Police Pay Deal ‘Took Advantage’ Of The Fact Officers Couldn’t Strike

The recent police pay deal felt like the Government was “taking advantage” of the fact that police officers can’t strike, the Chair of Hampshire Police Federation has said.

In July, the Government announced that it had accepted the Police Remuneration Review Body’s (PRRB) recommendation in full and that police officer pay for 2024/25 would increase by 4.75% across all ranks.

However, this is not enough to remedy the 17% real-terms pay cut officers have suffered since 2010 due to below-inflation rises, and the pay increase is below that offered to other public-sector workers. Most NHS workers, teachers and members of the armed forces will receive pay rises ranging from 5.5% to 6%.

Hampshire Police Federation Chair Zoë Wakefield said: “I think this is a step in the right direction, but I don’t think it’s a fair pay award because it doesn’t address the issue that we are still, in real terms, at least 17% below where we should be because we’ve had below-inflation pay deals for so long.

“More needs to be done. A lot of forces are struggling to recruit, we’re struggling to retain officers, and pay is a big factor in that. In this latest pay award we came out worse than other public-sector workers because we can’t take industrial action and the Government knows that. After all, we’ve seen the impact after other workers took industrial action – a lot of people got pay rises.

“It feels like the Government is taking advantage of us. It should be reflected in our pay that we can’t strike.”

Zoë added that it was a particularly bitter pill to swallow after the difficult summer officers have had, policing unrest across the country.

She said: “When you look at what’s happened this summer, with the number of officers who had their rest days cancelled during the riots and unrest. They’ve had to work 12-hour shifts, they’ve had to cancel plans with their families during the school holidays. They’ve missed out on a lot of quality time with their families, let alone the welfare side of it. And they were not compensated for that.”