Prison Officers' Dispute

HL Deb 29 April 1986 vol 474 cc160-9

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the prison officers' dispute being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, I will with permission make a Statement on the dispute with the Prison Officers Association.

"The House will recall that I set out the issues in the dispute in my reply to a Private Notice Question from the honourable Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, on 17th April. Since then I have twice met representatives of the National Executive Committee of the Prison Officers Association. Following my first meeting, I put to them in writing on 22nd April a package of proposals for resolving the dispute. When I met them again yesterday, POA representatives accepted that my proposals provided a way forward. They undertook in return to consider my request that they call off industrial action in order to allow a resolution on this basis to proceed.

"In the event, the POA NEC declined to go beyond the offer of an undertaking that it would instruct its members not to take action while talks on the basis of my proposals were proceeding. In effect, that amounted to an offer to suspend, but not to call off their industrial action. Their previous undertaking to suspend had proved ineffective and damaging industrial action had taken place despite it. So their position yesterday represented no advance on the position they had taken in talks last week and was unacceptable to me. The Government cannot conduct talks under the continuing threat of further industrial action in this vital public service.

"The association has therefore broken off discussions and announced that it is considering ways of extending its industrial action, which may include strike action. As I make this Statement, it is still unclear what action the POA may take in practice.

"I deeply regret this action by the POA NEC, which shows no regard for the longer-term interests of their members nor, equally importantly, of the prisoners in their charge. The sort of industrial action which we have already seen at Gloucester Prison—where prison officers yesterday took control of the prison and refused to accept the orders of their governor and where they are still refusing to return to normal working—is unacceptable. The Government will take all possible steps both to sustain the right of governors to manage their prisons and to protect prisoners and the public from the consequences of POA action.

"In this context, a circular will be issued tomorrow to the courts containing advice on the implications for them of the dispute. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House. I will consider any further measures which may be necessary in the light of developments.

"Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to make a final appeal to prison officers to look at the package of proposals I have placed before them and to judge whether it is worth throwing that away by taking further industrial action. As I have publicly acknowledged on many occasions, prison officers do a difficult and often dangerous job. They deserve to be well paid. But the heavy burden of overtime must be lightened and there must be increased efficiency. Progress towards formal discussions about a range of new systems designed to meet all these objectives was being made when the NEC call for industrial action went out. My agenda for talks represents a positive way forward for prison officers and, indeed, the whole prison service. I very much hope that, even now, prison officers will end their action in order to avoid lasting damage to the prison service and to their own interests".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for repeating the Home Secretary's Statement. It falls to me to deal with the Statement from these Benches, in view of the professional position of my noble friend Lord Mishcon.

The Statement by the Home Secretary is a grave one, made at a grave moment in our nation's affairs. Surely in the dangerous situation in which we find ourselves—indeed, it is approaching a national emergency—reasonable bridging must take place between the prison department of the Home Office and the Prison Officers Association. Is it not entirely reasonable that the prison department should ask at this moment for the suspension of industrial action while discussions take place on the main issue? Is it not right that there should now be a truce? Indeed, has the Prison Officers Association not offered suspension of industrial action, as the Home Secretary's Statement says? Is not the demand for a total calling off of industrial action unreasonable before it is known what may emerge from the discussions which the association is ready to undertake?

In my submission, no trade union can undertake to accept what is demanded by the Home Secretary and still keep the confidence of its membership at this time, before an offer of participation in discussions. Is it not a fact that over the weekend prison officers were required to give written undertakings, against the threat of suspension, to submit to new conditions of service? Was that the best way of dealing with this critical situation in the circumstances? Does it not make sense for both sides to suspend action pending further discussions between them in the hope that a peaceful formula can be found?

I submit that such a formula is capable of being found and should be found. Unfortunately the whole atmosphere of the discussions has been poisoned by the actions of the prison department and the governor of Gloucester Prison over the weekend. How do matters stand now in that prison? Further, what happened at Leicester Prison this morning, where again a crisis situation seems to have been reached? Has not the situation there also been aggravated by action on the part of the governor and his immediate staff?

In this grave crisis in the affairs of the prison service, and in view of its wider implications for the country as a whole, my plea is for reason to prevail.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in thanking the Minister for repeating this Statement. As has been said, it is one of the most serious Statements that has been made in the history of the prison service. I think that we must all recognise that at the outset.

Does the noble Lord the Minister agree that it is particularly regrettable given the fact that there are many fine public servants who work as main grade prison officers and many admirable men who work as governors? Does he further agree that in this particularly difficult situation our support must go to the handful of governors who are having to deal with the extremely difficult situations in many prison department establishments in this country?

I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the background to this dispute is the intolerable overcrowding that exists within the British prison system. On Wednesday of last week we discussed this matter. We note that he has indicated that his right honourable friend is contemplating issuing some form of circular which will go out tomorrow to the magistrates' courts, and I assume to the Crown Courts, and that he will put this document in the Library. May I ask him whether a Statement will be made in the House tomorrow, because presumably the circular will be asking magistrates to take a certain course of action as regards sentencing offenders? If that is so, it will be desirable to have some form of Statement made in the House.

May I ask the noble Lord further whether the Goverment are now contemplating using the executive release scheme which has been discussed in this House on a number of occasions and which obviously must be one of the matters that the Home Secretary is now seriously considering? Is he aware that many noble Lords who have had dealings with the prison service over a number of years take the view that this dispute has been boiling up for eight years at the very minimum? Is he aware that one of the problems does not concern the attitude of the national executive of the Prison Officers Association but lies in the constant series of disruptions which have taken place in a number of prisons and which have been called by local branches of the Prison Officers Association? It appears from what he has said that something of this sort happened at Gloucester. Can he say a little more about what indeed did happen at Gloucester Prison?

Is the noble Lord aware that in the extremely difficult situations which obtain in many of our grossly overcrowded prisons, it is absolutely right that the Prison Officers Association should be consulted as closely as possible both by the governors and by the prison department in London? But is he aware also that in the critically difficult situations obtaining in those establishments, many of us believe that the governor must make the final decisions in so far as they concern the disposition of his staff?

Finally, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that everyone is anxious to see this very sad dispute resolved as speedily as possible? Will he take every step to keep the House closely informed?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for their reception of the Statement. Perhaps I may start my reply to the various questions which they have put to me by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that it is the earnest desire of my right honourable friend, myself and everybody in the prison department, as well as members of the Prison Officers Association, to see this dispute brought rapidly to a close. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that it is a very grave matter. I hope that it will be possible one way or another to find a sensible bridge to the problems which exist, but the noble and learned Lord must not underestimate the difficult nature of the divide that has now arisen between us.

As regards the question of the suspension of industrial action which was offered by the POA yesterday, as I explained when I repeated the Statement, that would have meant that talks would have taken place under a continuing threat of further industrial action. This was unacceptable, particularly as the leaders of the Prison Officers Association had said that my right honourable friend's proposals, which were set out in his letter of 22nd April to the POA National Executive Committee, constituted a reasonable way forward. I do not think that it is acceptable for the Government to talk under that sort of duress. It is particularly unreasonable in the light of the fact that we had reached a very similar position only last week and then suddenly we were faced with action at Gloucester just before the weekend.

As for the nature of the dismissals, suspensions or "temporary relief from duty", which is the phrase that is being used in this case, some officers who are in fundamental breach of their duty have been temporarily relieved from duty until they agree to work normally. The staff concerned have been involved, for example, in refusing to accept orders. They have been refusing to man the courts and refusing to let prisoners into establishments. This action is not selective dismissal, as the POA has claimed; nor is it the same as a disciplinary suspension. If staff agree to work normally, they will be reinstated. The sanction is one that is well recognised throughout the Civil Service. There is no question of it being noted in any way that action had been taken. It is a perfectly normal and well accepted procedure.

5 p.m.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, suggested that the atmosphere had been poisoned by the activities at Gloucester over the week-end. I can perhaps say to the noble and learned Lord, and amplify the point for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that certainly the activity at Gloucester, in particular what has happened since the week-end, is most regrettable. Before the week-end the governor at Gloucester had for three weeks been asking the Prison Officers Association representatives to come to talk to him so that arrangements could be made to meet the budgetary control that has to be maintained by a prison governor of his establishment on the question of overtime. For three weeks he asked them to come and talk to him. For three weeks they refused. In the end he had to take certain steps, not particularly devastating steps, but minor steps, to bring himself back within the budget target.

Since then activities at Gloucester, as the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, know, have become rather more serious. Yesterday prison officers at Gloucester prison refused to man the courts, to escort prisoners to court and to obey the lawful orders of their governor. Not only did their action interfere with the administration of justice; in effect they took control of the prison. That is unacceptable to the Government and, I believe, unacceptable to your Lordships. It is one of the most serious actions, if not the most serious action, that many can remember within the prison service. The prison officers are a disciplined force. That is necessary if we are to maintain administration of justice in the way that we know it.

This morning staff reported for duty and were therefore told that if they wanted to work, they must agree to work normally before they would be allowed inside the prison. They declined to do so. The prison is presently being run by the governor and other governor grades. Twenty prisoners have staged a rooftop demonstration, but the police are standing by and the situation is under control. It was for persistently refusing to undertake the duties involved in conveying prisoners to court that 13 officers at Gloucester were temporarily relieved of duty. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that there are many fine public servants amid the prison officers, and indeed among the governors, who have publicly deplored the action at Gloucester. I join with the noble Lord in adding support for what the governors have to do. It is of course for the governors to manage their prisons and not for the prison officers to manage prisons. That is certainly what the effect of the action at Gloucester could have been.

Your Lordships are, I believe, well aware that we are concerned about overcrowding. That is why we have set about the biggest prison building campaign this century. It is also a matter of concern to staff in prisons that they should be able properly to manage the regimes that exist there. I have to say to your Lordships that among the practices followed in prisons there are many instances of those that are far from flexible. This means quite often that regimes cannot be as comprehensive as we should all like.

As to the circular to the courts that I mentioned just now, the business of the courts will inevitably be disrupted. The circular that goes out tomorrow will ask for magistrates' courts' understanding of what has arisen and will suggest ways of reducing the burden on the police. For instance, the courts might be able to adjourn some cases or to grant bail immediately in others. We shall draw attention to the difficulties and ask the courts to bear them in mind. But we shall not, of course, be seeking to interfere in judicial decisions in any way. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about executive release. Yes, the early release power in Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 is intended for use, but only in extreme circumstances. My right honourable friend would not be prepared to use it except in extreme circumstances.

As to the question of the POA generally and manning issues, we have of course made it plain to the association all along that we must consult it. The difficulty, as the noble Lord will be aware, arose over the absolute right to negotiate over manning, and that has never been a feature of any side of public service life. We have said all along that we are prepared to have discussions with the association and I hope come to a sensible arrangement. Failing that, management must have the right to manage. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, having referred to Gloucester, mentioned Leicester. There has been no action at Leicester today.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the view being expressed in Gloucester prison is a national view? Can he also say what was the ratio of prisoners to prison officers about 10 years ago, and what it is today overall?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, it is certainly not the case that the action being taken at Gloucester represents a national view. There are prison establishments up and down the country that, so far as I can tell, certainly deplore the action that has been taken at Gloucester, are working perfectly normally and have continued so to work over the last few days. As for the ratio of prison officers to prisoners, the number of staff at the moment is nearly 19,000 and the number of prisoners about 47,000. Over the last 10 years prison officer numbers have increased by about 18 per cent. and prisoners by 12 per cent.

Lord Boothby

My Lords, can the noble Lord say why there has been no comparable trouble in the prison service in Scotland where the main convict prison at Peterhead is in my old constituency? There has been no trouble there.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am very glad to hear that there has been no trouble there. As to precisely what are the negotiating arrangements with the Prison Officers Association in Scotland, I am afraid I cannot help the noble Lord.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, will the Minister reflect that while the prison department manages budgets, governors and prison officers have to manage men—and violent and dangerous men at that? Will the Minister not agree that a ballot held in conformity with the Government's own legislation giving the POA executive a majority of 81 per cent. for industrial action is a powerful mandate? The voice is not the voice of the POA executive; it is the voice of the members of the POA. Will the Minister accept that the offer made by the Prison Officers Association late last night was both statesmanlike and responsible and that his right honourable friend would do well to follow the pattern then set by the prison officers?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that managing men and managing budgets are all part of a necessary balance that must be struck in the overall management of resources voted by Parliament to the prison service. So it is essential that at the end of any discussion the prison governor is the person who exercises control over the way that the resources are spent. Otherwise, it would be a matter of the POA dictating how budgets are spent. There can be no compromise on that. I agree, however, that ultimately a balance must be struck on all these issues, including work practices.

With regard to the mandate, yes, of course I accept that it is a mandate based upon the voice of the Prison Officers Association. But so far as I know, even at this late hour the Prisons Officers Association national executive committee has not put the letter which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary discussed and which he wrote on 22nd April in front of the membership. However, that is a matter for the executive.

I am all for statesmanslike approaches to these problems and certainly both my right honourable friend and I shall proceed in a statesmanlike way. But with regard to last night's statement by the Prison Officers Association, had we adopted that proposal we should have been placed in precisely the same situation—the noble Lord shakes his head, but I am afraid that this is the way it appears—as we were in last week. Then my right honourable friend said that he would be prepared to discuss the three main items in the letter of 22nd April, and then we suddenly found ourselves faced with the Gloucester issue.

I referred earlier to increases in numbers of prison officers. I said to my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux that that was over a period of 10 years. I should have said that it was since 1979.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is important in this House at this crucial time that we should say nothing which would encourage members of the Prison Officers Association to carry on with this industrial action?

Lord Glenarthur

Yes, my Lords; I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. As we have said, this dispute could have very serious effects not just on the way that prisons are run but also on prison officers, prisoners, and the whole criminal justice system. I hope that we shall all continue to look at it coolly.

Lord Hunt

My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that having listened to the explanation he has given to the House in this critical situation, speaking personally I fully agree with the line the government are taking? I say this with great reluctance because having for many years seen a great deal of the work in our prisons I have always held the highest regard and admiration for the work of prison officers, and I continue to do so. However, I agree that the Government have done the right thing in the particular circumstances.

Having said that, will the noble Lord agree that this critical situation which has arisen is of itself symptomatic of a far more fundamental problem? I know that the noble Lord is fully aware of this, but I make the point nonetheless. It arises from the inappropriate number of offenders who are sent to prison when they would be more satisfactorily and effectively dealt with by other means, and in many cases from the length of prison sentences imposed on those who must go to prison.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, feels able to support the line which the Government have taken on this issue. With regard to it being symptomatic of the concern he feels for what he sees as an inappropriate number of offenders being sent to prison, I must say to him that while through appropriate publications and other means we take steps to encourage those who may dispose of offenders not to send them to prison unless they have to do so, it is a matter for the courts to decide whether they send people to prison, and we must provide the places while they do so.

Lord Sandys

My Lords, in rising to support most strongly what my noble friend has said in such a moderate and statesmanlike way, may I ask him about what was mentioned in the Statement relating to the burden of overtime, in particular with regard to average earnings? Can he comment upon the average earnings of prison officers and on the need for overtime, which was mentioned in the Statement and which must clearly be one of the particular points involved?

Lord Genarthur

My Lords, the average earnings of prison officers are about £15,000 a year, of which overtime amounts to about 30 per cent. If the average amount of overtime worked each week is about 16½ hours—which is where the figure stands at the moment—there are a great many officers working far in excess of that; they are working 20, even 30, hours a week on top of a standard 40-hour week. That cannot be in the best interests of either the prison service or the individuals who have to do that amount of extra work.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there have been recent reports emanating from a member of the prison officers executive suggesting that prison officers in Northern Ireland might be encouraged to join this action? Is he aware that that kind of approach will do the reputation of the Prison Officers Association great damage in this country? It would be an act of ultimate irresponsibility.

Perhaps I may return to one matter which I previously raised with the noble Lord. Will he undertake to keep the House closely informed about this situation? We all recognise the sensitivities of it, but as a meeting of the executive of the Prison Officers Association is taking place as we meet, and as the circular is coming out tomorrow, and there will clearly be a number of developments, will the noble Lord undertake to keep the House closely informed?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, with regard to the last request of the noble Lord, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will bear this very closely in mind. It will be a matter taken forward through the usual channels. But I can promise the noble Lord that yes, we shall bear it closely in mind.

With regard to Northern Ireland, I am aware of that threat. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be extremely damaging if the action were to spread to Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that it will not do so.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, before we leave this very serious problem may I ask one question? Am I right in thinking that the only difference between the Government and the prison officers is one of suspension and abandonment of strike action? It seems to me a very narrow difference. I should like to say to the prison officers—whose friend I hope I have always been—that they should look at this. It seems to me that there is a way out by saying, "All right, abandonment for the moment, but we shall call it abolition. We can always start it again at any minute. The difference is verbal, and therefore we shall agree". If they would do that, the whole matter could be solved because I believe—this is not a question though it should be—that the kind of proposals that the Home Secretary will make will be acceptable.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, if that is an avenue which the prison officers feel that they are able to go down, I agree with the noble Lord that it may be one way forward; I hope that it might be. But if we are faced with suspended action, which may for one reason or another lead to action taking place while talks are going on, and if the kind of action we saw last week when a prison governor was, absolutely rightly, continuing to govern his prison and to look after the finance which had been made available to him by vote from Parliament is to be called into question, serious negotiation cannot take place.

Lord Morris

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would be good enough to reassure me that Her Majesty's Government will ever defend the right of management to manage, that the prisons be managed by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, and that that right to manage be not usurped by those whom the Home Department employ on our behalf?

Lord Glenarthur

Yes, Lords, I can certainly give my noble friend that assurance. It is a matter which has been stressed regularly over the last few days and it applies particularly in a service such as the prison service which is a disciplined service and which involves many different aspects of our national life. We are aware that prison officers have an interest in the safety and well-being of prisoners and in other issues as well. But governors must have the right to manage.