Police authorities slam unfair merger compensation plans

17 Aug 06
Police authorities have attacked the Home Office's plans for compensation following the collapse of the compulsory merger programme.

18 August 2006

Police authorities have attacked the Home Office's plans for compensation following the collapse of the compulsory merger programme.

Some forces have already submitted bids for money to refund costs incurred by drawing up business plans and obtaining legal advice in preparation for their transformation into strategic forces.

Sussex police has submitted a bill for £1m, North Wales Police is asking for £375,000 and North Yorkshire is demanding £250,000 in compensation.

But Home Office plans to significantly limit both the number of forces it compensates and the costs it will reimburse have been attacked as 'unfair'.

Police forces such as Greater Manchester and Kent that would have been left to 'stand alone' under the new regime will not be eligible for compensation.

Nor will there be any recompense for forces in the English Southwest, where a ministerial decision on the new strategic structure was still pending, or for costs of lost time incurred by diverting managers from other projects on to the restructuring exercise.

Kent Police, which is claiming £243,445, described the proposals as 'discriminatory'. Kent police authority chair Ann Barnes said: 'We spent a lot of money and time on winning our case to remain as Kent Police. Achieving strategic status will be costly — we should not be penalised financially for becoming stronger. Other forces that would have merged are getting more money from the Home Office.'

The Association of Police Authorities has written to the Home Office setting out its objections.

A Home Office spokesman said: 'We're in contact with all police forces to make it clear that we are prepared to make a contribution to the additional costs which they may have incurred in preparing for police force mergers. We will consider all requests for additional costs on a case-by-case basis.'

PFaug2006

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top