The first part of Tom Winsor’s report on police pay and conditions, published last year, proved unpopular with much of the service. Now the second instalment, published yesterday, has caused more outrage. Good. The howls of protest emanating from the Police Federation, which represents the rank-and-file beneficiaries of the current arrangements, are ample proof of the necessity of Winsor’s proposed changes. While most officers do a first-class job, some do not, indeed a fair few barely seem to do a job at all. The police is the public service most in need of reform. Winsor’s two reports, at once forensic and startling, provide an excellent template.
The idea of an annual fitness test, with pay cuts as a penalty for failure, will grab the headlines. The news that, having joined, a police officer never faces another fitness test is indeed remarkable, and no doubt closely connected to the fact that 52 per cent of male Metropolitan Police officers are overweight. When the police are significantly fatter than the population as a whole, there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Another shocking statistic unearthed by Winsor is that in some forces more than 10 per cent of officers are on restricted duties — desk jobs — some of which amount to no more than a few hours’ work a week. Yet they continue to receive full pay. This must be stopped. One way to tackle this issue is for chief constables to be given the power to make officers redundant, something they are prevented by law from doing at present. In making budget cuts, chief constables are having to sack competent hard-working civilian staff because they are not allowed to get rid of incompetent malingering officers. Winsor, rightly, wants this absurdity to end.
The Winsor proposals that are most overdue, however, and the ones that will, if adopted, produce the greatest long-term benefits, concern the service’s ability to attract, promote and retain talented recruits. Much police work is now highly specialised and skilled. Yet academic entry requirements remain relatively modest and it takes an average of 17 years to progress from constable to inspector rank. Consequently, the best and brightest school-leavers and graduates tend not to consider a career in blue.
Winsor rightly wants to elevate the status of the job. Raising the barrier to entry, fast-tracking promotion and allowing some older applicants to skip the junior ranks are eminently sensible ways of incentivising the ambitious. Winsor’s proposal to decouple pay progression from length of service and attach it instead to skill and performance is also welcome. In time, the result will be a more efficient, open and responsive police service.
Advertisement
Naturally the Police Federation will have concerns over such fundamental change. But for that organisation to dismiss Winsor’s work as a mere money-saving exercise, crying “enough is enough” in an aggrieved and, frankly, self-pitying fashion, risks exposing its members to ridicule and the federation itself to accusations of irrelevance.
Public respect for the police is high. But the belief that a minority of police officers have had it far too easy for far too long is also widespread, and has now been confirmed by Winsor’s analysis. Theresa May, who as Home Secretary commissioned the reports, should have the courage of her convictions, face down the federation, and adopt Mr Winsor’s reforms wholesale.