Letter to Members

Dear Colleague

We have been made aware of a text and face book campaign encouraging members to withdraw from subscribing to the Police Federation. Obviously this is of concern to us, but equally of concern is the fact that there are a number of myths and rumours regarding the impact of doing this.

The purpose of this letter is to clarify the correct position and implications of doing it so that any member considering this course of action does so with access to all the facts and implications.

Police Federation Representation

Nowhere in the Police Regulations or in the Misconduct or Performance Regulations does is state that the Police Federation must represent you. The Regulations allow for you to be accompanied to any management meeting or misconduct meeting with a work colleague but does not mention that this must be a member of the Police Federation.

Greater Manchester Joint Branch Board exercises a strict policy that we will not provide any representation, support or even advice to members who do not subscribe to the police federation funds on any matter. This includes misconduct, unsatisfactory performance, ill health retirement, grievances and any matter affecting your employment. There is a clear rationale for this position. The federation funds are pre-dominantly used for legal advice and support to members. They are also used to employ the staff and run the offices that would process any claims. Finally they are used for the development and training of representatives to ensure that you have access to their expertise and knowledge. It would be therefore inappropriate for an individual who does not contribute to the development of that knowledge to have access to it.

The Federation Fund Rules also state that if a member withdraws from the fund then not only can they not have access to any legal advice whilst they are not subscribing but the Branch Board can exercise a moratorium of up to 12 months after a member re-joins before legal advice is provided. The policy of Greater Manchester Joint Branch Board is that if a member chooses not to subscribe to the fund and continues to do so for one month then the full moratorium of twelve months will be applied.

Insurance Benefit Trust Scheme (IBT)

IBT schemes are run by individual Branch Boards across the country. They are invariably run under a Trust Deed which has a common theme. That theme is that only subscribing members to the Police Federation or Police staff are eligible to join the Group Insurance Scheme. Therefore if you withdraw from subscribing to the Police Federation then you will also have your IBT cancelled under the provisions of the Trust Deed. Again there is a rationale for this position. The Federation Staff, which is employed from your subscriptions, administer the claims for the IBT. The two schemes are therefore financially linked and support each other.

When you join the police service the insurers accept that you have to be in good health. They therefore automatically allow you to join the scheme. They understand that this position can change during your service and retirement but as it is a group scheme do not load premiums in relation to individual risks and the premiums remain low. The same is not true of life cover obtained by an individual which will change as the risk increase with age or because of pre-existing conditions.

However, if you withdraw from the IBT scheme the position of the insurers is that you are not automatically entitled to re-join the scheme and have to complete a medical questionnaire and give access to your medical records. They will not allow a member who has a pre-existing health problem or presents a risk through an unsatisfactory BMI score to re-join the scheme.

The IBT Scheme provides many ancillary benefits such as cover for emergency home Repairs, hospitalisation benefit, car break down and temporary disablement benefit. However, its key benefits are life insurance cover, critical illness cover, half pay cover and travel insurance are vitally important. Officers should consider covering these essential eventualities if they do not have the cover from the group life scheme.

You’re Federation Representatives and the Current Situation.

One of the things that make me immensely proud is the dedication and effort federation representatives put in on your behalf, often unrewarded and committing much of their own time for no pay. I can speak from personal experience that this impacts not only on them but also their families. In some respects being a Federation Representative is a bit like being a police officer; you always try your best to help people but when things don’t go peoples way everybody knows how to do it better. However, very few are prepared to commit the time or effort to stand as representatives. It is only when they do stand that they understand how hard the role actually is.  Your workplace representatives deserve respect and support; they are volunteers for the role. Whilst I can understand people’s anger and frustration it disappoints me when I have seen and heard of some of the personal abuse and hostility and unwarranted criticism that they have been subject too. It is very easy to vent your anger at someone who is very accessible to you. It is much more difficult to suggest or do something that would have realistically made a difference to the outcome.

In terms of the national negotiators I have personally witnessed the hours and efforts put in by Ian Rennie and Paul McKeever. I have seen the impact that these negotiations have had on them. It is clear that working time regulations do not extend to federation representatives and they breach those hours every week. They are available at all times when off duty and on annual leave, even when they are out of the country. I personally am glad that they are leading the current negotiations and in my view no-one could do a better job or be more committed in their effort to get you the best deal possible.

The current economic climate and Government Policy on Austerity makes this the most difficult negotiating environment we have ever faced. We cannot negotiate in a bubble and vacuum and the financial cuts to policing affect us all. In this environment the status quo is not achievable it is about damage limitation and trying to protect as much of your terms and conditions as possible. If people do not understand that then pick up any newspaper or speak to people who work outside the police service and see what is happening across the over whelming majority of work places. I know this is not what you want to hear but it is the stark reality that we face.

In terms of pensions when the Hutton Report was published it was clear there would be a negative impact on current pensions. His recommendations were that the current schemes would not be sustained and should close by 2015. However, he also stated that whilst people working in the public sector should still have access to a good pension scheme they would have to pay more, work longer and receive a lesser benefit. The report has cross party support as Lord Hutton is a Labour Peer and a member of the last Labour Government. Once this report was published it was obvious that there would be a detrimental change to the current provision and the reality is that there was nothing that could be done that could avoid that. If there has been a failure it was to communicate that very clearly to members at that time which may have prevented some of the shock at what has now transpired.

As previously outlined there are no negotiating rights on pensions. The changes do not need our agreement, can be imposed and cannot be taken through an arbitration process. In terms of comparators compared to the current scheme it is not as good. Compared to the rest of the public sector it remains the best scheme in the country and Ian Rennie and his team has got the best deal possible in this difficult economic climate. In terms of press statements and campaigns there is very little if any sympathy for our pension provision. I recognise we pay more than the overwhelming majority of other workers but because we retire earlier, and will continue to do so, we contribute for a much shorter period than other workers and take the benefit for much longer. The actuaries who advise us and with whom we negotiate understand that and can place a value on it. It is, and will remain the best scheme in the country and officers should seek independent financial advice before making any rash decisions on their future pension provision.

In terms of legal challenge we have employed leading counsel to advise us at every stage of the process and consultation. The first point is that no challenge can be made regarding mis-selling. Nor can a successful challenge be made regarding a breach of contract or change of terms and conditions. A legal challenge can only be lodged against legislation that is applied and not against broad principles of a scheme which is where we currently are. The Government will no doubt seek to repeal Section 2 of the 1976 Pension Act to allow these changes. You can do your bit by lobbying your MP to vote against that change and we will encourage you to do so at an appropriate time when it is being debated. The guarantee that I know we can give you is that we will examine with leading counsel every opportunity to legally challenge this change and if there is any prospect of success we will take the matter to court.

Ballot on Industrial Rights

The Police Federation is committed to hold a ballot on seeking full industrial rights in the absence of binding arbitration and have engaged the Electoral Society to run that ballot for us. However, it is not a simple process and if we were successful in achieving industrial rights it will change completely our employment status as crown servants. The Federation has produced a document to inform members of the full impact of industrial rights before any ballot takes place.

In terms of Industrial Rights there are also some myths out there about forces across Europe having the Right to Strike. The correct position is set out in a document available on the internet called; “The Right to Strike: A Comparative Perspective. A study of national law in six EU states” edited by Arabella Stewart & Mark Bell.

The document confirms that the overwhelming number of police forces across Europe have no right to strike or very limited rights which balance the rights against the right to human life.

It also sets out the interpretation of the European Courts on the right to strike as follows:

“In order for British law to be compliant with the European Convention any restriction on an individual’s ability to strike must be in accordance with Article 11(2). This means that it must be:

(a)    Prescribed by law; and

(b)   Necessary in a democratic society;

(c)    Based on one of the following grounds –

(i)                  In the interests of national security or public safety;

(ii)                For protection against disorder or crime;

(iii)               For the protection of health or morals;

(iv)              For the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Although this case was decided by the Commission (which no longer exists), it shows the cautious nature of the Strasbourg institutions and the limited impact that the Human Rights Act has had in protecting the right to strike. A recent illustration of this point is provided by the judgment in Ministry of Justice v Prison Officers’ Association. The case concerned an unsuccessful challenge to an injunction against the Prison Officers’ Association requiring it not to ‘induce, or authorise or support any form of industrial action’. With regard to the impact of the Human Rights Act, the judge concluded that either Article 11 ECHR did not confer a right to strike or, if it did, ‘considerable latitude is afforded to a contracting state to regulate the circumstances in which the right may be removed.

Conclusion
Whilst we do understand people’s anger we are concerned that it individuals can be persuaded by peer pressure and misinformation to follow a course of action. Before taking any action in respect of your Federation Subscriptions or pension contributions we would urge members to reflect on the above that represents to accurate situation and consider the consequences prior to taking any course of action which may have a detrimental effect on you and your families.