Political News: Government grilled for rejecting expert advice

MPs are piling on the parliamentary pressure over prison officer pay, reports Charley Allan

Covid has shone a spotlight on two widespread problems for workers – the poor treatment of society’s “hidden heroes” and the weakness of workplace health and safety laws. The POA has raised the alarm about both of these scandals for years. Hopefully, the message is starting to get through.

Prison officers are rightly fed up with being the “forgotten service” – managing the most damaged, dangerous and obviously criminal members of society while literally hidden behind high walls. But the pandemic has helped the public see beyond cynical Hollywood stereotypes of sadistic turnkeys as they learn about the extraordinary lengths you go to protect those in your care – not just from Covid but from the record-high levels of violence blighting our prisons since long before this deadly virus.

Banned from taking any form of industrial action, prison officers have tried to exercise the basic right to a safe workplace many times, but it always ends up with POA leaders hauled into the High Court – and even threatened with imprisonment by government lawyers. In public, of course, ministers are full of praise for their brave frontline officers. They’ve even promised to think about a new medal. But there’s a much more traditional way for bosses to reward staff – paying them a fair wage for the job.

EXPERT ADVICE

To compensate for the total ban on industrial action, a panel of independent experts appointed by the government, the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB), research and advise on a fair wage for prison officers. Their recommendations aren’t binding, but the government has promised always to follow the advice unless there are “exceptional circumstances”.

So, there was an immediate parliamentary backlash in December when the government announced it was rejecting the PSPRB’s “recommendation 3” – that Band 3 officers on so-called Fair and Sustainable conditions should have a £3,000 pay rise to bring salaries into line with similar professions – on the grounds that it was “unaffordable”.

Shadow justice secretary and Tottenham MP David Lammy tweeted that this decision was “an insult to prison officers, who have gone into work tirelessly throughout this pandemic in order to keep the country safe”, while shadow prisons minister Lyn Brown (West Ham) condemned the government for rejecting a pay rise that would “recognise the work of prison staff and ensure more people want to go into and progress within this important public service profession”.

And on the following day of parliamentary business, Labour MPs Grahame Morris (Easington) and Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) both railed against the decision at a well-timed Westminster Hall debate on “financial reward for government workers and key workers”.

ABUSE OF POWER

Morris exploded the “unaffordable” myth by explaining that “the government have earmarked around £4 billion for a new generation of private prisons yet claim to have no money to pay prison officers”, pointing out: “This is an abuse of power and an insult to people’s intelligence.”

And Kelly Foy highlighted how the decision would lead to more violence because “prison officers will vote with their feet and leave the service they love. We will lose valuable knowledge and experience at a time when we need it most. As experience goes down, violence goes up, leading to more officers leaving and so on. It is a vicious cycle.”

The same day, former shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon (Leeds East) tabled Early Day Motion 1274 on “recommendations on prison officer pay” with a completely cross-party coalition of backbenchers – Gordon Henderson (Conservative, Sittingbourne & Sheppey), Wendy Chamberlain (Lib Dem, North East Fife), Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd), Kenny MacAskill (SNP, East Lothian) and Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford). The motion points out that “the decision to deny prison officers pay justice threatens to damage morale and exacerbate the current recruitment and retention crisis” and “calls on the government to accept the PSPRB’s recommendations in full”.

AWKWARD QUESTIONS

One of the best ways for MPs to confront ministers directly is during departmental question times in the Commons Chamber, which for the Ministry of Justice happens about every five weeks. MPs who are lucky to be drawn in a lottery – known as the Shuffle – receive an answer to their tabled question from the minister or secretary of state and then follow this up with a supplementary question. Normally the idea is to embarrass the government with an inconvenient truth or trip them up somehow and use the resulting publicity to pressure them into changing policy.

At the first Justice Questions of the new year, Labour’s Luton South MP Rachel Hopkins asked the government what assessment it had made of “the effect on prison officer recruitment, retention and morale” of its decision to reject the recommendation. Answering, Prisons Minister Lucy Frazer insisted that all these factors “were carefully considered alongside affordability and value for money for the taxpayer”, while claiming: “I highly value the work of the prison staff, and the decision to reject recommendation 3 should in no way suggest otherwise.”

Hopkins responded by reminding Frazer that “the government are committed to departing from their recommendations only under exceptional circumstances” and asked: “What exceptional circumstances justify not paying Band 3 prison officers what they deserve?”

The minister could only repeat she “took into account factors including affordability and value for money at this time” before her shadow Lyn Brown piled in, insisting that Frazer “knows that staff and vulnerable prisoners will be at greater risk if yet more skilled officers leave the profession, so let me give her another chance to answer the question. She chose to ignore that recommendation – why?” This time Frazer ignored the question completely apart from admitting that “of course pay is a critical factor in the way that people value their job”.

FALSE ECONOMY

By chance, Hopkins had also been drawn for what’s called a “topical” question and raised the issue again: “The minister claimed just now that the pay rise for Band 3 prison officers needed to be affordable and value for money, so given that more than £30 million is currently wasted due to the hundreds of frontline prison officers leaving the service within their first two years, and that much of the extra spend would be returned to the Treasury through taxation, is not rejecting this fair and sustainable pay rise simply a false economy?”

Now it was Justice Secretary Robert Buckland’s turn to step up to the dispatch box, and he admitted that it was “not an easy balancing exercise” making the decision. He added: “We did carry out the vast majority of the recommendations but, considering the times in which we live at the moment, that particular recommendation was not one we felt able to support at this time.”

Hopkins then tabled a series of written parliamentary questions probing the government’s position further, as did Grahame Morris. In her answers to Morris, Minister Frazer claimed: “The Ministry of Justice also considered the possible impacts on recruitment, retention and morale, which in turn have an effect on prison safety and security. However, recruitment, retention and staff morale levels are all driven by a range of factors, and an increase in pay alone cannot be assumed to be a fix for these issues.” 

FALSE LOGIC

But the next day, she told Hopkins: “Affordability considerations took into account value for money for the taxpayer, as well as competing funding priorities, such as key investments in prison safety and security, leadership and professionalisation, and staff wellbeing, which all impact significantly upon staff.” 

So, the government admits that rejecting the pay rise could undermine prison safety and security, but also claims it wouldn’t help much anyway, and in any case there’s no money left because it’s been spent on – you guessed it – prison safety and security. A masterclass of false logic, but at least there’s key investment in "professionalisation".

Frazer also claimed that “these issues are continually under review by the Department, as fundamental issues in our policy”, but insisted: “There are no plans to publish further analysis on recommendation 3.”

However, with more MPs lining up to grill the government over the real reasons behind this shameful decision – and the POA launching a judicial review against it too, suing the secretary of state directly – it seems likely that pressure to publish further analysis, including the crucial equalities impact assessment, will only grow. Just what has the government got to hide?

Please ask your MP to sign EDM #1274 on Recommendations on Prison Officer Pay.