Police Negotiating Board equal pay review in the police service

ps/03/05
22 November 2005
MPA briefing paper

Author: Alan Johnson, Head of Human Resources, MPA

This briefing paper has been prepared to inform members and staff. It is not a committee report and no decisions are required.

Background

As part of the Police Negotiating Board’s (PNB) commitment to good practice, an equal pay review was carried out for Federated and superintending ranks. A pay review for Association of Chief Police Officer (ACPO) ranks was carried out in 2003/4. Although the main document addresses differences affecting ‘rent’ / housing allowance and location allowance, this briefing paper does not cover those two issues.

The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) equal pay policy states that all the various elements of pay should be collected and compared to identify any significant gaps between men's pay and women's pay. In general, any differences of 5 per cent or more, or patterns of differences of 3 per cent or more, between the pay of men and women doing equal work require exploration and explanation.

If an employee can show that they are being employed on “like work”, “work rated as equivalent” or “work of equal value”, then it is presumed that the difference between their salary and that of their opposite gender comparator is due to the difference of gender unless an employer is able to show that the difference between the employee’s and their comparator’s case is genuinely due to a “material factor” that is not related to their gender. This is known as the “material factor defence”. A number of factors have been recognised as potentially constituting a material factor defence in particular cases, including:

• market forces and skills shortages
• geographical differences
• skills and qualifications
• experience
• seniority

Key results from the PNB paper

Federated ranks

The data show that on average, female officers in the federated ranks received 88.3 per cent of male total earnings.

Gender pay gaps in average total pay by rank

Looking at the individual rank figures, the gaps for constables and sergeants are clearly significant, those for inspectors and chief inspectors within London are within acceptable limits. On the face of it, therefore, it would appear that the gap in pay among constables and sergeants are the main ones requiring explanation.

One of the main reasons may simply be that, because the constable pay spine (11 points) is longer than the others (Sergeants are five points, Inspectors four points and Chief Inspectors three points), male officers who generally have longer service have higher overall earnings. However, the significant numbers of female officers recruited in the MPS in the last five years have – compared with the national figures –made a real impact on these differences.

Length of service (constable)s

It can be seen that while there are comparatively more female than male officers at the bottom of the scale in London and comparatively fewer at the top, the differentials are generally much smaller in London, where the length of service profiles for both male and female constables are remarkably similar.

Competence-related threshold payments (CRTPs)

Competency related threshold payment of £1,062 per annum available to the constable, sergeant, inspector and chief inspector ranks after at least one year at the maximum of the relevant pay scale. They also have to be applied for and, in the MPS, there are restrictions for those with poor sickness, performance or discipline records.

There are inevitably gender pay gaps in CRT payments as there are more male officers at the top of the pay scales. In London, the gender gap varies between 14-16% at constable and sergeant level to 20% at Inspector level and 3% at Chief Inspector level.

However, the number of eligible female officers applying for CRT payments is also lower, although there is no evidence that their applications are any less successful than their male counterparts. The report suggests there is anecdotal evidence that females are less willing to put themselves forward in self-referral schemes and quotes the EOC which found "differences in the way men and women value their own skills, and the impact of gender role stereotyping, may mean that in practice competencies reinforce rather than reduce inequality in pay and opportunity".

Proportion of male and female officers who have applied for CRTPs

The paper also reflects that many eligible male officers do not apply and this may be because line managers counsel them against doing so or as a matter of principle, i.e. the Federation’s opposition to such schemes – particularly in London.

Special priority payments

Special priority payments (non-pensionable) are targeted at front line and operational police officers. Payments will not be less than £500 or more than £3000 per annum, although exceptionally payments of up to £5000 a year may be made. In London, the gaps in the value of the SPPs between men and women were generally – although though exclusively - smaller than the national figures. For constables the figure was 24.9% (compared with 25.6%), for sergeants 8.0% (compared with 8.4%), for Inspectors 3.8% (compared with 17.2%) and for Chief Inspectors 34.3% (compared with 16.1%).

Proportion of male and female officers in receipt of SPPs

Whilst length of service is a criterion for receipt of SPPs, more significant is the nature of posts being identified for SPP payments. The Home Office guidance states SPP posts must:

• Have significantly higher responsibility levels than the norm for that rank
• Present difficulties in recruitment and retention, or
• Have specifically demanding working conditions or working environments.

To receive SPPs, MPS officers need at least four years’ service and be fully competent in, and highly committed to, their duties and responsibilities. Payments have typically ranged in value from £500 (for example this amount was paid to constables on response teams) to £3000 (this amount was paid to Senior Investigating Officers (Detective Chief Inspectors in the Homicide Command).

Overtime pay (constables and sergeants only)

The data show that across the UK, on average female officers in the federated ranks received significantly less than their male counterparts. In London, the gap is 41.5% for constables (compared with a national figure of 35.4%) and 56% for sergeants (compared with 44.2%). There are probably a number of contributory reasons for the gender pay gaps in overtime pay and the paper suggests these may include:

• female officers taking time off in lieu rather than payment
• it is possible that managers tend to allocate proportionately more overtime to male officers than to female officers – particularly where an element of volunteering is present
• overtime pay is related to basic (hourly) pay, which in turn is partly related to length of service, which is higher for male officers

The paper then goes on to suggest that, as a result of further research, this latter reason is a less likely cause than the other two. Similar conclusions are drawn about overtime pay for rest days, i.e. the gender gap is primarily as a result of the first two bullet points.

In London, one could add to this the high levels of overtime within specialist teams where male officers are present in higher numbers.

Superintending ranks

The table below shows the pay gaps that exist in all elements of pay for which there is data for the superintending ranks, on a UK-wide basis. The superintending ranks pay scales are between 3 and 5 points. It should be noted that data on performance pay and bonuses are currently unavailable and therefore did not form part of the review.

Female earnings as a proportion of male earnings, superintending ranks – UK

Given the small numbers of female superintending ranks, no regional analyses were carried out. The data show that on average, there is no significant difference between the average basic pay or total pay of males and females. The review was unable to draw any conclusions about the payment of ‘rent’ / housing allowance or location allowance.

Next steps

The review has identified gender pay gaps in a range of different elements of pay. The next step for PNB should be to identify the cause/causes of each gap found, and each component of each gap, and to determine whether those causes can be justified, i.e. there is a genuine material factor defence. If any cause cannot be justified, the next step would normally be to develop an equal pay action plan. PNB have yet to discuss this paper.

Key issues for the Authority

There are a number of related issues for the Authority:

• The Greater London Authority’s 'Best Value Review of Equalities - Equalities For All' recommends an equal pay review for uniform and non-uniform staff in the MPS; this piece of work completes a structured pay audit of police ranks as there had previously been a structured pay review for ACPO ranks in 2003/4
• The MPS and MPA will need to look at some of the anomalies as part of any further work by PNB
• For police staff, the 2003/4 Hay review of police staff was a comprehensive, structured pay audit and any anomalies/challenges have been addressed in the interim period
• The Accenture report on ‘civilianisation’ provided evidence of where there are likely to be direct comparisons between police officers and police staff performing similar roles and these can then be addressed or a genuine material factor defence identified
• The draft Age Discrimination Regulations due to come into force on 1 October 2006, pose significant problems for pay increments based on service beyond five years and this will have significant cost implications for the police service. That said, it is difficult to argue that a police constable with 10 years’ service is necessarily worth more than a police constable with five years’ service purely on the basis of time spent in the rank
   

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback