I have discussed police pay with the police leadership and police officer representatives on numerous occasions. My right hon. friend the Chancellor set out the Government’s objectives on public sector pay for future years on 8 January. I have now written to the independent chair of the police negotiating board asking the board to start work quickly on exploring the possibilities for reaching a multi-year pay settlement for the police based on the index agreed by the police arbitration tribunal.
If those talks include back pay, that will be welcome. The Home Secretary must accept that the Government’s refusal to honour in full the independently recommended pay award has caused considerable damage to police morale. The total sum of money, spread right across Government funding and all police officers in England and Wales, is around £40 million. Surely the Government can afford to pay that, particularly bearing in mind that it is roughly the sum paid to West Ham footballers.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has already made clear, we are keen, on an ongoing basis, to discuss with the Police Federation and all other representatives of police staff the wide range of work that we can do both to recognise the important contribution that they make, as we do day in and day out, and to move forward on the issue of police pay, as I have outlined.
I have been clear in the explanation that I and the Government have given for the staging of the police pay award this year. The recommendation from the police arbitration tribunal was for me to consider; it was, effectively, the same as a recommendation from the police negotiating board. I had a responsibility to make a decision that was right for policing, for the affordability of policing and for the taxpayer. It was also right that that decision should be in line with the publicly stated pay policy and the Government’s commitment to keep inflation under control.
Some 205 Members of the House and the Select Committee on Home Affairs have unanimously called on the Home Secretary to pay the award. It is now clear that the suggestion made by some in the Government that 800 new police officers would be made available because of the extra resources is completely untrue; rather like the terracotta army, it is good to look at, but would not protect the Home Secretary. As the issue is so important and in the national interest, will she not put it before Parliament for Members to vote upon?
Parliament, in Westminster Hall—my right hon. Friend was there—was indeed able to debate at some length last week both the issue of police pay and, quite rightly, its relationship to policing funding as a whole. Let me be clear, as I was in my response to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell): there are a range of issues involved in the decision that I made, and one of them is certainly affordability. It is the case that £1 allocated to policing cannot be spent twice. The point to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred was simply that £40 million is the equivalent of the retention of 800 police officers. That is not an unreasonable point to make when one is making a case about the Government’s pay policy, fairness to all public sector workers and affordability for police budgets as a whole.
I am interested in the Home Secretary’s rhetoric, but the fact remains that Nottinghamshire constabulary has been deeply affected by this decision. Its morale, which is always a matter of great concern to the chief constable, has been seriously dented. May I invite her to come on to the front line, to see exactly what the implications of her callous decision are?
Throughout this whole process, I have tried to avoid the rhetoric that has, on some occasions in the House and elsewhere, been more evident among those who oppose the decision than those who are trying to explain it. I frequently go out and visit police officers on the front line. I did so last Thursday, for example. I am always impressed by their dedication to their job and their success in reducing crime, but in order to support that, I need to take seriously my responsibility for the affordability of policing, the number of police officers available and the sustainability of the budgets that we put in place. As a Minister, I also need to take seriously our responsibility for public sector pay as a whole and for keeping inflation under control.
Two weeks ago, a policewoman carrying out her duties was shot and injured. Surely this must send a message that we should backdate police pay fully. If the support staff in police stations are being fully paid, and police community support officers are getting the full increase, why are those who are fighting on the front line and risking their lives not getting it? That is unacceptable and unpalatable. Please, let us look at this issue now.
There are many police officers who put themselves in danger and, in some cases, are injured or even killed while policing our streets. That is why it is absolutely right that, in the range of public sector pay, the overall benefits package for police constables and the police service generally is not only fair but highly competitive. In relation to pensions, allowances and yearly increments, it rightly includes generous allocations in comparison with other public sector pay awards. As I have mentioned, however, the issue of consistency also needs to be borne in mind when we look at the police pay awards. It is of course the case that, among the pay awards negotiated for 2007, only the armed forces and junior doctors received a better pay award than police officers. That is the reality of the situation. Nevertheless, I have now made it clear that I want to look at how we can move forward to the multi-year pay deals based on the index agreed, which will give certainty and recognition to police officers in a way that they deserve.
During the debate on police pay last week, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing refused to answer this question, so I hope that the Home Secretary will now do so. Does she think it fair that police officers are getting a smaller percentage increase than other police staff and police community support officers?
I read the debate, and I know that my right hon. Friend answered questions on a range of issues at some length. The Government do not actually have a role in setting the pay of police staff and PCSOs, so that is not something that we are held responsible for—[Interruption.] It is a fact. We do not.
May I inform the Secretary of State of my dismay that she is going down this road? Not only is her decision giving disproportionate offence to public servants and causing considerable political collateral damage to the Labour Government, it is also unfair. It will embarrass Ministers in other Departments who try to argue that trade unions and other representative organisations should adhere to decisions made at arbitration. I understand that the Home Secretary’s own Ministers argued about whether the arbitration decision on prison officers’ pay should be adhered to. She cannot have it both ways.
It is precisely because I believe that we should, and do, have fairness across the public sector that I have taken this decision. I should like to make a point about the nature of the arbitration in these circumstances. The police arbitration tribunal is an automatic part of the police negotiating machinery. It does not involve some kind of decision being made, after no agreement has been reached by the police negotiating board, to go off to an independent tribunal; it is an automatic part of the process. The result of the police arbitration tribunal should legally be treated in the same way as a recommendation from the police negotiating board. This is a different kind of arbitration from the type that some colleagues have been arguing about. It is more akin to the sort of advice that Ministers might receive from a pay review body. As my hon. Friend will know, Ministers have taken the decision to stage the increases recommended by many pay review bodies both this year and in some previous ones—
What about the prison officers?
My hon. Friend shouts out, “What about the prison officers?” from a sedentary position, but prison officers had their pay award staged to the same value as have police officers this year. That is all part of the fairness that we are pursuing here.