of the team will be in contact to discuss your suitability to the roles.

We are currently recruiting for a number of Security Manager positions at the Olympics. If you know anybody that may be interested, please do not hesitate in passing my details across. Thanks in advance.

Mr Steele said that while the Bill understandably proposed changes to police accountability and governance, its content could, perhaps unwittingly, adversely affect police operational independence.  He said the SPF accepted that the current tripartite arrangement (between the chief constable, national government and local government) needed amendments to accommodate a single force and to provide balance between local and national interests, but he said it was vital that police operational independence was not diminished by those amendments.

Understanding precisely the details in the Bill on governance and accountability, depended largely he said, on what is understood by, and the relationships between, the words “principles, priorities, objectives and plans” and also the phrases “strategic police priorities”; “strategic police plan”; “annual police plan” and “local police plans”. Fine differences in understanding could lead to confusion over who should do what, who or what had primacy and whether the arrangements amounted to “appropriate” change in the tripartite structure.

In yesterday’s evidence sessions at the Justice Committee and in other discussions about the Bill, ‘operational independence’ was a central feature.  Operational Independence is a well used phrase in police circles, but try and have someone define exactly what it means and you’ll discover it is more complicated than it sounds. Calum Steele put forward the SPF’s attempt yesterday as follows:

In relation to policing, operational independence means that the police should carry out their duties in accordance with the law but without direction from any other person or agency.

It is for the chief constable, taking cognisance of the law, to decide which incidents and matters are to be policed and how they are to be policed.

Police should apply their discretion where it appears to them to be appropriate.

Police should consider the views of all interested parties in assessing how to carry out their duties and whether and to what extent they exercise discretion.

In these matters, (a) what to police; (b) how to police it; and (c) whether to exercise discretion, the police are accountable to the law alone.

Operational independence, free from undue central or local political influence underpins policing by consent and ensures policing is of the people not the State.

Fears of political control and direction and interference with operational independence stem from the following proposals in the Bill:

• Ministers to appoint members of the Scottish Police Authority (SPA);
• SPA, with approval of Ministers, to appoint the chief constable;
• SPA, on consultation with Ministers, can call on senior officers to retire
• Scottish Government will determine the strategic police priorities
• Scottish Government will direct the SPA on how it carries out it’s functions and on matter pertaining to the policing of Scotland
• Scottish Government will effectively control budgets and staffing levels

Mr Steele also gave evidence to the Justice Committee on police ranks; forensic services; police conduct and police appeals tribunals; the proposed new powers for the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, and the protections for officers against transfer out with their former force areas. The full written submission can be viewed here.

Mr Steele also gave evidence to the Scottish Government’s Local Government and Regeneration Committee and Finance Committee on Tuesday 21 February 2012 and Wednesday 22 February 2012 respectively.  The sessions can be found at the links below.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/newsandmediacentre/41412.aspx at 1hour 32 minutes into the session.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/newsandmediacentre/41382.aspx at the start of the session.

Already we have had a number of officers approach the Federation Office stating that the increases in contributions this year are going to make the scheme unaffordable for them.

If you or anyone know is in this position they must take Independent Financial Advice- there is no going back!

The critical message is that if you withdraw from the scheme, you will  only see an improvement in ‘take home pay’ of roughly half of your gross pension contribution.

For a full time constable on the 1987 scheme, at the top of their payscale, the Basic Salary would be £36,519. On the 20% income tax rate, he net contribution to your pension is then£ 267.81.  As of 1st April this will increase to rise to £298.24. The effect of this is that you take home pay will decrease by £30.43 a month.

This increase is being introduced across the UK Government funded public sector pension schemes. It excludes the Local Government Pension Scheme which covers Police Support Staff which is in a different legal and financial position.  We continue to fight the reforms along with our colleagues in the Trades Unions  hence why only this years increase has been ratified.

The increase is tiered depending on your annual pay

Total officer contributions for those on a basic annual salary of under £27,000          

Total officer contributions for those on a basic annual salary of more than £27,000 but less than £60,000

Total officer contributions those on a basic annual salary of £60,000 and over.

To assist officers see how this affects you personally , the following two calculators have been supplied by the SPPA

1987 PPS Scheme

2006 NPPS Scheme

Link to Website with Payscales

There has been no agreement yet on the proposed increases for the next two years.

The increases will be deducted automatically from your salary