07 January 2008
Jack Straw has made an oral statement to the House of Commons on industrial relations in the prison service.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Jack Straw):
Prison Service: Industrial Relations
With permission Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on industrial relations in the Prison Service, and on the tabling of amendments by me today to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. These amendments are for debate this Wednesday, at the report stage of the Bill.
The aim of the amendments is to provide for a reserve statutory restriction on industrial action by prison officers. The powers in the amendments would only be applied in the absence of a suitable trades union dispute resolution and recognition agreement between the Prison Service and the relevant trades unions. As I will explain, the bringing forward of these amendments is to fulfil clear undertakings given to parliament by Ministers over a six-year period.
The Prison Service is an essential public service. Prison Officers do a demanding and difficult job. They deal with some of the most dangerous and also some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Their work is often unseen by the general public and I pay tribute to their endeavours and those of all other staff within the Service.
Prison Officers are a uniformed, disciplined Service. When on duty, they are officers of the law with the powers of a Police Constable. They have a clear duty to uphold the law, to protect the public and to safeguard the welfare of the prisoners in their care.
In these aspects their position as officers whose role is essential to the security of the state and the communities within them, is similar to that of the other essential services, such as the Police and the Armed Forces. Parliament has been clear and has laid down in statute, that the risks to the public in respect to each of these services, is simply too great to allow them to take industrial action.
At the same time, it has been well recognised that without this form of influence, staff need other legitimate means of pursuing grievances and concerns with their employer. In the case of Prison Officers in the year 2000, I established a Pay Review Body for Prison Governors and Prison Officers and related grades. Subsequently, in 2001, my Rt Hon Friend for Sheffield Brightside, then Home Secretary, brought forward proposals for a comprehensive voluntary agreement with the Prison Officers' Association. In 2005, this agreement was replaced by the Joint Industrial Relations Procedural Agreement or 'JIRPA', which provides mechanisms for resolving disputes between the POA and Prison Service, including binding arbitration.
Under the JIRPA, the POA voluntarily agreed to legally enforceable constraints on their ability to take industrial action and it was explicitly on this basis that the Government sought Parliamentary approval to disapply the statutory prohibition on industrial action in section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 for public sector workers in England, Wales and Scotland. The disapplication was made by an order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. In making that order with the Opposition's broad support, my Noble friend Lord Bassam, on behalf of the government, said in terms that in the event of notice of termination of the JIRPA the Government would have 'no hesitation in bringing forward legislation to ensure that protection', (i.e. the disapplied statute), 'is there' (Lords Hansard 01.3.05, col. 221).
My Rt Hon Friend for Bradford South, then Prisons Minister, spelt this out to Parliament in a written answer, the following year (4 September 2006) in which he said, 'If the POA gives notice to terminate the agreement with no alternative arrangements being in place the Secretary of State would ask Parliament to reintroduce statutory constraints such as existed prior to the disapplication of section 127' (Hansard 04.09.2006 - col. 1897W).
Mr Deputy Speaker, regrettably, in May last year the POA gave 12 months' notice, expiring on 8 May this year, of its intention to withdraw from this agreement in respect of England and Wales. (An equivalent agreement remains in force in Scotland.)
Past experience underlines why there must be sufficient protections against industrial action. Most recently, on 29 August last year, and despite being bound by the terms of the voluntary agreement banning industrial action, the POA initiated a 24 hour strike, giving the Prison Service just one hour's notice. As the JIRPA was still in force, this strike action was constrained by an interim injunction but nevertheless it had a substantial impact on the operation of the public sector Prison Service. This included the cancellation of court appearances, transfers of prisoners and the extended use of police cells. The action led to very serious disturbances at HMYOI Lancaster Farms, which resulted in significant damage to cells costing a total of £220,000 to repair all damage.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the public's safety has to be my primary consideration. But nor can it be acceptable for prisoners to be locked in their cells for an indeterminate period and with great uncertainty about when they will next get a meal, exercise or medication, with serious risks to their welfare.
It has always been, and continues to be my hope that the Prison Service and POA can agree a new trades union dispute resolution and recognition agreement which would be binding on both parties. Early last summer the Government asked the TUC to initiate talks between the Prison Service and the POA, aimed at improving industrial relations and at reaching a new agreement. These talks have been conducted under the auspices of Mr Ed Sweeney, then Senior member of the TUC General Council and now Chair of Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS).
Mr Sweeney's report on these talks has now been sent to both parties and a copy has been placed in the library. I am extremely grateful to him for his work. His recommendations offer a sound basis for further discussions and a framework for future agreement. I very much hope that the POA will continue to engage with this.
However, Mr Sweeney also recognises that given the current industrial relations climate - one in which public safety cannot be guaranteed in the event of industrial action - the Government will need to consider what mechanisms need to be put in place should an agreement not be achieved.
I very much hope that between now and May a new and acceptable voluntary agreement can be made. I would much prefer the reserve powers in the amendment never to have to be used but in bringing them forward I am fulfilling clear and explicit undertakings given to this House and to the other place. May I emphasise to the House that the amendments reflect the wording of the JIRPA which defines industrial action as, 'any action likely to affect the normal workings of a prison'. This therefore provides no greater constraint than the one to which the POA voluntarily signed up in 2005.
The House will also wish to know that legislation of this nature is in accordance with both EU and International Law. Similar measures can be found in the constitutions and laws of many other European countries, including France, Germany and Italy. I have placed, in the library, a copy of a report which summarises the position in European and OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.
However, let me repeat that I am very mindful of the need to establish a sound platform on which to secure constructive industrial relations between the Prison Service and the POA. That is why these amendments provide a reserve power to be activated or suspended by Order of the Secretary of State. This means that should there be a suitable trades union dispute resolution and recognition agreement be reached - and one which includes protections against industrial action - the statutory prohibition would be suspended. This is in line with Mr Sweeney's recommendation to make any re-instatement of s127, what he calls a passive change, rather than an active way of conducting employee relations in the Prison Service.
Mr Sweeney also recommends that an independent review takes places two years after any agreement is signed between the Prison Service and the POA. This would re-examine the balance of arguments for and against allowing forms of industrial action by Prison Officers. If a suitable trades union recognition agreement is agreed and then sustained, I will commit to this further review after a period of stability.
Mr Deputy Speaker, 2008 provides an important opportunity for us to build new and positive industrial relations for the Prison Service. We are very committed to engaging constructively with all Prison Service trades unions on a programme of workforce modernisation and we are ready to pay for it. My Rt Hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made available significant additional funds from April 2009, to support this programme which could be underpinned by a multi-year pay deal.
I very much hope that the Prison Service and the Prison Service Trade Unions will engage to make best use of these funds to provide a brighter future for all staff, to develop new and more flexible working practices and create more stable Industrial Relations within the Prison Service.
I commend this statement to the House.