Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 174B: 174B: After Clause 190, insert the following new Clause— ““Secretary of State: power to make regulations Regulations made by the Secretary of State— (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, may not be made until laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons.”” 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. 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.