Prison officers (POA) conference
14 May 2009
Southport
Jack Straw has given a speech to prison officers at the POA conference.
[Check against delivery: this is the prepared text of the speech and may differ from the delivered version.]
The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice:
Next Wednesday, I will be the first Secretary of State to give oral evidence before the Prison Service Pay Review Body.
I know you and your officers have very strong feelings about what has happened over the past 12 months between your union and ministers. I want to use this opportunity to explain my perspective.
Do not think for a moment that I take lightly the difficult job you do. Nor that that I – or National Offender Management Service (NOMS) management, the ministerial team, the public – undervalue your professionalism, your courage. You proved that once again just a month ago in dealing with the riot at Ashwell. Prompt and effective work by Prison Service staff and the emergency services ensured that this extremely serious disturbance was contained as swiftly as possible with no injury to staff and only slight injury to prisoners. I owe all of those involved a debt of gratitude.
But so too for those individual acts of bravery, or compassion, or decency that happen every day, in every prison, in every part of the country.
I say this not in some attempt to butter you up but because it is true: Prison Service performance this past year was the strongest yet. Prison officers and prison staff at all levels do an extraordinary job on behalf of the public. And they do it under an enormous amount of pressure.
The challenges you face have grown over the past 12 years, with the expansion of the population – 23,000 more prisoners since 1997 – and with 70% more violent and dangerous offenders being locked up, and for longer.
I know that society sometimes puts unrealistic expectations on prisons and prison staff. At times it may seem as though prisons are expected to do what parents, schools, hospitals could not – and that as prison officers you are asked to be gaoler, teacher, therapist and mentor. I understand your frustrations with such high and wide expectations.
For these reasons, we have worked hard to ensure – as far as we can – that the skills and dedication of prison officers are properly honoured and recognised in a number of ways.
First, as I said at the beginning, I will be presenting evidence to the Prison Service Pay Review Body next week. This pay round comes in a period during which there have been substantial job losses, in the private sector in particular, with all the problems that causes to those directly affected and the uncertainty and anxiety for those who think they may be affected. In this context, those employed in the public sector are in a much stronger position to weather the storm because of job security, guaranteed pay and pension entitlements.
In our evidence to the Pay Review Body we have recommended a 1.5% increase on the pay scale maximum for the next financial year. That would be a good award – comparable with others in the public sector, especially given low levels of inflation and greatly reduced mortgage payments. It’s not as generous as the offer we put to you earlier this year – which would have been worth more than 10% in cash terms over three years. But as you know that deal was contingent on agreement over workforce modernisation and your members rejected it in a ballot.
The second point I want to make is that David and I have never said ‘no’ to meeting the POA. We’ve always made ourselves available, sometimes at very short notice. Between us we’ve met national officers and representatives 30 times within two years, as well as always insisting on meeting POA and other trade union branches on our (67) prison visits. On one occasion when POA representatives refused to meet David on a visit he went and searched for them.
The third point I want to make is that we’ve worked to bring stability to the prison population, as I did between 1997 and 2001. I’ve seen for myself the added difficulties for staff when population pressures are severe. I’ve been anxious to achieve a significant expansion in capacity along with other measures to moderate the rate of growth. The result – touch wood – is that we have achieved a better balance and have not used police cells since last October or court cells since last March.
The number of prison places has gone up by 25,000 since 1997. About 70% of those have been provided by the public sector, which has had the side effect of directly benefiting the POA through a substantially increased membership.
And we remain on track to expand capacity to 96,000 places by 2014. I’ve not only listened but acted on criticisms of so-called ‘Titans’ (– including those of the POA –) by scrapping those plans and building 1,500-place prisons instead. Two of the other new prisons – Coltishall and Isis, next to Belmarsh – will be run by the public sector.
The last thing I wanted to say is that I have sought actively to defend – indeed, to extend – the Prison Service budget both in terms of capital and current spending.
On current spending, I managed to secure significant extra money – £50 million – for pay rises in return for workforce modernisation and managed to keep off marauders from the Treasury who wanted it back for many months. Those who were at your conference when I spoke last year will remember that I announced this £50 million.
Of course there had to be negotiations. You can’t get £50 million out of the Treasury without some strings attached.
I accept that there are two sides to any negotiation and different perspectives. But I certainly believed – and I still do – that what was on offer was not only a good deal for the Prison Service but an especially good deal for prison officers. And despite the sharp words over the last four months, the frustration certainly for me is how close we came to agreement. Sufficiently close, as you know, that your negotiators’ initial view was to accept the deal we offered.
In the event we couldn’t find agreement about reforms to the prison workforce. I want to dwell on this for a moment.
It is a fact of life across all public services, at all times, but especially in the current financial climate, that everyone is being asked how they can do more within existing resources and to provide better value for money for the taxpaying public. No one can be immune from this. Not the police, not teachers, not the NHS.
With 80% of the total prison budget going on paying staff, these reforms would make sure we’ve got the right number of officers across the prison estate, at the right grades, paid the right amount, with the right skills to carry out their jobs effectively.
I know you feel strongly about the failure of negotiations. My problem is that I still have to secure efficiencies, but without the £50 million. This was what I feared all through the negotiations, and what I spelt out explicitly to your negotiators time after time.
Let me go on to concerns about market testing.
As you’ve often reminded me, I was sceptical of private prisons in 1996. But I hope people can see that I’m entitled to change my mind. John Maynard Keynes famously said, 'If the facts change, I change, what do you do?' And my view about the way private sector prisons were run changed, along with the truth that competition with the public sector has driven up performance and efficiency. Across the board, improved standards of public service – from bins and street cleaning through to the high tech pathology services – have come about through an element of competition. I wish that the dynamics of the public sector had been such that we could have secured these improvements without such competition. But that has not been the case.
Colin, Brian and other members of the NEC will no doubt appreciate how changes of heart can happen. In November, for instance, they recommended accepting the deal on pay and reform. But they changed their minds. Just as you don’t agree with me on privatisation, I think you made the wrong decision. But Colin, I respect your right to change your mind.
From the outset I’ve never hidden the fact that competition would be the consequence of not reaching an agreement to reform. And that hasn’t changed.
Competition, however, wasn’t inevitable. The POA had a chance to go down a different path, but chose not to. I think that’s a real shame, not least because it took away the chance for the Prison Service to show it could reform on its own accord. It is particularly disappointing in light of the Prison Service’s strong performance over the last year.
I don’t come to this with prejudice; I can see no reason why the Prison Service shouldn’t bid for the five SLA prisons and the two new market tests and win. I said as much to the POA representatives from Wellingborough and Birmingham who I met earlier today.
Conclusion
Can I finish by saying this. One of the frustrations I have as Secretary of State is that I think that you and I could achieve a great deal – in both of our interests – if we worked more closely together.
If nothing else David and I have made clear over the past two years that we are committed to working with you. That commitment is real and sincere. The question now is to what degree the POA wants to work constructively with us, and how much of a role you want to play in shaping the long term future of the service.
Thank you.
Sign up for news updates
Enter email: