| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked about the justification for the relationship between the clause and the welfare of prisoners as well as of staff and the wider public. Our view is that the effect of action short of a strike could be immediate and
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1363
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Are not providing food and medication and transporting prisoners to court, which were the first two instances that the Minister gave, within the ordinary duties of a prison officer?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is as well to be absolutely certain that the provisions in the Bill cover those kinds of actions. The wording in the Bill reflects the agreement, which has been in operation since 2005 and has been tested. It is not as though the Government are suddenly—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister says “reflect”, but is he saying that the wording was agreed with the POA?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The 2005 JIRPA was an agreement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It was not an agreement to the words that now appear in the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think my noble friend is saying that the wording in the Bill has not been agreed with the POA. That is right. The joint industrial relations procedural agreement—or JIRPA, as it is so eloquently known—of January 2005 includes an express undertaking by the Prison Officers’ Association not to,
- “induce, authorise or support any form of industrial action by any of its members relating to a dispute concerning any matter, whether covered by”,
this agreement “or otherwise”. The Bill therefore reflects the agreement. Surely we must have that safeguard for the good order of prisons. I reiterate what I said earlier: of course we would much prefer there to be agreement in the future. That is why there is the power in Clause 190 to,
After we have debated this group of amendments, I will come to my government amendment to Clause 190(3) and the way in which an order may be made to suspend the operation of Section 127. We resist the argument behind my noble friend’s second amendment that an order is needed to bring these clauses into effect. In essence, at the end of extensive debate on the Bill in your Lordships’ House and in another place, the measures will have been debated at great length, so
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1364
The other practical problem with my noble friend’s amendment is that it would delay the implementation of the measures until a resolution had been passed. Inevitably, that would mean that the measures would not come into effect until after 8 May, when the current voluntary agreement expires.
I end by reiterating that I very much wish that we were not debating this issue today. It is a matter of great regret that the joint agreement notice has been served and is due to end in a few weeks. I agree that we need to search for a way forward to do whatever we can to ensure that the relationship between the Prison Service and prison officers is the most constructive one. In the light of events last summer, however, it is important that this provision is on the statute book.
Baroness Butler-Sloss: I limited my intervention purely and simply to the meaning of the words that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, wished to have deleted. I ask again because the Minister has not responded to my question, which was: what is,
intended to cover that does not come within the services provided by a prison officer?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In giving examples, I attempted to describe the kind of action that might be encompassed in such a definition. The clause applies to prison officers and governors and to no one else. The noble Baroness mentioned “other staff” who might be working in the prisons or the courts, but they would not be affected unless they were inducing prison officers to take industrial action. I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness on that basis.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I came here hoping that during his address the Minister would give some hope, and I believe that he has for those outside the House. Although he is wedded to that form of words, he also says he is continuing to search for a better, more acceptable form of words if that can be found. That indicates to those outside the House that there is some mileage still to go if this form of words is so heinous to their view.
I simply say to the Minister that it is much better to have the POA as a partner than as an adversary. If after this debate and in the near future we can look forward to a period of peace, which can come only when both sides agree not just to action but to words, that is the best way forward.
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1365
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I very much agree with my noble friend that having the POA as a constructive partner as we take forward prison policy, changes and improvements must be the best foundation. We have had many marvellous debates about prison policy and the way in which we can improve and develop it. I again acknowledge the improvements that have taken place in the past few years and the efforts of prison officers to do everything they can to co-operate with those improvements, which has not always been easy. Some discussions that take place in individual prisons are very challenging. Certainly, whenever I visit prisons, I always meet representatives of the Prison Officers’ Association. But I have to say to my noble friend that, alongside all that, we also have to have the available safeguards. We cannot have a situation, for all the welfare reasons that I have mentioned, where this kind of action can take place.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. If I had any reputation, it was that as the Opposition Chief Whip I was able to mask my intentions and produce troops at a late hour, and defeat the Government in what was known as an ambush. The Minister can be assured that I—
Lord Henley: For the sake of the record, as the first victim of that ambush as a mere social security Minister at the time, I remember the noble Lord’s skill with some feeling.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister should also carefully note that voices other than mine who have spoken here do not share his view that the matter is being well handled. But I take comfort from what the Minister has said; that is, if the door is not quite open, it is ajar. To that extent, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
Clause 190 [Power to suspend the operation of section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 174A:
“(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
The noble Lord said: This amendment would make the order-making power to suspend or later revive operation of Clause 189 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It honours the commitment made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice when these clauses were debated in the other place. As we have discussed, the Bill provides for these clauses to come into operation on Royal Assent. By virtue of this amendment, the affirmative resolution procedure would then apply to the suspension or revival of the measures at a future
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1366
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 190, as amended, agreed to.
7.15 pm
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 174B:
(a) under section 50 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (regulations for police forces) which do not follow the recommendations of the Police Negotiation Board as established by section 61 of that Act,(b) under section 128 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (pay and related conditions) which do not follow the recommendations of the Prison Service Pay Review Body as established under that section, or(c) regarding the remuneration and charges for members of the Naval, Military and Air Forces of the Crown which do not follow the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body,The noble Baroness said: This amendment seems to sit appropriately in this part of the Bill. As the noble Lord will have read, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to seek the approval of the House of Commons before he could disregard the recommendations of the independent pay review boards as to the pay of the police, the Armed Forces and the prison officers, which are the organisations not allowed to strike.
The pay review boards were set up to ensure that key public sector workers were not disadvantaged by their inability to strike. As independent bodies, with a clear remit as to the matters they must take into consideration, any deviation from their recommendations is, as is very clear in the case of the prison officers, as we have been discussing, a very serious matter. The Secretary of State frequently uses reasons such as affordability not to implement the pay suggestions, or to use, as has been mentioned already, staging. For example, in the recent police case, Scotland got a pay rise earlier than the rest of the UK. But the review boards already have to take account of the funds available to their department and the Government’s inflation target.
Any deviation from the recommendations should be a great matter of concern. The introduction of staging for police and prison officer pay last year was the first time that the Government have not followed the review board’s recommendation on pay. The consequences of short-changing employees—they are not all employees; for example, the police—whose work is acknowledged as critical are of course very serious. Recently, the Prison Service and the police have shown their unhappiness at the Secretary of State’s actions and the many debates in the House about the Government’s support for the Armed Forces show your Lordships’ great concern in this area too.
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1367
Part at least of the Government’s current crisis has been precipitated by their refusal to acknowledge and to take on board the recommendations of the pay review board. The staging of the prison officer’s pay rise last year led to their first strike in 68 years. As we have heard, the Government are ditching many parts of this Bill in order to ensure that there will not be another strike on 8 May and to make sure that the Bill has completed its passage in time to prevent that. We have also seen the sad sight of police officers feeling driven to march on Parliament in protest at the staging of their pay rise.
Our amendment would ensure that if the Secretary of State wishes to make any alterations to the recommendations of the negotiating boards, those changes would have to be brought to the House of Commons for debate. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We support the amendment. The pay review bodies set up by the Government report in good faith. If the Government wish not to accept their recommendations, they should explain their reasons to the House of Commons and be subject to examination on those reasons. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has said, trust is eroding among prison officers and the police in the efficacy of these pay review bodies. The appointment of a pay review body has been used over and again to take the sting out of an industrial conflict. It has very often been the price that the Government or a state body have paid for seeing an end to industrial conflict. They ought not in our view to undermine those provisions. That is why we support the amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham: I too support this amendment very strongly. No doubt the formation of an independent pay review body has had a very remarkable effect in a number of ways. As much as anything else it is a confidence-giving measure. Bearing in mind the history of the pay and conditions in the Prison Service and the role that the POA played in them, the pay review body’s arrival has done a great deal to ease that situation as well. However, I must just correct one statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Last year may have been the first time that staged responses came from the prisons and the police, but there had been stages in the past for the Armed Forces. Therefore, I am extremely glad that she has included the Armed Forces in her amendment.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I support this amendment. One facet has not been mentioned yet. If we are to have independent pay review boards—I agree very much with what has been said about their efficacy—it is very important we have people of the highest calibre on them. This amendment will help to secure, at least, that a Government who wish to go against the recommendation of the board will have to get the approval of the House of Commons to do so. If they are able without that, by the negative resolution at any rate, that will not be conducive to people serving in this arduous capacity.
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1368
Lord Graham of Edmonton: This is a sensible amendment in the light of recent circumstances. The Minister and his colleagues have a choice. They can, quite fairly, come to decisions—as they have done in the recent past—announce them and then defend them after the event. The amendment seeks to ensure that, having come to a view that they wish to have staging, that decision itself is subject to the view of the House of Commons. We know how politics works. We know what is possible to happen. But if the Government have confidence in the efficacy of what they propose, then they ought not to object to going through that additional hoop before it comes into effect.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is a great pleasure to respond to the noble Baroness who, I think she said earlier, is now a non-executive director of the new medical foundation based around Imperial College—whatever it is called—which I am a great supporter of. Although this amendment does not embrace NHS staff, I well recall that during the long reign of the Conservative Government they indulged in staging for NHS staff. I accept that she is talking about three staff groups where circumstances make the work of the independent pay review bodies extremely important. I reiterate that the Government’s decision to stage the public sector pay awards was not taken lightly, but Governments have to have regard to wider economic policy. That is a context in which we meet to discuss the pay review bodies and the staging. We are talking about members of staff—police officers, prison officers, the Armed Forces—who do a fantastic job of work. We are very proud of what they do. They certainly deserve a fair and effective pay system which serves both them and the taxpayer.
There are two substantive points I make to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. First, we are talking about three pay groups where there is significant difference in employee relations in the way pay determination takes place. It may not be appropriate to apply the same safeguards to them all. First, prison officers are represented by a recognised trade union under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. By contrast, the Police Federation, provided for in statute, operates as a staff association. The Armed Forces are prevented from any collective representation. There are significant variations in employee relations between the three organisations, as different issues rightly have different priorities for those bodies of public sector workers. Further pay is determined in the Prison Service and Armed Forces following recommendations from independent pay review bodies, a very different process from the police. The Police Negotiating Board makes recommendations to the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers.
Given such fundamental differences in how these essential public services operate, we are not convinced that a blanket amendment is appropriate for them. Careful consideration would need to be given before changes of this nature were made to the pay machinery of any of these services, far less all three. There is overriding parliamentary oversight over government departments’ expenditure. As I said
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1369
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply and also noble Lords who supported this amendment. I understand that these bodies are not the same but, as I said at the beginning, these are three organisations where there is a “no strike” policy. This is what brings them together. If anyone finds another one, I can add that next time. The people working in these organisations are not allowed to strike. The review bodies and the pay negotiation bodies already have to take account of the funds available to the departments. The Minister says that the Government have to take the wider view; that view is presumably passed on to the pay and negotiation bodies so that they know what they are working within. If they choose to go beyond that, the Government have the right to make their case. The bodies are working from advice that has been given to them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Of course the Government give evidence to the pay review bodies. Certainly, I have given evidence as a Minister to the NHS Pay Review Body.
Baroness Hanham: They at least know when they make the recommendations what the strictures are. They are very important, as the Government have found—
7.30 pm
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As I said earlier in relation to prison officers, pay review bodies will often make awards of more than the evidence from the Government suggests they should and in most cases that has been accepted. But there are issues to do with economic policy overall where, on some occasions, the Government have decided that staging is appropriate.
Baroness Hanham: I was not only referring to staging but to any other changes to the recommendations that the Government may decide to make.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |