Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO343, November 2006

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 191. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2005 meeting [see 338th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 294th Session, paras. 314-318] and requested to be informed of developments with regard to the following issues: (a) the progress of consultation with private contractors on the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to compensate prisoner custody officers in private sector companies to which certain of the functions of the prison have been contracted out, for the limitation of their right to strike; (b) the progress of consultations with a view to improving the current mechanism for the determination of prison officers’ pay in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, in the context of which it had been proposed that: (i) the criteria for appointment to the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) include the range of experience, skills and competencies required of candidates; and (ii) prior to any vacancy being advertised, both the criteria and the advertisement for the vacancy be subject to consultation with the trade unions representing workers within the scope of the PSPRB.
2. 192. In a communication dated 26 May 2006, the Government indicated that the complainant Prison Officers’ Association (POA) had raised concerns in regard to three specific areas where they felt that the prison service had an unfair influence on the overall process of the PSPRB, these being: (i) the involvement of the Director of Personnel being the chair of the selection panel for the panellists of the PSPRB; (ii) that having been allowed to select panellists, then the Director of Personnel is also involved in setting, directing and providing evidence to the PSPRB; (iii) the Director of Personnel also drafts the remit letter to the PSPRB on behalf of the Home Secretary. The POA felt that these points provided the prison service with undue influence with the PSPRB which acted disadvantageously to the interests of its members. The prison service responded to these comments as follows: (i) the prison service had again checked with the Cabinet Office on the issue of who should chair the selection panel. The advice they received was that the Commissioner for Public Appointments considered that guidance set out in the Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies should be followed. In accordance with this guidance, the selection panel should include: (a) a senior official from the department as chair; (b) a representative from the public body (that is the PSPRB) or other interested group. This has usually been officials from the Office for Manpower Economics and the Treasury; (c) an independent assessor, usually drawn from a person on the OPSA list of such suitable persons. (ii) The Director of Personnel’s role is wide ranging, as is that of all prison service directors. Whilst the evidence for PSPRB may be drafted in part by the Director, it is presented on behalf of the Secretary of State who has to agree to it prior to submission. Thus, it is the Secretary of State’s evidence not that of any single official. (iii) Similarly, the remit letter to the PSPRB is approved and issued by the Secretary of State. It is far from a rubber-stamping exercise. On several occasions, including last year, the draft submitted by officials had been significantly altered by the Secretary of State himself. In conclusion, on this point, the prison service felt that the above considerations demonstrated that there were in place necessary checks and balances to ensure that the Director of Personnel was unable to wield any influence over the PSPRB, a point that was best proved by the level of awards made by the PSPRB over recent years which had consistently exceeded prison service proposals in evidence.
3. 193. With regard to the issue of trade union involvement in the process, the POA had raised the issue that they would like to see a trade union representative in the process throughout. The Government indicated that there would seem to be room for this to occur under the Code of Practice as inclusion under “interested party”. Such a representative would need to meet the required level of competence in selection procedures and have the confidence of the parties. The prison service would need to consult the Commissioner for Public Appointments but, in principle, the prison service would be happy to invite the POA to propose a nominee whose name could be put forward for inclusion on future panels.
4. 194. In summary, the Government indicated that having taken into account the matters raised by the ILO, the prison service’s view was that extensive measures had been taken to fulfil the undertakings given. The proposal to include a trade union representative on the selection panel would strengthen the undertakings given, whilst the prison service felt that the concerns about undue influence over PSPRB selection were unfounded, due to the presence of the Independent Assessor, who was in attendance throughout the process and was required by the Commissioner to issue a certificate of fairness at the end of the selection procedure.
5. 195. The Committee takes note with interest of this information, in particular, the Government’s intention to satisfy a claim by the POA to include a trade union representative in the selection panel for the PSPRB. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning consultations with private contractors on the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to compensate prisoner custody officers in private sector companies, to which certain of the functions of the prison have been contracted out, for the limitation of their right to strike.