Current Issues - 2000

July 2000

BRIEFING PAPER
VOLUNTARY SEVERANCE ARRANGEMENTS

This message is designed to assist members in explaining further the detailed role of the Police Association in the discussions concerning Voluntary Severance Arrangements.

Following publication of the Patten Report, it was agreed that the Police Association would consult with Government through the NIO on proposals for such arrangements.

The content of these discussions must be set against our opening statement made at the first meeting on 18 January 2000.

"The Police Association represents all ranks of the R.U.C. and we intend to conduct negotiations as the Police Association.

We wish to place on record our disappointment as to the leak to the media of our first meeting. The main concern of the Association is the individual members we represent. We are not concerned with Government's attempt to sell the Secretary of State's speech to Parliament or any attempt to ameliorate its effect.

Our membership are concerned for their futures and disappointed that their sacrifice and commitment to Policing apparently counts for nought. This is a terrible mix of emotions and one which requires the ultimate sensitivity - little of which has been shown in recent days.

We will not carry out these discussions in public and we will not be party to negotiations other than those to deal with the issue advised - voluntary early severance arrangements.

In January 1995, during the first ceasefire, we met with Government to discuss the potential for downsizing and packages to be made available.

That presentation highlighted four areas that need to be addressed and this remains the case:

1. Retraining
2. Rehabilitation
3. Relocation
4. Financial Arrangements.

The Patten Report, which has been accepted in full by Government contains a section in respect of severance arrangements, in particular the financial arrangements. We fully understand the terms used, but it appears Government have some difficulties. Patten made it quite clear that his proposals were the bottom line for negotiations with the Staff Associations. It is, therefore, our view that Government's acceptance of this report includes acceptance of this position.

We therefore require confirmation of Government's position in respect of the following issues:

1. Definition of salary
2. Taxation
3. SPED - mortgages
4. Relocation package
5. Retraining package (PRRT - TE&A)
6. Provision for future intimidation
7. Indexation from date of payment (50)
8. Definition of 5 years enhancement
9. Service in Full-time Reserve pre 1998 for pension
10. Pension enhancement including extensions.

These negotiations must be in the context of the Patten proposal, which require 2,850 officers to leave over the next five years. Otherwise it will not work.

The package cannot be about encouraging the first person to take the package, but that the package will entice the 2,850th officer to go.

We seek further clarification on the status of the Government team and its construction.

In conclusion, we did not wish to be in this position - we have been forced to this table - our challenge to Government is now to ensure that the generosity and sensitivity that Government promised is delivered."

It was apparent to the Police Association that the unqualified recommendations within the Patten Report would not be sufficient to encourage adequate uptake.

The NIO quickly agreed to enhancements to pension for those who would be aged between 45 & 50 years old when leaving. Movement also took place with regard to retraining, relocation and measures to deal with future intimidation.

However, the Police Association had four core principles to which we have continually referred. These centred on the principle that nobody, in accepting voluntary severance, should be any worse off than had they continued to work.

These issues were taxation, indexation of pensions under age 55, definition of salary and recognition of length of service.

Government argued that it could not move on these issues, but would take cognisance of our concerns in other areas.

To a large extent we were successful; many of the proposals made by Government were removed, such as asking for pension contributions to be paid for the period of service enhancements, other areas were enhanced, including realigning of enhancements for those with differing compulsory retirement ages and the payment of pensions to those retiring on full pensions, after enhancement who would be under 48 years of age.

However, our major disappointment remained. The effect of taxation is unfair and particularly for constables and sergeants the use of basic salary as a multiplier removes approximately 26% of total salary from the equation.

As a result we sought a meeting with the Prime Minister which took place on 5 May 2000. At this meeting we advised the Prime Minister that we were only interested in providing adequate compensation for members volunteering to leave the service and therefore our core issues must be addressed, otherwise the scheme, we believed, would not work.

As a result of this meeting further enhancement of one month's salary was made and whilst this could be construed as meeting some part of our allowance argument, our major concerns remained outstanding.

A further meeting with the Prime Minister offered by him was refused and instead the Secretary of State advised that consultations were now at an end and proposals of voluntary severance would now be put to the members.

Throughout these discussions, spread over 6 months, we have stressed that any arrangement, as it is voluntary, must encourage 2,850 Officers to accept.

Whilst we do not believe that the arrangement does this, we could not wish to give the impression that much has not been achieved. For many officers the move from the original Patten Proposals are extremely advantageous, for example, nothing was on offer to those over 55 and there were no proposals for pension enhancements for those under 50.

Clearly much has been achieved and our decision to stay in negotiations for as long as possible, even when progress was slow, has been vindicated.

It is now for each member, who meets the criteria established by the Chief Constable, to decide after advice whether to accept the conditions of voluntary severance.

We believe that the structures for giving best advice established as part of the negotiations and operated by the V.S.S.U. are the best which could have been established and would recommend all those considering their futures to seek advice from the V.S.S.U.

In conclusion, the Police Association have worked tirelessly to obtain the best arrangement which Government were willing to offer. Whilst in some areas it does not meet our requirements, it is now for each officer who meets the criteria to decide.