It has been a talking point in the press, a difficult issue for senior officers and a concern on the agenda of politicians for many years – but now it seems that action is finally imminent on the controversial issue of police pay and conditions.

Home Secretary Theresa May is committed to a full review of pay and terms of service for both personnel and civilian staff, in parallel with a far-reaching structural examination of public sector pension provision. An interim report is expected on the pensions issue in September.

With 80 per cent of expenditure in Forces related to workforce, the Policing in the 21st Century consultation paper makes it clear that reductions must be made while maintaining "an excellent service and providing the public with value for money".

Alongside the review, the blueprint's proposals for a National Framework for Efficient Local Policing also make it clear that Chief Constables will be responsible for looking at formal collaboration and reducing back office functions to see if savings can be made, although it has been stressed that there will be no forced mergers.

However, while the government's insistence that more must be done with less is already a reality for the service with cuts to budgets biting deep, there is disquiet in some quarters of the police family, which have raised questions over whether cost savings in law enforcement are really necessary.

The debate over terms, conditions and expectations of police officers exploded publicly when Calum Steele, General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, angrily claimed that rank-and-file personnel were not being consulted enough by the ACPOS hierarchy about the government proposals.

The discussion started after an email sent by Strathclyde Chief Constable Stephen House pointed out that numbers of people working for the force would be "significantly reduced" and that shift allowances and special payments could be reviewed.

But in responding, Mr Steele maintained there are adequate resources for the Police Service to continue as normal in the coming year, claiming that political decisions to protect NHS funding and overseas aid were behind ministers' thinking.

He also said that officers were working to "eye watering projections of cuts in 2011-12" but claimed the Scottish Police Federation had not been approached for comment.

This view had previously been voiced by Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, after a restricted ACPO document giving the Association's response to the government consultation was leaked to the press.

The document, which was presented to the government before the release of the 'Policing in the 21st Century' blueprint, claimed a reduction of overtime payments on public holidays from double time to time-and-a-half and the scrapping of the minimum four-hour payment paid on rest days, public holidays and recalls to duty could realise immediate cash savings.

Mr McKeever said a dozen of the recommendations are "hugely detrimental to members". He added: "There was absolutely no consultation with us at all over this, and it has caused a great deal of distress to rank-and-file officers."

Despite strong views from Federation members, less generous terms of service and staff reductions are likely to be a reality if the government's new National Framework for Efficient Local Policing proposals are carried.

Alongside calls for Chief Officers to achieve better value for money and stronger collaboration between Forces will be a review of the UK's policing infrastructure and the setting up of a new National Crime Agency.

These moves will see the scrapping of SOCA and the NPIA, with some functions absorbed into the new infrastructure, which will include a Border Police Force. In parallel a strategy for tackling organised crime "from very local to trans-national levels" is due to be published later in the year.

It is envisaged that the new agency will be led by a Chief Constable, and made up of a number of commands covering areas such as border policing and operational support, in a move to simplify the current multi-agency approach.

"There will need to be clear, revised, robust governance and accountability arrangements for the National Crime Agency, recognising its intelligence-led operational focus," the government document highlights.

"These will need to be more public facing than existing arrangements, and must link to the important role that Police and Crime Commissioners will play in relation to individual forces and collaborative ventures – we envisage, for example, commissioners being under a duty to collaborate not just with each other, but also with other bodies such as the new agency."

In addition, there will also be a national approach to some procurement processes, with legislation for the Home Secretary to specify processes to be used by the Police Service and to drive forward the convergence of IT systems. A detailed proposal document on the regulations for "the mandation of goods and services" is due to be published by the government soon.

Jan Berry, the Independent Reducing Bureaucracy in Policing Advocate, has been a key supporter of standardising IT across the board, but has warned that it will take a concerted approach if a new system is to be rolled out effectively.

"This is not something that is going to be achieved overnight," she said in an interview. "Historically there has been a fragmented approach to the whole IT issue. But at the moment a number of officers think they are supporting IT rather than the other way round – they think they are feeding a beast.

"Work to improve police IT is only part of a much wider issue – we need to look at the whole system from cradle to grave, from the point of arrest to rehabilitation."

The Policing in the 21st Century blueprint is – in its entirety – a radical and controversial document. But the National Framework section is likely to prove a tough and thorny area for the government as it strives to deal with officers' terms and conditions of service and their pension arrangements.

The dire state of the country's finances is well known, but police officers rightly claim that they should be remunerated fairly and properly for the job they are asked to do. Proper consultation – with the involvement of all elements of the wider police family – must be a priority if informed decisions are to be made.