Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

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 already, Ministers do not take decisions about public sector workers’ pay lightly or in a vacuum. They do so based on key considerations—what is required to recruit and retain an effective workforce and what is fair to the workforce. Decisions have to be taken within an overall framework of what is affordable and fiscally sustainable. Ministers are already accountable to Parliament for those decisions. As far as the concern that lies behind the noble Baroness’s amendment goes, the Government will take note of those concerns in the context of work to examine the effectiveness and balance of the separate pay determination processes. I refer in particular to the ongoing correspondence with the POA to improve the effectiveness of the Prison Service Pay Review Body. I hope that in the light of that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.