3 Findings of our previous report
6. In our report on the proposal for the Order we
concluded that, except for one item of defective drafting, the
proposal met the criteria against which we were required to judge
it and recommended that the draft Order should be amended.[4]
7. In our report, we also considered whether the
legally binding agreements between the Prison Officers Association
(POA) and the POA (Scotland) and the Prison Service would maintain
necessary protection against industrial disruption following the
repeal of section 127 for prison officers in England and Wales
and in Scotland. The Government had taken the view that the legally
enforceable agreements would provide the necessary protection
as required under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. We noted that
with 12 months notice required for termination of the agreements
and their relatively limited coverage compared with section 127,
the agreements would provide less protection than that given by
section 127. We concluded that, although the proposal did not
maintain existing protection, as the Secretary of State is the
beneficiary of that protection it was appropriate in the circumstances
to leave it to him to determine whether the protection it does
provide is adequate.[5]
4 Regulatory Reform Committee, Third Report of Session
2004-05, Proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Prison Officers)
(Industrial Action) Order 2004, HC 148, para 29 Back
5
ibid, para 15 Back
|
