Vision and goals

Progress Report: Priorities for 2004/5 and Future Priorities for 2005/6

As result of POA conference motion, it was determined that priorities, alongside the adoption of Policy at Conference would be outlined in a Conference Paper each year. Accordingly, this paper is presented as a report on those priorities and matters dealt with in 2004/5 and to set those arrears, identified as priorities for the forth coming year 2005/6.

NOMS

As stated at Annual Conference 2004, a major part of the Associations work for the forth coming year, was dealing with the implementations of National Offender Management Service throughout the reporting period. The POA along with our colleagues from NAPO and with the assistance of Brendan Barber the General Secretary of the TUC, have met with the Home Secretary on three occasional and have met the Prisons Minister and Paul Goggins on many occasions.

The National Chairman and the General Secretary have spoken about NOMS at Conferences and high level meetings throughout the reporting period. It is clear from the implementations of NOMS that there was little understanding of how the structure would work or indeed, a tangible business case, other than the Carter Report, which was the embryonic basis for the establishment of NOMS.

From the very earliest meetings the POA have put forward the principal, that it supported the objectives of being put forward from NOMS. However, we rejected completely the methods and mechanisms being suggested to arrive at the conclusions.

Indeed, it had been pointed out on a number of occasions, that it was POA and NAPO through the TUC Congresses over many years that has sought a closer working relationship between the two professions. Further, it was the POA and NAPO that sought to have TUC policy adopted at the highest level to ensure a more cohesive and professional management of offenders. The POA and NAPO put forward that there should be a Ministry of Justice that would be inline with all of the countries in Europe, with the exception of Russia, who along with the UK are the only ones which have a central Home Office to manage offenders.

The POA and NAPO have supported a view that attendance centres have community based punishment and should be staffed by Prison Officers and Probation Staff who would deliver Offender Behaviour Programmes, to those serving community sentences. It was believed that this would give confidence and credibility to non-custodial sentences, which plague the justice system and causes those given a responsibility to issue sentences, not to use anything other than penal options.

The POA made clear at the highest level of Government, that totally rejects the privatisation of the Criminal Justice System and specifically the privatisation of Prisons. It was the POA who supported the Performance Improvement Programme and Benchmarking process to cause improvements with-in the prison system. This was done purely on the basis that Market Testing had been ended by Paul Boatang, the Minister who has bought it into force. It was accepted by Phil Wheatley as Deputy Director General, that the way forward was through an internal market process.

Martin Narey as a Chief Executive of NOMS, made clear his change of views on the Private Sector. Indeed, he let it been known that it was his intention to have at least 25% of the prison population housed in private establishments. Martin Narey and his media machine also leaked that the whole of the young offender and juvenile system would be handed over to the Private Sector.

The NEC had a choice to make. That choice was to go along with Market Testing, despite the promises that it would not be used again, or to support Market Testing, which would eventually lead to privatisation of a cluster of prisons in the Prison Service. The NEC deliberated over these matters carefully and determined that firstly, it would ballot its membership. Secondly, in order that the membership was voting with knowledge, it would ensure that information was put out directly to the membership via a Roadshow. This covered all branches, to ensure that members were voting with the knowledge and not ignorance.

The ballot returns where overwhelmingly against being party to a process that would inevitably support the privatisation of public sector prisons. Whilst a small number of branches called this into question, the vast majority of the membership accepted that the battle line was to be drawn.

The announcement prior to the general election in March 2005 that the 3 prisons on the Isle of Sheppey were to be Market Tested was a deliberate attack on a considerable amount of POA members. Further, these were 3 high performing prisons selected following Martin Narey’s numerous visits to America, designed to give comfort to private companies who refused to carry out the bidding process, unless it could be feather bedded, to give them a good outcome from any process.

The POA in response to this vicious and unwarranted attack made it clear to the Secretary of State, the Prisons Minister and particular to Martin Narey that they would respond through strike action, should alternatives not be considered through the Market Testing process.

Conclusion

As a trade union the POA policies are very clear. The Association would enjoin all of its membership against the privatisation of prisons as result of the re-introduction of Market Testing. At the time of writing, considerations are still taking place on moving these policies forward. Our considerations are clear, we will not allow privatisation of the Prison Service to be unchallenged throughout the whole of the membership

Pensions

The Government are determined that a Green Paper was issued in 2002, to examine public sector pensions and pensions in general. Following on from the Green Paper they set up a Pensions Commission, which would have representation from both sides of the industry and be chaired by Aidan Turner, a previous Chair of the CBI. Speculations appeared in the press and media, prior to the production of an Interim Report by the Pension's Commission. It was clear that the Pension's Commission as a body could not reach a conclusion and were determined to issue an Interim Report and go forward, to see if a commonality could be reached.

Following a brief consultation and information giving period on the Pension’s Commission Interim Report, the Government announced changes to the public sector pension scheme. The main thrust of these proposals was a change to the normal retirement age for public servants. The effect on the Civil Service Pension Scheme was that Prison Officers would be expected to retire at 65 and not 60 and that this was non-negotiable, but mitigated by phased implementations over a number of years.

The POA on its part along with other TUC affiliates organised a TUC campaign, which involved a March and Rally in Edinburgh and London and Lobbies of Parliament on the 19th June 2004. We also insisted that branches meet MP’s and invite them into prisons to see the role of prison officers in 2004. This campaign was very successful and huge amount of correspondence came in to POA Headquarters from Members of Parliament, who had written to various Ministers on this subject of the Civil Service Pension Schemes.

The POA Justice Parliamentary Group also played a key role on taking the views to the POA and other Justice Unions on the issues of pensions, to back benchers in Parliament, in order that they could consider any legislation changes.

The CCSU Superannuation Committee worked hard throughout the campaign period, to make sure that information that came out of the consultation process, was passed to the membership of the trade unions within the civil service. They made clear the stance being outlined on the subject of pensions by the Civil Service Unions and the Public Sector Unions. A considerable amount of effort was made by the public sector forum, a system set up by the Prime Minister, to allow Public Sector Unions a more direct input into the short pattern of Government and on the case of pensions this became the main negotiating forum with Government.

Alan Johnson stated that the Government wished to clarify its position, that all aspects including the normal pension age were open for negotiation with Pension Administrators. Also, that the broad issue of public sector pensions would be taken forward by himself, on behalf of the Government, with trade unions through the established public sector forum.

On behalf of the POA, I made clear that the current proposals and specifically the extension of the retirement age for Prison Officers was unrealistic, unhelpful and condemned by Prison Officers. However, many of those Parliamentarians are now aware of the work of Prison Officers, through discussions with POA Branch Officials, members and by their visits to Prison Service establishments.

The POA will now seek through the CCSU Superannuation Committee, negotiated changes to the Governments proposals to the reform of Civil Service Pensions. We would draw your attention to the attached letter, which outlined the change to the stance of Government and the joint statement produced as a result of the meeting between the TUC and the Government.

Conclusion

At the time of writing, further discussions on the basis of all issues being available for negotiation within public scheme committees, would be taken forward. The CCSU Superannuation Committee lead by Jim Dawson, POA Assistant Secretary. The view of the POA, which had been agreed by all Prison Services, is that it would not be wise or helpful to the Prison Services in the UK to have Prison Officer compelled to work until they are 65. The POA remains committed to its Policy, that Prison Officers should have firstly, a choice in their retirement age. Secondly, all Prison Officers rely on each other when on duty and therefore, the employer should ensure that no-one is on duty whose age in an impediment, or creates dangers to other members of staff working with them.

^ Top