Funding for MPS recruit training

Report: 11
Date: 21 June 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

The report updates Members on work ongoing to cost recruit training within the MPS at the Peel Centre and progress on making an initial claim to the Home Office for such expenditure to be recognised as a cost falling uniquely on the Metropolitan Police Service.

A. Recommendation

That Members note the report and the proposal that the Treasurer write formally to the Home Office requesting additional funding for recruit training.

B. Supporting information

1. In preparing the budget for 2001/02, questions were raised as to how recruit training at Peel Centre, Hendon was funded. Investigation by the then Director of Budgets revealed that there did not appear to be any explicit external (Home Office) funding for recruit training by the MPS. In all other forces and constabularies trainees are sent to National Police Training, now established as an independent agency, which receives 'top sliced' funding from police grant to cover training costs. It was deduced therefore that the Met must find the cost of training its own recruits from within its own resources. This was confirmed in correspondence between the then MPS Director of Budgets and Home Office officials.

2. Furthermore, this situation has been ongoing for many years. Retention figures have traditionally shown that, in the years after training, Met officers, particularly those originally from outside London, tend to return to home force areas. A reasonable conclusion to draw therefore is that the Met, unlike other constabularies, bears fully its own training recruit costs while effectively contributing to the training effort of the service as a whole.

3 .The Chair of the HR Committee has been keen that this matter is addressed and progressed, and accordingly, a Working Group, under the Chairmanship of the Director of Resources, has been established. This comprises Peter Martin and Alan Johnson of the MPA, Commander Loughborough (representing Peel Centre), and Philip Sadler, the Personnel Department Accountant. Two meetings have been held to date.

4. As reported verbally to the last meeting of the Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee by the Director of Resources, initial work has concentrated on establishing a robust costing methodology by which any claim to the Home Office can be substantiated. One option considered was the national costing model for police training which, for various reasons, was deemed not fully representative of the costs as would be defined under the new Best Value Accounting Code of Practice (BVACOP). This particular costing model was therefore rejected by the group and alternatives sought.

5. The best proxy of the cost of recruit training in the Met was found to be the allowance included by the Home Office for those recruits trained through the Crime Fighting Fund recruitment initiative. Uniquely to the Met Police a training allowance of £7,000 per officer is attached to every CFF recruit. Little formal documentation appears to exist to support the Home Office figure of £7,000, though there was some correspondence between the Home Office and the then Director of Budgets, MPS. The working group therefore sought to consider whether the £7,000 proxy cost accurately reflected the true cost of training.

6. Detailed analysis of actual training school expenditure incurred in recent years was therefore requested and a costing model established. Unfortunately, details of the actual costs for 2000/01 were received too late following the accounts closure process to allow a report to be prepared for FPBV last month. The costing model analyses a number of variable, fixed and semi-fixed costs to establish a cost of training per recruit.

7. Initial analysis revealed that the average cost of recruit training (excluding the pay and related cost of the trainees themselves) was just over £9,000 per recruit in 2000/01. All accommodation, catering and training costs were included.

8. Clearly in any costing exercise, attributing and apportioning costs can in some areas lead to uncertainty. The model was therefore tested at various levels of intake and found to be sensitive to the number of trainees. This would lead to caution in stating and claiming a cost per trainee. However, when the model was run using the projected numbers of trainees (2,200 at the time) for the current financial year, a figure closer to £7,000 per recruit was the average cost.

9. With this figure in mind, informal approaches were made to Home Office police grant officials who were initially sceptical that any claim made by the MPA/MPS would be successful. It was also made clear that raising the funding issue might precipitate a discussion about whether the MPS should continue to run its recruit training independently of the national arrangements.

10. As a funding issue, it is considered that the Home Office should be approached more formally. The matter has not been pursued during the general election period but it is now proposed that the Treasurer should write to the Home Office making the following points.

• The present position is inequitable and disadvantages the MPS.
• The Home Office has implicitly recognised the situation by providing specific funding for recruit training through the CFF.
• At present levels of throughput the cost per recruit is broadly in line with the CFF provision of £7,000 per recruit.
• Therefore the Home office should also provide the same level of funding for all MPS trained recruits in the future, regardless of whether or not they are covered by the CFF.
• The amount involved in the current year, after allowing for the CFF, would be of the order of £10 million.

11. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has just begun a thematic inspection of probationer training. The MPA will be feeding in concerns about the inequitably of the current arrangements during this inspection.

C. Financial implications

Securing recognition of the cost of funding recruit training in the Met, probably some 20 per cent of the total training activity nationwide, would significantly enhance resources available to the MPA (see final bullet point above).

As has been shown on a number of occasions recently (London Pay Lead, PNB anomalies, May Day costs, fuel storage, etc.), the Home Office either refuse to recognise or, in other cases, to fully fund budget commitments not funded through police grant.

The MPA should therefore be very cautious in anticipating additional financial resources.

The MPA and MPS would also need to be prepared to respond to suggestions that MPS recruit training should be incorporated into the national arrangements.

The question of whether the MPS recovers some of the costs of recruit training from the National Training Organisation (or other constabularies) on a declining scale depending on the number of years spent with the Met has also been raised informally by some Members of the MPA. This topic will obviously require further detailed consideration.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Keith Luck, MPS Director of Resources.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback