Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

It is a great honour to respond to my noble friend Lord Graham. He is right that Committee is an opportunity to probe and reflect. I assure him that neither I nor the Government have any intention to inflame the situation. I have a great deal of respect for both the Prison Service as a whole and for individual prison officers. In your Lordships' House, I have paid tribute to the staff on a number of occasions, and acknowledged what I consider to be a great deal of improvements that have been made during the past few years, which is testimony to the dedication of the staff who work within our Prison Service. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that we must not adopt a confrontational approach. I agree when he implies that the more that staff feel ownership of the direction of the service, the more likely it is that they will co-operate. I agree with all those things but—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that I will come to the issue of welfare—ultimately, we have to ensure the safety of our prisons. That is why the clause is in the Bill. We face a very serious situation and we need to have the safeguards in the Bill. The issue goes back to the Government's decision to stage public sector pay awards. A decision to stage awards is one not to be taken lightly. It was a difficult decision, but it was in line with our wider economic policy and applied to recommendations from all pay review bodies other than those governing the Armed Forces. It is also worth me saying that since its inception, the pay review body has recommended significant increases in prison officer pay. In the past three years, an extra £24 million has been invested in pay, over and above the evidence submitted to the pay review body by the Prison Service. We believe that public sector rates of pay to prison officers remain above the competitive market rate within the custodial services sector. This position has been enhanced further by the significant shortening of pay scales, which means that prison officers now reach the maximum of their pay scale—currently, £27,530 plus up to an additional £4,250 in local pay allowance—in only seven years. Also, on the 2008 pay award, the pay review body recommendations have been accepted in full. I do not underestimate in any way the pressures on our staff in the Prison Service. Of course it is important that they are given every consideration. However, it is inescapable that the strike action on 29 August, on which virtually no notice was given, had an immense impact on the operation of the Prison Service. Not only did it raise issues to do with the welfare of prisoners, it also led to the cancellation of court appearances, transfers of prisoners and the extended use of police cells to accommodate those prisoners who could not be received into prison in the evening of that industrial action. I say to my noble friend Lord Graham, who spoke with great experience and passion, that of course the Government hope to be able, through discussion—the Ed Sweeney talks, as they have become known—to bring about a way forward. It is a difficult process, but all parties are persevering with the talks at the moment. At a special delegate conference on 19 February, the Prison Officers’ Association passed a motion that instructs that any further agreement must not constitute a no-strike agreement. It is very unlikely that an agreement that includes protections against industrial action would be reached before the current agreement expires on 8 May 2008. Even if this is not achieved, it is in the interests of all parties that agreement is reached on a new dispute-resolution process. Yes, we are anxious to ensure that these discussions have a productive outcome, but at the same time we must have the safety of what is in the Bill to ensure that the welfare and safety of prisoners are maintained from 8 May onwards. My noble friend’s amendment would restrict the definition of industrial action to withholding services as a prison officer, whereas, as noble Lords have pointed out, the current wider definition of industrial action in the Bill has been subject to considerable discussion. My right honourable friend the Justice Secretary agreed to consider the wording of that definition in the other place, but as it is highly unlikely that the Prison Officers’ Association will sign up to any voluntary agreement that includes a no-strike clause, we do not feel able to move away from the current drafting. 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 far-reaching. It might disrupt the provision of the most fundamental amenities, such as food and medication, for the prisoners in our care. It might undermine the wider operation of the criminal justice system, in which the timely and efficient transfer of prisoners to and from courts is essential. It might also compromise the work of third-party providers, including the NHS and education services, which we rely on to deliver key elements of our offender management programmes. Collectively, the curtailment of these regimes could debilitate the Prison Service and has the potential to incite prisoner unrest, creating a volatile environment and putting the safety of prisoners, staff and the wider public at risk.