House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions

Oral evidence

13 March 2012 Tom Winsor, author of the Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 13 March 2012.

HC 1877-i Published on 18 April 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £4.00

The Home Affairs Committee

The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the and its associated public bodies.

Current membership

Rt Hon MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Rt Hon Alun Michael MP (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North)

The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament.

Mr Aidan Burley MP (Conservative, Cannock Chase) Mary Macleod MP (Conservative, Brentford and Isleworth)

Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Tom Healey (Clerk), Joanna Dodd (Second Clerk), Sarah Petit (Committee Specialist), Eleanor Scarnell (Inquiry Manager), Darren Hackett (Senior Committee Assistant), Sheryl Dinsdale (Committee Assistant), Victoria Butt (Committee Assistant), John Graddon (Committee Support Officer) and Alex Paterson (Select Committee Media Officer).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Home Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3276; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].

List of witnesses

Tuesday 13 March 2012 Page

Tom Winsor, author of the Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions Ev 1

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidence

Taken before the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday 13 March 2012

Members present: Keith Vaz (Chair)

Nicola Blackwood Steve McCabe Mr James Clappison Alun Michael Michael Ellis Mr David Winnick Lorraine Fullbrook ______

Examination of Witness

Witness: Tom Winsor, author of the Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Mr Winsor, first of all, I seem to be Q4 Chair: Why do you think the Police Federation constantly apologising to you. On the last occasion raised these issues with you and questioned so you gave evidence you were kept waiting. I apologise categorically the points that you made to this again that you had to be kept waiting. Committee in evidence? Are there any interests to declare? Tom Winsor: I don’t know. The Police Federation Alun Michael: Chairman, as we are dealing with must answer for their own motives. I answered the policing issues, I should declare that I have announced letter fully, and I think you have seen a copy of my that I wish to stand for election as a police and crime answer. I spoke to a very significant number of police commissioner in the South Wales area. officers and police staff during the consultation period Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Michael. for part 1. My field trips were to Northern Ireland, Mr Winsor, it has taken you an awfully long time, has Scotland and a number of police forces in England it not, to publish part 2 of your report? Why has it and Wales, and I was very much in listening mode. taken so long? There was nothing in part 1 that in any way implies Tom Winsor: It is an extremely important subject. My that any of the named police officers in question, or original terms of reference provided for me to publish members of police staff, were even aware of my part 1 in January 2011 and for part 2 to come out in intended conclusions at the time that I spoke to them. June. The almost unanimous opinion of the police I was actually receiving information from them. I staff associations and others, after seeing part 1, was that to rush part 2 in so short a time after part 1 would discussed issues with them, but nothing in part 1 have been wrong. They needed to spend a great deal attributes any comments to any police officer— of time preparing their case and engaging with the contrary to what the Police Federation have said in . That was a very intensive their letter; nor does it in any way imply that any of process and they asked for a longer period. Taking them individually supported my conclusions. At the more time on part 2 also enabled me to consult much time I spoke to them I had not formulated any more fully on it, to follow the Cabinet Office conclusions, so I could hardly discuss my conclusions guidelines of 12 weeks for the consultation period, with them when I had no conclusions. and also to deal more fully with the very controversial and important issues that have been raised in part 2. Q5 Chair: It seems to be disputed fact. For example, PC 7772 Hulme was on annual leave and he never Q2 Chair: So when do we expect to see part 2? met you and further on, as far as Kent Police are Tom Winsor: 10.30am on Thursday. concerned, Sergeant 8071 Stevens—this is quite a Chair: Of this week? detailed analysis that they have done—said that he did Tom Winsor: Yes. speak to you but could not have left you with the impression that he was in favour of your reforms. Q3 Chair: In respect of part 1, we were very Obviously you went to Wales, but you have never concerned to receive a letter from Ian Rennie, the spoken to PC Jemma Jones. General Secretary of the Police Federation—a copy of Tom Winsor: All I can say is that as far as the officers which he sent to the Committee; the original of which that are stated not to exist, their names were given to was sent to you—concerning your claims before the me either by the people I met—I do not do Pitman Committee to have met a number of police officers shorthand but I wrote them down as carefully as I who formed the basis of your conclusions for part 1. Some of these police officers denied having spoken to possibly could. you; some did not exist; some were on holiday at the time you said you had spoken to them. Have you seen Q6 Chair: Did you not have a machine? Were you that letter? not recording what they were saying? Tom Winsor: Yes. I replied to it. Tom Winsor: In some cases I was, but not in all cases. Ev 2 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

13 March 2012 Tom Winsor

Q7 Chair: No, but you can refer back to the machine Tom Winsor: No. I am not talking about the whole and the recording so you know exactly what their report. I am talking about those parts that were critical names are. of my process in part 1. My process in part 1 was Tom Winsor: I could if the machine was sufficiently more— sensitive, but it wasn’t on all the time. The names were either given to me by the people in question or Q11 Chair: But you have just accepted that you had they were given to me by their supervisors. In a a machine that did not pick up people’s conversations, number of cases it was the latter, and it is perfectly and that some of the people listed in your report were possible that the supervisors gave me the names of the not there. You have just told this Committee that. people whom I was expected to meet but actually one Tom Winsor: In one or two cases there may have been or two people may not have turned up at the time. It an honest mistake in the statement of the people that is an honest mistake. I met. The fundamental point that has been made in criticism is that I have attributed to people comments Q8 Chair: So you accept that there were people who they did not make, and there is nothing in part 1 that you quoted who were not there? attributes any comment to any named police officer, Tom Winsor: I have not quoted anyone in the part 1 apart from one member of Kent Police staff who made report; no one. the comment in question on the record in a Chair: No, but you based conclusions on transcripted seminar and we published the transcript. conversations you had with police officers you had That is it. not met. Tom Winsor: No. I did not. I only based my Q12 Chair: Can I just make it clear, Mr Winsor, for conclusions on conversations that I had had. It may the record, that the Committee’s report was be that the names in appendix 6 of the report are not unanimous; it was neither misleading nor flawed. a complete and accurate account of the people that I Tom Winsor: I am sure it believes that to be true. met, but that is only as a result of an honest mistake, Mr Winnick: Could you repeat that? I didn’t quite— either because I cannot do shorthand or the people in Tom Winsor: Yes. I am sure the Committee believes question did not turn up and their supervisors thought that to be true. they had turned up. As far as the sergeant in Kent is Mr Winnick: Indeed we do, Mr Winsor. concerned, in some way insisting that I have attributed Chair: We do not know of any other witness who has to him any comments, which I have not, or that he behaved in this way. supported my conclusions when I gave him none, that is just simply not correct and it is quite extraordinary. Q13 Alun Michael: What impact has the decision of It also says that there was a police officer in Kent, the Police Arbitration Tribunal had on part 2 of your Cranbrook Police Station, who was on holiday at the review? time. Well, I have sent Mr Rennie a copy of the Tom Winsor: The Arbitration Tribunal has supported person’s business card, which was given to me on that most of the recommendations in part 1, but in a occasion. If somebody else gave me his business card, number of respects it has either deferred consideration that is not a matter for me. of certain issues until the part 2 report and in some issues it just disagreed with me. It has made a number of determinations that differ from part 1, which will Q9 Chair: You have just told the Committee you are lead to the savings contemplated by part 1 being less doing this major inquiry, which is very, very than I had projected for part 1. So it will cost money, important. The has given you this and my estimate is that it will cost in the region of very important task—gave you this task just after she about £30 million in 2012Ð13. In other words, the was appointed in 2010. You have a piece of equipment savings will be that much lower. that is not sensitive enough to hear what people have to say. Was there not a duty on you to make sure Q14 Alun Michael: That is the impact in terms of that all the information was absolutely accurate? What costs or savings? concerns the Committee is that after we published our Tom Winsor: In savings. report, The New Landscape of Policing, you then put a letter on your website saying that our report was Q15 Alun Michael: What other impact would it misleading and flawed. In what way was the report of have? the Committee of this House misleading and flawed? Tom Winsor: As I have mentioned, it has deferred Tom Winsor: I think I said so in my letter, which I do consideration, for example, of the link of pay and not have in front of me but— skills until part 2. I made a recommendation that there Chair: Tell us, who did we mislead and why was should be an expertise and professional accreditation it flawed? allowance of £1,200 a year for officers with particular Tom Winsor: I think it proceeded on the basis that I specialist skills. It has recommended that that be had attributed to people that I had not met comments deferred until part 2, when my conclusions and that they had not made and, for the reasons I have just recommendations on contribution- and skills-based given, that is not correct. pay are known. So that is a cost that has been avoided for the short term, because that is £1,200 a year that Q10 Chair: What? The whole report was based on quite a number of officers would have been receiving something that someone did or did not say to you. now that they are not going to get. They have Surely that is not the case. recommended that the progression freeze does not Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 3

13 March 2012 Tom Winsor apply to officers on the first three pay points of the You accepted that there may have been some errors constable scale. They have recommended that the there and you said that was an honest mistake, and I competence-related threshold payments, which I said am not querying that. I am now asking, do you accept should be abolished, should not be abolished and new the criticism that the Police Arbitration Tribunal made applications should be deferred for two years. They about some of the data you provided? have deferred a decision on competence-related Tom Winsor: Right. Thank you. Just on that point, I threshold payments until they have seen my met 176 police officers in part 1 and there are recommendations on contribution- and skills-related questions about the existence or evidence of three of pay. That assumes that my part 2 recommendations them. As I said earlier, there is no question that the get to the Police Arbitration Tribunal. On casual evidence on which I proceeded was in any way overtime they disagreed with me that the time-and-a- flawed. There is only a question about the names of third rate should be reduced to plain time. So in a the individuals. number of respects they differ from me, but in most respects they have supported my recommendations. Q20 Steve McCabe: I have not challenged that, Mr Winsor. I was just simply reflecting back what I Q16 Alun Michael: Did the decision of the Police thought you had told the Committee. But I am anxious Arbitration Tribunal have any significant impact on to know whether you accept what the Police the delay of publication, given that, as the Chairman Arbitration Tribunal said. has already commented, there has been considerable Tom Winsor: What they have said in paragraph 35 on delay? page 22 is that the staff side in the arbitration were Tom Winsor: It has not been that considerably concerned about the quality of the data. They say delayed. It has only been delayed by six weeks, and nothing there about their own concerns about the that was because in order to produce part 2 and to do quality of the data. On page 35, in paragraph 59 of the financial modelling for part 2 as well as come up the PAT determination, they said, in relation to with the policy recommendations, it was necessary for payment for casual overtime, that there was an issue me to know what the Home Secretary’s final decision that would suggest that there may be scope for seeking on part 1 would be. We had operated on the basis that to improve the quality of management data in this the Police Negotiating Board process and the Police area. Those are the two criticisms they make in Arbitration Tribunal process, if it were engaged, relation to data quality. The first is not a criticism by would operate much more quickly than in fact it did. them, and the second one is merely a statement that The Police Arbitration Tribunal’s determination did there may be scope for improving quality. I had to not come out until the first week of January this year, work, both in part 1 and part 2, with the data quality and the Home Secretary’s decision did not come until that was available to me. 30 January this year, so I shall be publishing part 2 The police service lacks even basic management data six weeks after knowing the fate of part 1. I do not that other organisations and industries would take for think that is an unreasonable period of time to enable granted. My review uses, and has used, the most me to reconsider my conclusions in part 2, do the comprehensive and robust data yet gathered on police financial modelling and write the report. pay and conditions, and there has never been this much data or data of this quality before. As well as Q17 Steve McCabe: Mr Winsor, you have just told undertaking a review of existing evidence, my staff the Committee that you accept there may have been and I undertook our own extensive data gathering for some errors in the evidence and supporting detail in part 1. For instance, data were collected on the cost part 1 that were down to an honest mistake. Do you of officer and staff overtime by function each year also accept the criticism of the Police Arbitration from 2000Ð2001. That had never been done before. Tribunal that the quality of some of the data was So I reject any suggestion that we have proceeded on pretty variable and it made it quite difficult for them the basis of data that could have been better if we had to arrive at conclusions, and perhaps that is why in worked harder. The contrary is the case. No review of almost a third of the recommendations they were not police pay has proceeded on the basis of more data of able to arrive at conclusions? I think they talk higher quality than ours. particularly about the quality assessments in the overtime data you provided. Do you accept that Q21 Mr Winnick: What is your assessment, Mr criticism? Winsor, of morale currently in the police service? Tom Winsor: No. Tom Winsor: I think morale is— Mr Winnick: High? Q18 Steve McCabe: You do not accept that they Tom Winsor: No. I don’t think it is high. I think the were wrong to make that criticism. dedication and commitment of police officers remains Tom Winsor: I do not accept that they have done what commendably high, and I think that many police you said, but I will explain that. Your opening remarks officers recognise that this review is about rewarding were that I have accepted that there are errors in the the hardworking police officers who are committed evidence that I used. and who want to improve and use their skills. I have a very high regard for police officers and staff who do Q19 Steve McCabe: No. I said you accepted that in an essential job of protecting the public— the supporting evidence and detail some people are Mr Winnick: I am sure we all do. named who you may not have met or who may not Tom Winsor: But it is undoubtedly the case that have been the people you thought you were meeting. morale is in some cases at a low ebb. They told me Ev 4 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

13 March 2012 Tom Winsor when I was visiting police forces that morale was Federation have distorted, if not deliberately, what you already low, and one of the principal reasons was an have recommended. To put it bluntly, it appears intense resentment at the unfairness of the police pay everyone is wrong except yourself. system, which they have endured for a very long time Tom Winsor: All I would wish people to do is to read and I am making recommendations to reform. and understand the recommendations that I have made. I believe that if they do they will see that it is Q22 Mr Winnick: Whatever unhappiness they may a balanced package of reform, contemplating savings have had in the past, the Police Federation conducted in part 1 of £1.1 billion over three years, £635 million a survey of its members in which some 42,000 officers of which would be redirected to the frontline police participated, and the result, according to the Police officers who work hard and do dangerous and skilful Federation, is 89% strongly agree the proposed jobs. changes in their terms and conditions would see morale among police officers fall and 61% agree that Q25 Chair: You did say to this Committee on 14 officers quite likely would leave the service as a June—question 442—that 40% of police officers are result. Do you have any opinions on that survey or do going to be worse off as a result of your proposals. you think it is valid or— You cannot expect them to be dancing in the streets, Tom Winsor: I don’t know how scientific the survey can you, if 40% of them are going to be worse off? was, but I suggest that morale would be far higher in Tom Winsor: It is necessary— the police service if my proposals were more widely Chair: Would you expect them to be happy about and accurately understood and explained to the people that? who are then asked to participate in a survey. Tom Winsor: No, of course I don’t expect them to be happy about it. Q23 Mr Winnick: So you take the view that the Police Federation have distorted, deliberately or Q26 Chair: So you understand why morale is low? otherwise, your recommendations for their own Tom Winsor: I understand why the morale of those purpose. Is that what you are telling us? who are going to be worse off, some of them not very Tom Winsor: I am not suggesting they have done it worse off— deliberately. Mr Winnick: They have not done it deliberately, but Q27 Chair: Well, 40% of the police force according they have distorted? to you. Tom Winsor: I think there have been distortions. Tom Winsor: Yes. But each one is not going to be as When part 1 was published, we received in the review worse off as the next one. Some are going to be quite a number of communications from police materially worse off, some of them may be relatively officers who were extremely concerned that they were worse off by a relatively small amount. going to be materially worse off as a result of the Chair: So there are levels of unhappiness. Mr recommendations in part 1 if they were implemented. McCabe has a supplementary. We were so concerned that these police officers were undergoing this degree of distress that we asked those Q28 Steve McCabe: I just want to check what Mr who communicated with us, or a number of them, Winsor said to me a moment ago. I have been looking what were their individual circumstances—what rank, at what the ACAS report, the Decision of the Police their length of service, the nature of the work they Arbitration Tribunal, said, which is, “In its published did. We keyed that information into our financial ruling the tribunal repeatedly noted the inadequate model and worked out on a case-by-case basis what quality of data available on which to base its decisions the financial consequences would be in those on matters such as the cost of overtime. It commented, individual cases for those police officers. In a number ‘Some of the evidence presented to the tribunal, of cases we were able to say to them that far from particularly in the areas of equality assessments and being several thousand pounds a year worse off they the cost of various categories of overtime, was of were, in some cases, several hundred pounds—and in variable quality’”. Is it not reasonable to accept that some cases over £1,000—a year better off. they were making some criticism, Mr Winsor? We then took the step of putting the financial model Tom Winsor: I don’t know what evidence was on our website to enable police officers individually presented to the tribunal. I was not a participant in to key in their data and also to download the thing. the tribunal proceedings. Evidence presented to the As I understand it, the instrument went viral, as it is tribunal of variable quality was not necessarily said. It went all around the police service and the evidence presented by me. I was not a participant in emails dried up almost immediately. I think that the those proceedings. I do not know what evidence they people in question need to know the real facts about are talking about. It may be evidence that— the recommendations. Chair: I think we are on morale here. This is the Q29 Steve McCabe: But all the data you gave them question. was perfect—it was the most reliable data available. Tom Winsor: I didn’t say it was perfect. I said it was Q24 Mr Winnick: I put this as gently as possible to the best available. you, Mr Winsor: you do give the impression, whether you agree or not, that everyone involved seems to be Q30 Steve McCabe: You gave them the best possible misunderstanding. According to you, the Committee data available, yet they thought it was of variable was wrong in its unanimous conclusions; the Police quality and pretty hard to arrive at decisions on. Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 5

13 March 2012 Tom Winsor

Tom Winsor: I did not give the tribunal any data. In part 2, I received 75 formal submissions following a three-month consultation period, open to anyone Q31 Steve McCabe: Where is this inconsistency who was interested. We had over 2,000 website posts. coming from? Am I imagining what I am reading We held five transcripted seminars with interested here? parties, and I also had other meetings with a range of Tom Winsor: They are talking about the evidence individuals and organisations. In my opinion, this is a presented to the tribunal. I do not know what evidence far broader consultation than was done in any other was presented to the tribunal. It may be evidence review of police pay, such as that held by Lord presented from another source or it may be evidence Edmund-Davies in 1978. I have carefully considered presented by— all the submissions made to me, formal and informal, when coming to my recommendations in part 2, Q32 Steve McCabe: Wasn’t the tribunal trying to together with evidence from a number of sources, rule on the basis of part 1 of the Winsor report? Was including those from experts to whom I have spoken that not the whole object of your exercise—to actually and other sources. make all these recommendations on which they were supposed to rule? Q36 Lorraine Fullbrook: Thank you, Mr Winsor. Tom Winsor: Of course, and I have every expectation Can I ask who the individuals and organisations were that a large part of the data presented to the tribunal that you consulted, in addition to your online posts? was presented by one side or the other coming from Tom Winsor: All of the staff associations, the Police my report, but I have no knowledge as to whether or Federation principally, the Association of Chief Police not there was other evidence presented to the tribunal Officers, the Police Superintendents’ Association, that did not come from my report, and I do not know UNISON, Unite, the GMB, individual police officers, which evidence they are criticising. senior police officers, serving police officers of lower rank, members of police staff—the whole range—and Q33 Steve McCabe: Can I ask you one last thing? this Committee of course. Given that you do not know if they were criticising you or not—we do know that, as I say, they could not Q37 Michael Ellis: Mr Winsor, we heard that you come to a judgment on about a third of your interviewed 176, I think you said, police officers, and recommendations and they seem to say that is because there is a question about three of them that you have they were not too satisfied with the data—will there been asked about. Do you think that there is an attack be anything you do differently in Winsor part 2? Will on the integrity of your report because some interests you raise your game in any way to try to make sure resent the report and its contents? they do not have that trouble the next time? Tom Winsor: It is hard to say. I think that the Tom Winsor: I have no knowledge as to whether the questioning in relation to three names out of 176, Police Arbitration Tribunal will be engaged at all on which if they are wrong are a product of an honest part 2. As far as part 2 is concerned, it is written. It is mistake, is a bit of a storm in a teacup and it does being printed now. not undermine the integrity of the review. The review document part 1 is an extremely thorough piece of Q34 Steve McCabe: Well, have you been able to work, proceeding on the very best quality data of all. raise your game? Have you taken any of this into The consultations that I carried out were very account? extensive, and I believe that the conclusions are very Tom Winsor: We have operated on the very best soundly based. Why people attack them is for them to information that the police service has been able to answer, but clearly this is a controversial matter. The provide to us and we have got further and high-quality pay system that we have at the moment is a structure data from our own efforts, but you will see in part 2 designed in 1920, which was last fundamentally that I will make recommendations in relation to data quality in the police service. reformed in 1978. It is a pay review system from a different era, and the national financial conditions, as well as the need for police forces to raise performance Q35 Lorraine Fullbrook: Mr Winsor, I would like whilst reducing budgets, mean that radical reform is to ask you exactly how you have gone about producing the recommendations in part 2 of the required. review, which I understand includes some recommendations from part 1 that were delayed until Q38 Michael Ellis: That is exactly what I was going part 2, namely those regarding on-call pay, the review to ask you next, which is, have you effectively come after three years and role-related pay, which I believe to a clear conclusion that there are fundamental were delayed until part 2. How have you gone about unfairnesses within the current system? producing the recommendations, firstly for part 2, and Tom Winsor: Yes. who did you consult for these recommendations in part 2? Q39 Michael Ellis: Is it your view that a number of Tom Winsor: The methodology in part 2 is serving police officers are hard done by by substantially the same methodology as for part 1. As unfairnesses within the system that they are serving I mentioned at the beginning to the Chairman, there under at the moment? was a three-month consultation process. During part 1 Tom Winsor: Yes. I believe that morale is low in we received 58 formal submissions and 7,100 posts many cases for that reason, because officers are facing on our website, and I met over 176 officers and staff. equal pay for unequal work. Ev 6 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

13 March 2012 Tom Winsor

Q40 Michael Ellis: Is it your conclusion get second jobs and so, instead of having a full-time consequently that there is a fundamental necessity for professional service, which is what we all want, they a reform of the pay and conditions? will actually be part-timers? Tom Winsor: Yes. Tom Winsor: Police officers are permitted to have other jobs and other business interests, but that is Q41 Michael Ellis: Have you taken into subject to the approval of the Chief Constable, and consideration, as well as the historical unfairnesses there are certain occupations that they are not allowed that are built into the system, the economic climate at to have, such as publicans. the moment in the country, in terms of the availability Chair: Yes, we know that. of fiscal resources, or is that not something that you Tom Winsor: Some shift patterns do enable police have considered? officers to work four days a week, sometimes three- Tom Winsor: Certainly. My terms of reference require and-a-half days a week, and do give them the me to have regard to the national financial conditions, opportunity on another day or two days a week to do which are, as we all know, very severe. some other work. That does not mean to say that they are driven to do so because they are not being paid Q42 Michael Ellis: Do you expect the type of person enough as police officers. It is just that they are who is interested in joining the police service in the managing to earn their full police officer salary in a future will change as a result of your report, or shorter period of the week and they want to do recommendations that might be taken to fruition as a something else. It seems to me that is entirely result of your report? In other words, do you see the makeup of the police, its diversity and its intake, legitimate, provided the Chief Constable’s approval changing in the future? is given. Tom Winsor: You are leading me into matters of part 2, which is— Q47 Chair: But nobody has said to you, “The reason why I have a second job is I really can’t make ends Q43 Michael Ellis: Yes, quite deliberately. meet”? I have talked to police officers in the Palace of Chair: We appreciate you have not published part 2. Westminster and they talk about the Australian system We will have you back to talk about part 2. where, as a result of the reductions, a number of police Michael Ellis: Unless you are prepared to give us a officers in Australia are having to be police officers little information in advance. and in the evening go off and be builders and decorators. That can’t be right for the police service, Q44 Chair: Are you going to be tempted by Mr Ellis can it, if they have to do that in order to make ends to give him a snippet? meet? Michael Ellis: People usually are. Tom Winsor: No, not if they have to do it, but the Tom Winsor: Tempted, but I will not succumb. reforms that I have recommended, if implemented— and some of them will be—will concentrate additional Q45 Michael Ellis: What were you going to say, pay on the frontline and on the officers, as I said to Mr Winsor? Mr Ellis, who are doing the hardest jobs. There is an Tom Winsor: All I would say is that the police officers unsocial hours allowance, so a 10% uplift in pay for and members of police staff who I think will not suffer those who are working the night shifts, between 8.00 any reduction in morale and who deserve the greatest pm and 6.00 am, and that goes right up to the careful consideration are those who are working hard inspecting ranks as well; as well as additional doing the toughest jobs in difficult conditions and who payment for skills. If the police officers in question are using and acquiring additional skills that are of are doing the tough jobs and the skilled jobs, they importance to the principal purpose of the police, have an opportunity to raise their pay. It may very which is the prevention of crime and the protection of well be that the police officers who think they cannot the public. I expect and hope that my reforms, if they maintain their present standard of living on the are implemented, will encourage people of high income that they are getting at the moment will be ability, commitment and dedication who want to do incentivised to reskill and do some of the jobs that this critical public service, and to do it well, to come matter most. into the police service because they will see that their contribution will be fully recognised and properly rewarded. Q48 Alun Michael: You just referred specifically there to the payment to officers on the frontline. What Q46 Chair: Mr Winsor, what concerns this is your definition of the frontline? Committee are the stories of police officers now Tom Winsor: The frontline is not just the visible having to take second jobs because they simply can’t frontline. The frontline is police officers who are afford to live on the salaries that they are getting: employing the range of skills and expertise required 3,671 Metropolitan Police officers have declared that of a warranted police officer. A frontline police officer they have second jobs, 14 in the security sector, and I is just as much a member of a child protection team was given figures this morning by Radio Kent that who spends an entire day in an office building looking 157 police officers in the Kent area had second jobs. at the most appalling images of children being abused Do you think that there is a risk that the reduction in and trying to find a pattern and break a paedophile pay for 40% of currently serving police officers will ring, as it is a uniformed police officer you see on the mean that some of them—more of them—apply to corner of your street. Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 7

13 March 2012 Tom Winsor

Q49 Alun Michael: It is an important distinction extensive review, what proportion fall into that because rather more facile descriptions of the frontline category? Surely you must know that, otherwise what have been used, for instance by the Chief Inspector of is your report telling us? Constabulary and sometimes by Ministers. Will your Tom Winsor: In some police forces as much as 10% part 2 contain your definition of the frontline? of police officers in the police force are on restricted Tom Winsor: No. duties, and they do not go out and face the public for a variety of reasons. They may have injuries; they Q50 Alun Michael: You specifically said that it was may have enduring medical conditions; there may be part of your intention that officers on the frontline other reasons why they cannot do that work. In part should be able to receive remuneration, so I don’t 2, I will be addressing the issue of restricted duties. understand why it would be— Tom Winsor: Because I have already said what my Q56 Chair: Mr Winsor, you have been something of definition of frontline is in part 1. a reluctant witness before this Committee. Whenever I have asked you to appear, your office has said that Q51 Alun Michael: So it will maintain the definition you were busy writing part 2. I agreed that I would in part 1? defer your appearance before this Committee until you Tom Winsor: Yes. had completed part 2 of your report, following a call from the Minister. We will have you in to talk about Q52 Steve McCabe: Mr Winsor, you said that those part 2 in the near future after it is published. officers doing the tough, skilled jobs will benefit from Obviously we appreciate that you could not be led your proposals. In your estimation, what proportion of down the path that Mr Ellis was trying to take you police officers are currently doing soft, unskilled jobs? down and give us a snippet of information, but we Tom Winsor: I can’t give you a number, although I would appreciate it if words like “misleading” and could give you a note. For example, the toughest jobs “flawed” were not put on your website about this are the ones where you face the public, you face Committee. If you have something to say to this danger and you work shifts. The skilled jobs are the Committee about our report, we are very happy to ones that require higher levels of skill, for example in have you in and you can discuss it with us, because we public order, firearms, detectives and neighbourhood think that was unfair and wrong. We certainly don’t do policing. On the other hand, there are officers in the that to our witnesses, and I would be grateful if you back office doing administrative jobs that you do not did not do that in the future. If you feel you have require the powers of the office of constable to do. something burning to say to us about our reports then They are working 9 am to 5 pm and they never work all you have to do is ring our Clerk and we will have weekends. In some cases those officers are doing jobs you in. that you do not need to be a police officer to do, and Tom Winsor: I will be more than happy to come to they create considerable— this Committee for periods of whatever length the Committee wants. I have never been a reluctant Q53 Steve McCabe: Sure. From your extensive witness. When the Committee asked me to come the surveying of it, I wondered what proportion of them last time, I was in either Kuwait or Abu Dhabi and it were engaged in such activity. was impractical for me to come back for the session Tom Winsor: I can’t give you a number now, but— in question. This review has felt like a full-time job, but it is actually not a full-time job. I am a practising Q54 Steve McCabe: Well, is it 30% do you think, solicitor and a partner in a leading law firm in the City or 20%? of London, and I have had to try to maintain my client Tom Winsor: I hesitate to make any stab at it. commitments as well as doing the review. I may say that the Home Secretary’s tempting offer of being able Q55 Steve McCabe: Mr Winsor, I am not trying to to do the entire review in 45 days over nine months be difficult here, but you are telling us that you have was a little ambitious. done this extensive, thorough review. You are telling us that these people who are doing the tough, skilled Q57 Chair: She drives a hard bargain. We will ask jobs have nothing to worry about. They are going to her if she would be kind enough to provide you with benefit from the recommendations. You are making a proper set of recording equipment so that when you this change because you have identified there are soft record people you can do so accurately. jobs, non-policing jobs, unskilled jobs that are actually Tom Winsor: It is not a Home Office device. soaking up resource, and I am asking, from your Chair: Mr Winsor, thank you very much for coming in.

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 04/2012 019812 19585 Distributed by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:

Online www.tsoshop.co.uk

Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN General enquiries 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 Email: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701

The Parliamentary Bookshop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX Telephone orders: 020 7219 3890 General enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.bookshop.parliament.uk

TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 PEFC/16-33-622 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/