Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 173: 173: Clause 189, page 134, line 5, leave out from ““officer”” to end of line 6 The noble Lord said: I speak to the amendments in my name on the Marshalled List. I assume that they will be taken together, as they are of a piece. I begin by repeating my previously declared interests of past associations with the Prison Officers Association, all of which were honourable and constructive. My approach in these matters is very much guided by the manner in which the Bill has progressed so far. A convention that grew up some years ago has been followed sensibly: the Committee stage is invariably used by colleagues to propose amendments but not necessarily to press them, which provides the Government with an opportunity to reflect on what has been said. My amendments are perfectly clear and simple. They would remove unnecessary words that could be inflammatory and counterproductive. The interests here are clear and stark. Differences emerged from the past and caused the Government to propose the amendments that were passed in another place. I remind the Committee of the manner in which this was done. Under Section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, these words appeared: "““A person contravenes this subsection if he induces a prison officer—""(a) to withhold his services as such an officer; or""(b) to commit a breach of discipline””." That is quite clear. Whether it is acceptable is another matter, but that was the situation. Along came the form of words to which the prison officers take exception and on which I plead for the Government to reflect. The POA has not consented to the words that appear in the Bill. I ask the Minister to listen carefully to the words used in another place by David Anderson MP, who said: "““In the view of the prison officers and many Labour Members, however, the wording of the second part of new clause 36(3) is actually a road block. The reference to ‘any other action likely to affect the normal working of a prison’ would be a catch-all, whereby people would be guilty of a criminal offence for any simple thing, if such action is defined by the management””.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/08; col. 332.]" The Government must justify those additional words, as I hope the Minister will when he replies to this debate. Industrial action is capable of interpretation and misinterpretation, but there are contexts in which it has been defined. I ask the Minister to look at them carefully. There is no definition of ““normal working””, so the Minister owes it to the Committee and the POA to go a bit further in this debate than previously. The POA has not consented to the new form of words. I ask the Minister to take careful note of three matters. Industrial relations history is quite clear and understood on this. Hitherto, it had rested on discussion, negotiation and agreement in which certain aspects were brought to light. First, in a memorandum of agreement, all aspects of the memorandum had been separated out. There was no dubiety or ground for misinterpretation. Secondly, there was an understanding that all aspects of the agreement would be adhered to by both sides. The Minister will be well aware that this is the bone of contention. Thirdly, neither the Prison Service nor the Government have adhered to the agreement. The POA then gave notice to terminate the agreement. The problem with the amendment to the agreement in the Bill as it stands is that it goes beyond what is currently considered as industrial action. I ask the Minister to listen carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffman, said when dealing with this matter in respect of agreements that had been previously pronounced on by Lord Denning, in Burgess and others v Stevedoring Services Limited in 2002: "““It seems clear from the examples which he gave that he had in mind that employees may legitimately perform their duties in a way which does not suit the employer (like keeping a train waiting while they check the engine) if they have a bona fide reason but not if their purpose is to be wilfully obstructive. But that does not mean that they are in breach for refusing to do things altogether outside their contractual obligations (like going to work on a Sunday) merely because they do not have a bona fide reason for refusal””." The Minister and his colleagues are spatchcocking into legislation a form of words that I have heard described as ““belt and braces””, in that they want not merely to deal with the action of strikes or industrial action as we have known it before, but to tighten every screw. If the Government are intent on curtailing the human and trade union rights of prison officers in both the private and public sectors, they have a duty to ensure that compensatory mechanisms are put in place that are acceptable to both management and staff alike. A deal was done, which refers to the recommendation of the PRB. Having seen that agreement, the Government said that they were acting on, "““overriding economic considerations in the national interest””.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/08; col. 52.]" That was a decision, a form of words and an action by the Government arbitrarily imposed on a previously agreed formula that would have maintained industrial peace in the Prison Service. I simply ask the Government why that was felt necessary. The Government are entitled to come to a view arbitrarily to abrogate the agreement, but amendments later this evening may well have a bearing on the manner in which these things are dealt with in future. On 7 January, the Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Jack Straw, said that the Government, "““will always be minded to accept the recommendations of pay review bodies, except where there are overriding economic considerations in the national interest””.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/08; col. 52.]" That was an arbitrary action, which the POA and I consider to have led to the present difficult situation. I am told by the POA that as a result of the action taken—the staging—the highest-paid uniformed staff, the principal officers, have lost £182 since April 2007 and the lowest-paid operational support grades have lost £3 per week or £150 per year. Those are not enormous losses, but they are seen by those who suffer them as deleterious and unnecessary. It is my job to remind the Minister of what he knows, which is that this issue does not just relate to the POA. It can spread to other trades unions. He will be aware that when introducing the TUC report Six Million Pay Cuts, Brendan Barber, the general secretary of the TUC, said that, "““the arguments for this draconian policy simply do not stand up. Public sector pay does not cause inflation and holding it back does nothing to fight inflation caused elsewhere. Its only economic impact is on the living standards of public servants””." I know that the Minister will quote in aid, as he is entitled to do, the actions that took place on 29 August last year. I simply remind him and the Committee that the prison officers took action as a result of their justifiable anger at the previous actions of the Government. I also remind the Committee that, while that industrial action was taking place, the staff did not simply leave work and go home but remained at the prison en masse. I have visited many prisons in my time and they are a closed estate. The prison officers remained within it and were available. The present policy is—to use another cliché—to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut when it comes to industrial relations within the Prison Service by proposing legislation even more draconian than that proposed by a previous Conservative Government. The basis for aggravation is contained in gratuitously spatchcocking in a new definition of industrial action. I remind the Government that this subsection is potentially capable of being abused and misused not merely by this Government but by others when trying to deal with peace in the Prison Service. The Minister and his colleagues must understand that in a closed estate, such as a prison, this applies not only to the coverage of the current provisions but encompasses anyone who can affect the normal working of a prison. Doctors, nurses, admin staff, non-operative staff, contractors, physiologists, members of independent monitoring boards, magistrates, solicitors, court staff and external catering staff can all be affected by the interpretation of the term, "““the normal working of a prison””." The previous agreement rested on the mistaken belief that the Government and the Prison Service management board would provide a fair playing field on which disputes would be settled without the need to resort to industrial action and that the recommendations of the Prison Service Pay Review Body would be binding. The amendment would remove a matter causing great, explosive anger inside prisons and, more widely, its acceptance would be seen as a gesture by the Government showing that they are listening to the concerns of prison officers. The offending words serve no purpose whatsoever. They could be removed without any effect on the policy of the Government on the Prison Service. We all know that the situation in prisons is such that the words ““explosive””, ““dynamite”” and ““mayhem”” come readily to mind. Prison officers are as much prisoners inside a prison as the prisoners. They do a dirty, dangerous and difficult job. The Minister should be left in no doubt that they are angry and dismayed at this action by a Labour Government on a trade union at this time. I very much hope that the Government will be able to say something tonight that will give the POA hope that discussions, not in Europe or anywhere else, but here in Parliament can resolve this matter. I do not expect it to be resolved across the Chamber this evening, but I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will have other opportunities for good sense to prevail before 8 May when certain actions immediately follow. I beg to move.