The full document sets out the background, including the boundaries for negotiations set out by Home Secretary Priti Patel.

How the two organisations representing the majority of police officers will tackle the talks is set out in the main section of their formal submission.

Their recommendations are:

Recommendation 1: Our first recommendation to the PRRB is therefore that it must focus on how pay can support the recruitment of so many new officers, and the retention of those in lower ranks whose skillsets are key to success. This must be the top priority in this year’s review, regardless of any ongoing need to reform pay.

Recommendation 2: Our second recommendation must be that the pay reform design should be urgently reviewed within the current operating context. We believe that certain features – such as linking pay to assessments of performance – will need to be carefully assessed for practicality. It seems likely that the NRT will have to delay formal linkage to assessment, at least until after the design and roll-out of national PDRs, and should opt instead for an assumption of competence within the current pay progression system.

Recommendation 3: With regard to the benchmarking element of the pay reform, our recommendation is that we continue to work closely together to establish common ground as to the underpinning benchmark methodology and inclusion and exclusion criteria for this. We believe that the current work is not based on adequate inclusion and exclusion criteria for benchmarking. Furthermore, it is taking too long, and we would wish to see it driven faster in the interests of ensuring officers get a fair deal compared to other organisations.

Recommendation 4: It is recommended that over the coming year a systematic approach to the valuation of the P factor is undertaken, perhaps following the steps suggested by the staff associations.

Recommendation 5: Until such time as a systematic evaluation is undertaken, the P factor should be assumed to be 14.5%, in keeping with the military X factor.

Recommendation 6: it is recommended that the NPCC reconsider the method currently being used to introduce Variable pay. The NPCC must, as a matter of urgency, provide an acceptable EIA on this. We have sought to have visibility of the NPCC legal advice.

Recommendation 7: Last year the PRRB sought for the NPCC to seek independent scrutiny of their pay reform plans. This has not been done. We echo that recommendation.

Recommendation 8: We recommend that the PRRB accept the NPCC’s recommendation that the bonus is uplifted to £5,000: but we seek for recommendation 7 to also be accepted.

Recommendation 9: It is recommended that the number of points on the Constables’ pay scale be reduced from the current 9 points (-1, £18,450 through to 7, £40,128). Later in this document we make a case for points -1 and 0 to be removed. We believe at least 2 other points should be removed, to reduce the scale to 5 points, and enable officers to reach the top faster.

Recommendation 10: It is recommended that officers are deemed to be competent unless on UPP, and that progress up the pay scale is only restricted to those not deemed to be competent. Although the Sergeants’ pay scale was not considered as a part of the pay reform, we are aware that the NRT have very recently developed a concern that officers are unwilling to apply for promotion from Constable to Sergeant, due to the small pay differential, and as a result will be recommending the deletion of the lowest pay point.

Recommendation 11: We agree the NPCC position of removal of the lowest pay point for Sergeants, so long as all those on that pay point are immediately moved up to the next pay point. We believe this may help with the need to encourage an extra 1,000-2,000 new Sergeants over and above the normal targets. However, we believe it would also be appropriate to add an additional pay point at the top of the pay scale, to ensure that Sergeants continue to be motivated and retained.

Recommendation 12: New tops of the scale should be set for every rank, to encourage retention. We argue that if officer numbers are to be returned to the level they were at in 2010, then to support commensurate recruitment and retention to that which existed in 2010, pay should also be returned to that level. We therefore recommend that the top of each scale should be equivalent to what it would have been had pay kept up with CPIH inflation since 2010.

Recommendation 13: We recommend – as we have done for six years now – that a benefits realisation model for the pay reform is produced, outlining the intended benefits, the rationale as to why the NPCC believe that the actions taken will result in these benefits being achieved, and consideration of unintended consequences.

Recommendation 14: Given the PRRB’s statement in its Fifth report stressing the legal requirement for an EIA, and the PRRB’s request to be notified of any update regarding the EIAs1 we would ask that the PRRB join us in seeking for the NPCC’s EIA to be assessed by an independent suitably qualified professional. We would like an open and transparent process whereby we are sighted on both the legal advice the NPCC have on this matter, and on advice from their equalities’ advisor.

Recommendation 15: We recommend that the PRRB seek for the Home Secretary to urgently review what is going wrong with the Home Office drafting process. The pay uplift is a matter of great importance to a workforce in which – by our calculations – at least 61% receive no incremental uplift, and the “cost of living” uplift is the only one received. As in previous years, we compare officers’ pay to its real terms value in 2009-2010. This has particular resonance this year, as the officer numbers are going to be returned to their 2010 level. We argue that pay should also be returned to the 2010 real level of pay, so that officers’ purchasing power is the same as it was then.

Recommendation 16: We therefore believe that the minimum starting salary must be set as pay point 1, (£24,177). As well as assessing the real terms drop in officer pay, we analysed the figures provided in the Police Funding settlement, on 22nd January. The settlement represents a real terms increase on last year of 6.4% overall. This varies by force, from 5.4% in Surrey, to 8.3% in the City of London. We understand that the NPCC intend to suggest an uplift of 2.5% for officers this year. The rationale given is that this is what forces say they can afford. However, this recommendation was determined before the funding settlement was announced. We believe the NPCC position must therefore be revised.

Recommendation 17: we recommend an uplift that will start to narrow the gap between the real terms earning of 2010, and today. Taking into account affordability, we seek an across the board uplift of 5%. The London and South East Allowances were introduced in 2001. These were at least in part intended as compensation for the Housing Allowances, phasedout from 1994. These have not been uplifted in any meaningful way since. Although the PRRB sought for the maximum of the SE Allowance to be increased from £2,000 to £3,000, it is discretionary, and the analysis we present demonstrates that it rarely paid at that level.

Recommendation 18: As in previous years we suggest that London and SE Allowances need to be properly considered by the NPCC and Home Office, with a policy paper outlining the issues, and a coherent solution as to how the employers intend to address these.

Recommendation 19: In the meantime, we believe that officers in London and the South East should have these allowances uprated by a figure that recognises that house prices in these areas have increased to around 150% of their value 10 years ago. We therefore feel that as a minimum, the London Weighting should be uplifted in line with the pay award, and both London and SE Allowances should be increased to be 150% of their current values. That is, London Allowance should be £6,507; and SE Allowance should have a new maximum of £4,500. The current upper value of the South East Allowance (£3,000) must be non discretionary.

Recommendation 20: Dog Handler’s Allowance should be uprated in line with the overall uplift. Dog Handler’s allowance compensates officers for caring for police dogs on rest days and public holidays. In July 2000 a Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) award recommended that a single allowance of £1,554 be paid to dog handlers in all ranks, and that an additional 25% of the allowance should be paid in respect of each additional police dog cared for by an officer. A Home Office circular at the time set out that: “this allowance will be updated annually with effect from 1 September 2000 in accordance with the current uprating mechanism, i.e., in line with increases in basic pay”. The allowance has been uprated in line with the annual pay award ever since. We believe it is important to maintain this link to ensure the value of the allowance is not eroded.