Who are the coppers' best friends in Parliament in the row over police pay?

Not the Conservatives, on the evidence of extraordinary exchanges between Jacqui Smith and MPs during Home Office Questions.

It's not often the Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, is lost for words. But on police pay, it seems, he has been struck dumb.

Predictably, the Home Secretary got a rough ride from MPs over her (or rather, her boss, the Prime Minister's) refusal to backdate a 2.5 per cent pay rise for police, reducing it to 1.9 per cent.

But it was a Liberal Democrat backbencher, the often eccentric but always sincere Bob Russell, who raised the issue in the first place and spoke of the damage to police morale.

And it was Labour backbenchers, led by the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Keith Vaz, who gave the Home Secretary the most grief - and can therefore claim to be the most vocal champions of the police on their pay.

Mr Vaz claimed 205 MPs were backing a Commons motion to pay the police their award in full and demanded a vote on the issue in the Commons. Dream on, Keith.

Lindsay Hoyle, normally a serial loyalist, said refusing to backdate the police pay award was unacceptable and appealed to the Home Secretary: "Please, let's look at it now."

And Andrew Mackinlay, often dismissed as a maverick by ministers (probably because he speaks too much common sense for their liking), spoke of his dismay. The Home Secretary's stance was not only damaging the Labour government, he said, but was also unfair.

And so, at that point, I expected the Shadow Home Secretary to rise to his feet and make an eloquent plea on behalf of the police about their pay award. But, alas, I waited in vain.

Mr Davis' only contribution during an hour of questions to Home Office ministers was a rather ritualistic inquiry about immigration during the Topical Questions section.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the Tories are now so terrified of being portrayed as reckless on public spending by the Prime Minister and Labour ministers that they dare not even back a pay rise for police recommended by an independent pay review body.

Very poor show.

Comments

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 16 Jan 2008 16:24:36]

Eddie Allen
Sorry you have a long wait for this government to call an election, as they now know they are going to lose.
The Labour party believed that Brown was a political giant, only to find he is a midget! They will hang on to power as long as they can, it took him 10 long years to achieve his No10 goal so the British public are stuck with him I'm afraid.

[Eddie Allen 16 Jan 2008 09:21:20]

Maybe it was right to pump money into Northern Rock to rescue a bank which would not have gotten into trouble if the Bank of England had monitored banks as they did before Labour changed the rules and put the FSA in charge.

Maybe it was right to underpin police pay below inflation in contradiction of the independent assessment of their pay which Labour agreed to stand by and to have a marginal effect on inflation due to the money wasted in Northern Rock, I don't know.

Maybe it was right to give more than inflation to teachers in contradiction only two weeks ago of Labour's policy to keep state sector pay below inflation. I mean surely there must be a good reason behind a decision which is devisive and contradictory, I don't know.

Maybe it's okay for ministers in charge of massive amounts of taxpayers money to remain in office whilst at the same time being declared incompetent to run a bakery by their Labour boss, I don't know.

Maybe a refusal to give the people a referendum over Europe which compels this country to give swathes of cash in exchange for mumbo jumbo and silly laws and handcuffs on parliament, is perfectly reasonable of a government and maybe the resultant mess the country is in both economically and socially is all RIGHT. I don't know.

But what I feel is that it is all WRONG, and I feel it should all be sorted out and on the evidence I've seen in terms of the above and loss of data and cash for questions and two wars eating our money and a police investigation into the highest people in politics, is not 'okay', and I'd like it changed please.

Anytime will do but for the sake of this country I hope it is soon.

[The Morning Post 16 Jan 2008 07:54:45]

No doubt tighter regulation and scrutiny of MP's unlimited expense accounts, specifically requiring receipts for all expenditure claimed, would reveil immense abuse initially followed by lightening savings! Better to increase basic salaries which are at least open and transparent than to continue to allow almost 90 million pounds per annum to be claimed by MP's as expenses without a solitary single receipt as proof!

[Barry UK 15 Jan 2008 19:12:49]

This sorry shower of a government has just shown how much it values the Police, an arbitrated award devalued to under inflation and then to give the Teachers an inflation busting award.
It's a wonder that our beloved MPs have their diplomatic protection at the moment!
It will be a miracle if the Police do not NOW vote for the right to strike,as this seems to be the only weapon that the Teachers had.

[Victor, NW Kent 15 Jan 2008 14:11:18]

Mike

I do hope you are right about the MPs and their pay increase. If they go ahead I hope that Cromwell rises from his grave and throws them all out.

Nick Clegg has a fine idea - he wants their pay and pensions linked to State Pensions by percentage. I remember when Brown gave the pensioners 75P a week - I would have loved MPs to get, pro rata, an increase of £150 per year at that time.

Cameron wants them to get no increase, wants new members to be on a lower pension base tha those with "grandfather rights", wants the new £10,000 a year communications allowance to be stopped.

Brown would just like someone to like him.

The rest of us would like to see MPs acting responsibly, politely and in the public interest at all times.

[carol-ann livepool 15 Jan 2008 13:52:31]

The Reason that DD can't open his mouth is that Steve Hilton, Lord of The Flies, hasn't given him permission to do so.

Woe betide a Tory that has an independent bone in their body or thought in their mind - they are all locked up in the attic!
Cammers will be puffing a few more fags, today, if Giddy's half a million is not satisfactorily accounted for.

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 15 Jan 2008 13:02:04]

Posted by: Chris, Baildon 15 Jan 2008 12:18:22: The police pay award doesn't even save money in the future - it's a one year saving of approx £30 million pound - because they still got a 2.5% pay rise (just delayed)”.

Exactly, EXCEPT perhaps that in Gordon Brown’s perceived ‘economic prudence’, control freaky and shenanigans, any future pay increases will be DELAYED at a later stage and then calculated at lower ACTUAL percentage increases?

[Chris, Baildon 15 Jan 2008 12:18:22]

I'm confused - if it is so important to keep down inflation (Jackie Smith and Gordon Brown) and peg pay to public sector to 2% or below - why have the teachers been given a 2.45% pay rise this year?

The government have made a huge miscalculation over this.

The police pay award doesn't even save money in the future - it's a one year saving of approx £30 million pound - because they still got a 2.5% pay rise (just delayed).

I don't work for the public sector and am lucky to get a pay rise every year - so I'm less inclined to be sympathetic to people so get an automatic one (even if it is smaller then they think they should get.)

BUT if its good enough for teachers - why not the police.

The inflation excuse was always week - the main issue is that the government have massively overspent on pay and the public sector in the past 8 years, instead of reforming it and increasing productivity.

Don't get me started on the looming public sector pension black hole.

Joined up Government - I wish.

[unhappy copper Herts 15 Jan 2008 11:41:46]

If Greedy MPs vote for a huge pay rise, reluctantly I will vote to strike. I am sick to death of these people who are so far removed from reality! If teachers (whom I have nothing but admiration for) can receive an above inflation payrise why cant we?
Smith you reap what you sow!

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 15 Jan 2008 11:30:47]

Posted by: carol-ann livepool 15 Jan 2008 10:37:22: “I am getting really worried,now. I said, when the row on police pay started, that The Government should give them the rise. I do sympathise with the issue of keeping pay awards down because of keeping control of the economy, but a case could have been made to give the police their rise in full. Their anger at not getting the rise right away was compounded by the fact that police in Scotland were paid theirs. A lot of disgruntled police officers is not what you want, when you are trying to push through CONTROVERSIAL (emphasis added) legislation”.

Yes Carol-Ann be worried and be very worried! However having said that, serving police officers cannot vote for or against a legislation in the House of Commons or the House of Lords for any legislations however. In any case, where is the evidence we need more that 28 detention? This is control freak Labour Government gone mad. Allowing phone intercept evidence would be useful, so does questioning under caution after being charged and would effectively have the same effect, but being less controversial. Surely, the reason why David Davis cannot offer or promise to pay the police more is because they are not the government in power for the pay period concerned.

[Philip, Bristol 15 Jan 2008 11:02:50]

Breaking 2 rules here..off topic and cut & paste (which normally only Peter, Fife is allowed to do) but..this is very funny and frightenly believable.....

A secretary was leaving the Department of Work and Pensions last Friday evening when she encountered Peter Hain, standing in front of a shredder with a piece of paper in his hand.

"Listen," said Mr. Hain, "this is important, and my secretary has already left. Can you make this thing work?"

"Certainly," said the secretary. She turned the machine on, inserted the paper, and pressed the start button.

"Excellent, excellent!" said Mr. Hain as his paper disappeared inside the machine. "I just need one copy."

[Effie 15 Jan 2008 10:58:15]

we have the Tories on here constantly griping about Brown pinching Labour policies.

Victor, NW Kent 15 Jan 2008 09:27:30

AhhH well Victor, It should have been Tory policies as you well know, I always did say though that whatever the Tories do Labour can do even better, but this time even I have to concede you dropped even a bigger clanger for which you have apologised on another thread and got one up on me...touche..

- Alan Johnson fathered 3 children out of wedlock before he was 21, not 12! Sorry.

Posted by: Victor, NW Kent 14 Jan 2008 17:44:02

Now I did notice your clanger and I did ask you to please tell me you have made a mistake as if that had been true, it would be hard to contemplate, it did not appear on the thread.
I am not defending Alan Johnsone's behaviour over this matter if true, but I would ask you to really look into his early background. I do believe he was left with out parental guidance with an elder sister bringing him up.
However I am not sure and I am certainly not delving into this man's private grief or early adult private life. That is what it is private.
Under 21 years old is one thing, over 21 years old is quite another.
I will not be drawn into his teenage private life, that is put in to pre-emp any posts that may follow on this subject, I certainly will not respond.

[Mike Simpson 15 Jan 2008 10:47:34]

Posted by: Victor, NW Kent 14 Jan 2008 17:27:32

Victor, if MPs were to to award themselves an inflation-busting pay increase they would, effectively, be singing their own political death warrant. I rightly expect that they will not go down that road as they are fully aware how deeply unpopular that would be with the British people. It would also be tantamount to 'cocking a snook' to all those in the public sector.

As a former civil servant, I had to accept low cost of living increases along with everyone else I may add), during the Tory years - I certainly wasn't ecstatic about it, but you have just got to get on with it. Vic, I can tell you that, in my humble opinion, the Tories managed to turn reneging on solemn agreements into something of an art form!

[carol-ann livepool 15 Jan 2008 10:37:22]

Jon

I am getting really worried,now, I agree with you on this one!

I said, when the row on police pay started, that The Government should give them the rise.
I do sympathise with the issue of keeping pay awards down because of keeping control of the economy, but a case could have been made to give the police their rise in full.

Their anger at not getting the rise right away was compounded by the fact that police in Scotland were paid theirs.

Given what the police are up against these days with the risk of being knifed, shot or bombed to death, a special case could be made.

A lot of disgruntled police officers is not what you want, when you are trying to push through controversial legislation.

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 15 Jan 2008 09:59:22]

Posted by: Effie 14 Jan 2008 16:10:01: “That is the reason for Davis's reluctance to offer the police more.
It did not work for Labour and it is not going to work for "Sunshine Dave" either”.

So you voted for Blair in 1997 despite Kinnock’s, John Smith’s (decreased) promise to follow Tory’s spending plans for three years? Keeping to Labour's spending plans? The reason why David Davis cannot offer or promise to pay the police more is because they are not the government in power for the pay period concerned surely.

Posted by: Effie 14 Jan 2008 20:33:58: “The late John Smith had a lot of respect and credibility with everybody, it was not John Smith'e word they doubted it was just that the electorate decided to stay with the devil they knew."

Voting for the devil you know? Isn’t this called blind faith and unconditional support?

[Victor, NW Kent 15 Jan 2008 09:27:30]

Wake up Bernard, we have the Tories on here constantly griping about Brown pinching Labour policies.
Try and keep up old boy!!

Posted by: Effie 14 Jan 2008 17:59:43

Effie
Brown is welcome to pinch all of the Labour policies that he fancies. He is, after all, their leader.

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 15 Jan 2008 05:37:23]

Should the government nationalise Northern Rock Mr Brown will then be able to re-posess your house as well, is there nothing this Labour government won't take from you, perhaps only your soul belongs to you.

[The Morning Post 15 Jan 2008 00:52:23]

I have said it before and i will say it again. Gordon is using the Police as cannon fodder! Its a warning to the other public service unions who CAN strike that their pay awards will be around 1.9% too. Like it or lump it. To use our Police in this way is disgraceful, particuarly as the award of 2.5% was made in arbitration to a group pf essential workers who are banned from taking industrial action. I predict a 'summer of discontent' on the horizon as the government battles union after union on pay. The reason is if course that Gordon's fiscal policies to date are about to send the UK ecconomy into free fall. 2008 is going to be pay back time for the micro managing, ultra tax raising, wasteful, deceitful, menacious Gordon Brown. The rest of us can look forward to more green and stealth taxes, double digit increases in Council Tax, higher inflation, higher interest rates, falling house prices, thousands of home repossessions, hundreds of thousands of personal bankruptcy's and a continuation of the war in Afganistan now predicted to last two decades or more!

[Effie 14 Jan 2008 20:33:58]

Effie are you now saying that you disagreed with your beloved Labour Party decisions then, yet you voted for them then WITHOUT fail!

Posted by: Peter Chuah, Birmingham 14 Jan 2008 16:44:55

No Peter what I am saying is..Kinock and the late John Smith promised the elecorate that they would follow Tory spending plans for three years.
The public were not convinced then as they are not now.
The late John Smith had a lot of respect and credibility with everybody, it was not John Smith'e word they doubted it was just that the electorate decided to stay with the "devil they knew"
Cameron does not enjoy the same or similiar status now nor will he ever.

[Effie 14 Jan 2008 17:59:43]

Take a reality check.Labour were elected with a massive majority in 1997, or had you forgotten????Bernard from Horsham 14 Jan 2008 16:53:31

Wake up Bernard, we have the Tories on here constantly griping about Brown pinching Labour policies.
Try and keep up old boy!!

[Eddie Allen 14 Jan 2008 17:44:26]

I think The Opposition missed a good chance to set a distance with Labour on police pay. I mean who wouldn't ?

Not sure if they made a mistake, given that the police were voting on the strike issue and making big noises on that as would it encourage Brown to say they were deliberately taking advantage. But setting aside politics, the police deserve what's right and they don't deserve a government who goes back on it's word and fails them on the issue of pay.

Would they have gotten it without the fiasco and cost of Northern Rock I wonder ?

If Labour say YES then they have used the police as pawns to pay for their own mistakes and that's not fair, and if they say NO they would patently be using a false excuse of covering inflation.

So the government is to blame regardless.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 14 Jan 2008 17:39:19]

Mike,
You must admit that renaging on an agreement with the police is definitely a case of changing the rules to suit the end result, in the same way that the government promised to give absolute support to our Armed Forces but then clarified, years later, that this was subject to balancing budgets!
As in everyday life, if you can't honour an agreement, then don't enter into it in the first place, especially when it relates to money and people's lives.

[Victor, NW Kent 14 Jan 2008 17:27:32]

Mike Simpson

OK then for MPs to award themselves an inflation-busting pay increase?

I have no idea why David Davis has not spoken harshly on this topic - perhaps he really is content to let Labour savage Jacqui Smith.

The point here is once again a matter of trust - the government agreed to arbitration on police pay, they then refused to honour the arbitration award. This is completely unique in British industrial relations but it is becoming the norm for Labour to go back on solemn agreements - assisted places, top-up fees, EU referendum and many others.

[Mike Simpson 14 Jan 2008 17:13:43]

Effie, good blog. Bernard -Effie is talking about the political scene before 1997.

Nice to see you castigating the Tories for a change, Jon! I really wondered why DD and DCC were so reticent about backing the police over the pay issue. Now, we have the demonstration of DD sitting on his hands, being unable to criticise the government as the NuCons would do exactly the same thing over the police pay issue. I, like Gordon Brown, would like to see the police receive pay increases in the future, along with nurses and other vital public servants. But now is not the time, as a public pay round increase would just spiral out of control putting our low cost of living at serious risk.

[Bernard from Horsham 14 Jan 2008 16:53:31]

Effie
Take a reality check.Labour were elected with a massive majority in 1997, or had you forgotten????
Jon Craig..
What's wrong with The Conservatives sitting back and watching Labour MPs castigating their own minister.....

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 14 Jan 2008 16:44:55]

Posted by: Effie 14 Jan 2008 16:10:01: “...late John Smith said he would keep to Tory spending plans for 3 years just as Davey lad (comment: David Cameron?) is doing now. That is the reason for Davis's reluctance to offer the police more. It did not work for Labour and it is not going to work for "Sunshine Dave" either”.

Effie are you now saying that you disagreed with your beloved Labour Party decisions then, yet you voted for them then WITHOUT fail!

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 14 Jan 2008 16:21:39]

Jon,
Well at least you cannot be accused of being Tory biased on this issue, and I do agree with the M.P.'s that are trying to persuade the P.M., and the Home Secretary, to change their minds.
To me, this is not an issue related to public spending, but is all about breaking a trust between the government and the police force, and is yet another example of the contempt with which our politicians treat the numerous groups of people who are absolutely vital to the survival of our country.

[Khalid 14 Jan 2008 16:13:45]

Dear Jackie
Please accept my unsolicted call for keeping integrity and honour at bay, however, could not but note the adverse teachings most recent insofar as to not keep ones independant word. Save for matters within, the same being at the heart of many a policy (Except David Davies it appears.)
What do I tell the kids now that independant prudence has been taken away alongside the award adjudicated to be circa 2.5%?
Is this really the way to show the "Secret Fish" you care?
So come on, give the force the "Lux"ury of earning what they were awarded. It is after all your targets they keep at bay.
Sincerely
(Some one who cares about integrity and has brown skin.)

[Effie 14 Jan 2008 16:10:01]

The Conservatives are copying EVERY tactic that Labour used prior to 1997.
Kinnock was 23% ahead in the polls,the late John Smith said he would keep to Tory spending plans for 3 years just as Davey lad is doing now. That is the reason for Davis's reluctance to offer the police more.
It did not work for Labour and it is not going to work for "Sunshine Dave" either.

[Peter, Fife 14 Jan 2008 16:08:47]

Is it possible that the Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis been gagged, or is he in the huff with his Leaders?

It appears strange that an opportunity to insert the word ‘systemic’ into the debate would have been one not to have been missed; claims that the few Conservative policies that have been aired to date seem to indicate a cut in public services is the order of the day, how can cuts in public services fund inflation bursting pay deals?

Are the fiscally challenged calculations of Shadow Chancellor George Osborne cause for all statements on financial matters to be passed by a committee of ‘senior MPs’ before they are released?

This seems to be totally out of character of the operations of the current Conservative Leadership.

[Philip, Bristol 14 Jan 2008 16:01:19]

DD and the Tories should stand up and be counted. We have had enough of spineless politicians with Bottler & Co. We don't want it with DC as well.

The review should have been binding and any politico that stands up for that is doing the right thing...whatever party that is.

Don't let us down Dave (both) or the Liberals might become viable (perish the thought).