Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1542383

registered interest
date	15/11/2022
answering body	Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
answering dept id	211
answering dept short name	Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
answering dept sort name	Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
hansard heading	Help to Buy Scheme: Staff
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, what discussions his Department has had with Homes England on any intention to make staff in the Help to Buy unit of the Investments Directorate compulsorily redundant.
tabling member constituency	Easington
tabling member printed	Grahame Morris
uin	87817
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2022 answer text <p>In line with the practice of successive administrations, details of internal discussions are not normally disclosed. The Department has not approved a business case from Homes England on any planned exit scheme.</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer grouped question UIN 87818 question first answered 18/11/2022 14:24:15 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	3973 label Biography information for Grahame Morris

1542384

registered interest
date	15/11/2022
answering body	Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
answering dept id	211
answering dept short name	Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
answering dept sort name	Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
hansard heading	Help to Buy Scheme: Staff
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, whether his Department has approved the compulsory redundancies of staff in the Help to Buy Unit of the Investments Directorate at Homes England.
tabling member constituency	Easington
tabling member printed	Grahame Morris
uin	87818
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2022 answer text <p>In line with the practice of successive administrations, details of internal discussions are not normally disclosed. The Department has not approved a business case from Homes England on any planned exit scheme.</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer grouped question UIN 87817 question first answered 18/11/2022 14:24:16 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	3973 label Biography information for Grahame Morris

1402413

registered interest
date	12/01/2022
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Revenue and Customs: Working Hours
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 2 December 2021 to Question 81168, Treasury: Working Hours, what policies are in place to ensure that HM Revenue and Customs staff working from home comply with the Working Time Regulations 1998.
tabling member constituency	Easington
tabling member printed	Grahame Morris
uin	102590
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/01/2022 answer text <p>There are a range of policies which cover how working time operates in HMRC. These policies also apply to homeworkers.</p><p> </p><ul><li>HR28000 Working Time Regulations policy: applies to all employees, including contractual homeworkers, and includes:</li></ul><p> </p><p>‘what counts as working time: work performed away from the normal place of work, for example drafting a document at home.’</p><p> </p><ul><li>HR25005 Contractual homeworking policy: includes the ‘how to make contractual homeworking work well’ toolkit which states:</li></ul><p> </p><p>‘What does HMRC expect of homeworkers? …Basically HMRC expects the same standards from homeworkers as all other employees. You'll still be bound by Our Commitments and the HMRC values, and all the HR policies will still apply to you. You'll be expected to agree your working hours with your manager as normal…’</p><p> </p><p>‘Working hours: The same flexibility exists for contractual homeworkers to ask for help to achieve a better work life balance, or deal with life changing events. It's important to discuss and explore with your manager if you need to consider more flexibility in when and how long you work for…’</p><p> </p><ul><li>HR25601 When we work policy: provides an overview of working time in HMRC and applies to all employees, including contractual homeworkers. This includes these fundamental principles:</li></ul><p> </p><p>‘HMRC ‘standard operating hours’ are 07:00 to 20:00 from Monday to Saturday. Working time is time when you are undertaking the work required to deliver your role. You will only be paid, or receive a flexi credit, for times when you are performing the duties that are required to carry out your role. Working time is therefore any period of time in which you are:</p><ol><li>working; and</li><li>carrying out your duties; and</li><li>at HMRC’s disposal (that is, required to be in a specific place and to be ready to work at a specified time for HMRC’s benefit); or</li><li>receiving ‘relevant training’ (agreed for the purposes of HMRC employment); or</li><li>any additional period which is agreed in a relevant agreement to be working time (for example, undertaking trade union duties).</li></ol><ul><li>HMRC sets the hours you are required to work and how those hours are to be worked. This will be set out within contracts of employment and/or as part of Directorate Working Arrangements. These may require you to work shifts or variable or unsocial hours, including weekends and public and privilege holidays.</li><li>Working Time Regulations mean you should normally work no more than an average of 48 hours per week within each reference period of 17 weeks.</li><li>Break times do not contribute toward working time and as such are not paid. There may be local arrangements on the approach to breaks, which if relevant, will be set out as part of any applicable Directorate Working Arrangements.</li><li>Most of us will carry out the duties required of our roles within Standard Operating Hours, but some roles may require you, either on a temporary or permanent basis, to work outside of these times. Where this is the case, HMRC will be clear about the requirement and the agreed arrangements. HMRC expects you to apply the same consideration offered on flexibility to reasonable management requests.’</li></ul><p> </p><ul><li>HR25200 Balancing home and office working: this policy applies to all employees, including contractual homeworkers, and includes these relevant statements:</li></ul><p> </p><p>‘As part of your usual performance development conversation, you and your manager should discuss your homeworking arrangements to make sure they are working for you, to address any concerns that may arise and to ensure the arrangements are meeting the needs of our customers, those of the wider team and your personal needs.’ And ‘You should agree with your manager any times you will not be available, or if something occurs which means you cannot work, whilst working at home (as you would when in an office). If you are unwell on a working from home day you should take the time off if you are unfit for work. You should follow the Supporting your attendance policy in the usual way.’</p><p> </p><ul><li>HR35001 Working your hours flexibly in HMRC: Flexible working hours (flexi) approach: applies to all employees, including contractual homeworkers, and describes how the flexible working hours scheme works. It includes this statement:</li></ul><p> </p><p>‘Working Hours: In general, colleagues will work in line with their contracted daily and weekly hours and in line with any Directorate Working Arrangements. You are not expected to work longer than a 10-hour day, excluding breaks. However, there may be occasions when a longer day is required, for instance if you are travelling to a location other than your usual place of work.’</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer question first answered 20/01/2022 12:31:19 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	3973 label Biography information for Grahame Morris

1289995

registered interest
date	25/02/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers: Pay
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 24 February 2021 to Question 154966, Prison Officers: Pay, if he will place in the Library a copy of the equalities impact assessment that was conducted and considered in reaching the decision to reject recommendation 3.
tabling member constituency	Easington
tabling member printed	Grahame Morris
uin	158908
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/03/2021 answer text <p>We value the dedication and hard work of our prison officers who have worked tirelessly during the pandemic to keep the public safe. That’s why we awarded all staff an above-inflation pay rise for a third year running while balancing the need to keep these in step with other public sector workers.</p><p> </p><p>The 20/21 Prison Service Pay Review Body report was received on 5 June 2020 and included a recommendation, recommendation 3, to uplift the pay of Band 3 prison staff on modernised terms and conditions by £3,000. This recommendation was not accepted by the Government, on the basis of the exceptional costs associated with implementing the recommendation, the impact on the overall prison service pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision regarding this recommendation was announced on 10 December 2020 (https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-10/hcws638).</p><p> </p><p>An Equality Impact Assessment was conducted and considered in reaching the decision to reject recommendation 3. This considered the demographics of staff and how the decision to reject the recommendation would impact eliminating unlawful discrimination and advancing equality of opportunity. It concluded that any risks would be mitigated by our longer-term strategy to close the gap between those on modernised / Fair &amp; Sustainable terms and conditions and those on closed-grades term and conditions. In line with the practice of successive administrations, the Government does not routinely publish Equality Impact Assessments. Furthermore, the full assessment contains legal advice which is not usually disclosed in this way. However, the key statistics from this analysis are as follows:</p><p> </p><p><strong>Workforce demographics:</strong></p><p>This equality analysis assessed the impact of the PSPRB proposed 2020/21 pay award on protected characteristics, based on the demographics of the workforce as at 31st March 2020, and the type of pay award.</p><p>There are particular differences between the demographics of staff on Closed Grades and on Fair and Sustainable (F&amp;S):</p><ul><li>There is a higher percentage of females than males on F&amp;S (43% compared with 37%)</li><li>There is a higher percentage of part-time staff than full-time staff on Closed Grades (24% compared with 7%) (this is likely to include partially retired staff)</li><li>Age is a more complex demographic to analyse due to the multiple age ranges, however by assessing staff groups under the age of 40 and over age 40:</li></ul><p>o F&amp;S is more evenly split with 54% under the age of 40, and 46% over the age of 40</p><p>o Closed Grades generally have older staff, 12% are under the age of 40 and 88% are over the age of 40</p><ul><li>Since 2019, there has been a substantial increase in ethnicity declaration rates in this group and the overall percentage of staff who do not declare their ethnicity has reduced from 30 % to 17%.</li><li>The current percentage of staff who declare their Ethnicity as BAME is slightly higher in F&amp;S (9%) compared to in Closed Grades (8%).</li><li>Since 2019, the percentage of staff in minority groups has increased for all protected characteristics analysed.</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer question first answered 02/03/2021 15:35:51 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	3973 label Biography information for Grahame Morris

1287354

registered interest
date	19/02/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers: Pay
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential effect on prison safety of the decision to reject the Prison Service Pay Review Body’s recommendation 3.
tabling member constituency	Easington
tabling member printed	Grahame Morris
uin	154965
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/02/2021 answer text <p>The 20/21 PSPRB report was received on 5 June 2020 and included a recommendation, recommendation 3, to uplift the pay of Band 3 prison staff on modernised terms and conditions by £3,000. This recommendation was ultimately not accepted by the government, on the basis of the exceptional costs associated with implementing the recommendation, the impact on the overall prison service pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision regarding this recommendation was announced on 10 December 2020 (<a href="https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-10/hcws638" target="_blank">https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-10/hcws638</a>).</p><p> </p><p>Ahead of the decision regarding this recommendation, extensive work was undertaken by the Ministry of Justice together with HM Treasury to understand the costs and impacts of it. This included considering whether any workforce reforms could be delivered alongside the recommendation which would create efficiencies and savings, and therefore deliver value for money by offsetting some of the cost of the recommendation. This was undertaken with a view to possible discussions with recognised trade unions, should an option for affordable delivery of the recommendation, which could offer value for money for taxpayers be identified. The conclusion was that sufficient savings required to offer value for money could not be achieved, meaning the recommendation remained unaffordable.</p><p> </p><p>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. Furthermore, there are significant investments being made into prison safety and security, and financial pressures from elsewhere impact our ability to deliver these.</p><p> </p><p>An Equalities Impact Assessment was conducted and considered in reaching the decision to reject recommendation 3. This considered the demographics of staff and how the decision to reject the recommendation would interact with eliminating unlawful discrimination and advancing quality of opportunity.</p><p> </p><p>The Secretary of State’s policy is that PSPRB recommendations will only be departed from “in exceptional circumstances, one of which would be on the grounds of affordability”. Furthermore, all appropriate advice was taken by the Secretary of State for Justice as to the relevant facts and tests relevant to the decision on recommendation 3.</p><p> </p><p>The decision of 10 December 2020 to ultimately reject recommendation 3 was taken by the Secretary of State. It was not subject to the Cabinet committee write round procedure but was, as is consistent with usual practice with respect to public sector pay awards, preceded by HM Treasury input.</p><p> </p><p>The Department remains committed to working with the review body, within the boundaries of the pay restraint policy as set out by the Chancellor for the 2021/22 pay round, which includes targeted awards for those earning less than £24k per annum. We will also continue to work closely with recognised trade unions.</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer grouped question UIN 154966 154967 154968 154969 question first answered 24/02/2021 17:39:22 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	3973 label Biography information for Grahame Morris

1287355

registered interest
date	19/02/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers: Pay
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what equality impact assessment his Department has undertaken on the decision to reject the Prison Service Pay Review Body’s recommendation 3.
tabling member constituency	Easington
tabling member printed	Grahame Morris
uin	154966
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/02/2021 answer text <p>The 20/21 PSPRB report was received on 5 June 2020 and included a recommendation, recommendation 3, to uplift the pay of Band 3 prison staff on modernised terms and conditions by £3,000. This recommendation was ultimately not accepted by the government, on the basis of the exceptional costs associated with implementing the recommendation, the impact on the overall prison service pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision regarding this recommendation was announced on 10 December 2020 (<a href="https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-10/hcws638" target="_blank">https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-10/hcws638</a>).</p><p> </p><p>Ahead of the decision regarding this recommendation, extensive work was undertaken by the Ministry of Justice together with HM Treasury to understand the costs and impacts of it. This included considering whether any workforce reforms could be delivered alongside the recommendation which would create efficiencies and savings, and therefore deliver value for money by offsetting some of the cost of the recommendation. This was undertaken with a view to possible discussions with recognised trade unions, should an option for affordable delivery of the recommendation, which could offer value for money for taxpayers be identified. The conclusion was that sufficient savings required to offer value for money could not be achieved, meaning the recommendation remained unaffordable.</p><p> </p><p>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. Furthermore, there are significant investments being made into prison safety and security, and financial pressures from elsewhere impact our ability to deliver these.</p><p> </p><p>An Equalities Impact Assessment was conducted and considered in reaching the decision to reject recommendation 3. This considered the demographics of staff and how the decision to reject the recommendation would interact with eliminating unlawful discrimination and advancing quality of opportunity.</p><p> </p><p>The Secretary of State’s policy is that PSPRB recommendations will only be departed from “in exceptional circumstances, one of which would be on the grounds of affordability”. Furthermore, all appropriate advice was taken by the Secretary of State for Justice as to the relevant facts and tests relevant to the decision on recommendation 3.</p><p> </p><p>The decision of 10 December 2020 to ultimately reject recommendation 3 was taken by the Secretary of State. It was not subject to the Cabinet committee write round procedure but was, as is consistent with usual practice with respect to public sector pay awards, preceded by HM Treasury input.</p><p> </p><p>The Department remains committed to working with the review body, within the boundaries of the pay restraint policy as set out by the Chancellor for the 2021/22 pay round, which includes targeted awards for those earning less than £24k per annum. We will also continue to work closely with recognised trade unions.</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer grouped question UIN 154965 154967 154968 154969 question first answered 24/02/2021 17:39:22 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	3973 label Biography information for Grahame Morris

1287356

registered interest
date	19/02/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers: Pay
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what financial analysis his Department undertook prior to the decision to reject the Prison Service Pay Review Body’s recommendation 3.
tabling member constituency	Easington
tabling member printed	Grahame Morris
uin	154967
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/02/2021 answer text <p>The 20/21 PSPRB report was received on 5 June 2020 and included a recommendation, recommendation 3, to uplift the pay of Band 3 prison staff on modernised terms and conditions by £3,000. This recommendation was ultimately not accepted by the government, on the basis of the exceptional costs associated with implementing the recommendation, the impact on the overall prison service pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision regarding this recommendation was announced on 10 December 2020 (<a href="https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-10/hcws638" target="_blank">https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-10/hcws638</a>).</p><p> </p><p>Ahead of the decision regarding this recommendation, extensive work was undertaken by the Ministry of Justice together with HM Treasury to understand the costs and impacts of it. This included considering whether any workforce reforms could be delivered alongside the recommendation which would create efficiencies and savings, and therefore deliver value for money by offsetting some of the cost of the recommendation. This was undertaken with a view to possible discussions with recognised trade unions, should an option for affordable delivery of the recommendation, which could offer value for money for taxpayers be identified. The conclusion was that sufficient savings required to offer value for money could not be achieved, meaning the recommendation remained unaffordable.</p><p> </p><p>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. Furthermore, there are significant investments being made into prison safety and security, and financial pressures from elsewhere impact our ability to deliver these.</p><p> </p><p>An Equalities Impact Assessment was conducted and considered in reaching the decision to reject recommendation 3. This considered the demographics of staff and how the decision to reject the recommendation would interact with eliminating unlawful discrimination and advancing quality of opportunity.</p><p> </p><p>The Secretary of State’s policy is that PSPRB recommendations will only be departed from “in exceptional circumstances, one of which would be on the grounds of affordability”. Furthermore, all appropriate advice was taken by the Secretary of State for Justice as to the relevant facts and tests relevant to the decision on recommendation 3.</p><p> </p><p>The decision of 10 December 2020 to ultimately reject recommendation 3 was taken by the Secretary of State. It was not subject to the Cabinet committee write round procedure but was, as is consistent with usual practice with respect to public sector pay awards, preceded by HM Treasury input.</p><p> </p><p>The Department remains committed to working with the review body, within the boundaries of the pay restraint policy as set out by the Chancellor for the 2021/22 pay round, which includes targeted awards for those earning less than £24k per annum. We will also continue to work closely with recognised trade unions.</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer grouped question UIN 154965 154966 154968 154969 question first answered 24/02/2021 17:39:22 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	3973 label Biography information for Grahame Morris

1287357

registered interest
date	19/02/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers: Pay
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the decision to reject the Prison Service Pay Review Body’s recommendation 3.
tabling member constituency	Easington
tabling member printed	Grahame Morris
uin	154968
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/02/2021 answer text <p>The 20/21 PSPRB report was received on 5 June 2020 and included a recommendation, recommendation 3, to uplift the pay of Band 3 prison staff on modernised terms and conditions by £3,000. This recommendation was ultimately not accepted by the government, on the basis of the exceptional costs associated with implementing the recommendation, the impact on the overall prison service pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision regarding this recommendation was announced on 10 December 2020 (<a href="https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-10/hcws638" target="_blank">https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-10/hcws638</a>).</p><p> </p><p>Ahead of the decision regarding this recommendation, extensive work was undertaken by the Ministry of Justice together with HM Treasury to understand the costs and impacts of it. This included considering whether any workforce reforms could be delivered alongside the recommendation which would create efficiencies and savings, and therefore deliver value for money by offsetting some of the cost of the recommendation. This was undertaken with a view to possible discussions with recognised trade unions, should an option for affordable delivery of the recommendation, which could offer value for money for taxpayers be identified. The conclusion was that sufficient savings required to offer value for money could not be achieved, meaning the recommendation remained unaffordable.</p><p> </p><p>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. Furthermore, there are significant investments being made into prison safety and security, and financial pressures from elsewhere impact our ability to deliver these.</p><p> </p><p>An Equalities Impact Assessment was conducted and considered in reaching the decision to reject recommendation 3. This considered the demographics of staff and how the decision to reject the recommendation would interact with eliminating unlawful discrimination and advancing quality of opportunity.</p><p> </p><p>The Secretary of State’s policy is that PSPRB recommendations will only be departed from “in exceptional circumstances, one of which would be on the grounds of affordability”. Furthermore, all appropriate advice was taken by the Secretary of State for Justice as to the relevant facts and tests relevant to the decision on recommendation 3.</p><p> </p><p>The decision of 10 December 2020 to ultimately reject recommendation 3 was taken by the Secretary of State. It was not subject to the Cabinet committee write round procedure but was, as is consistent with usual practice with respect to public sector pay awards, preceded by HM Treasury input.</p><p> </p><p>The Department remains committed to working with the review body, within the boundaries of the pay restraint policy as set out by the Chancellor for the 2021/22 pay round, which includes targeted awards for those earning less than £24k per annum. We will also continue to work closely with recognised trade unions.</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer grouped question UIN 154965 154966 154967 154969 question first answered 24/02/2021 17:39:22 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	3973 label Biography information for Grahame Morris

1287358

registered interest
date	19/02/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers: Pay
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has received (a) advice and (b) guidance on what constitutes exceptional circumstances for the purpose of considering recommendations by the Prison Service Pay Review Body; and if he will make a statement.
tabling member constituency	Easington
tabling member printed	Grahame Morris
uin	154969
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/02/2021 answer text <p>The 20/21 PSPRB report was received on 5 June 2020 and included a recommendation, recommendation 3, to uplift the pay of Band 3 prison staff on modernised terms and conditions by £3,000. This recommendation was ultimately not accepted by the government, on the basis of the exceptional costs associated with implementing the recommendation, the impact on the overall prison service pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision regarding this recommendation was announced on 10 December 2020 (<a href="https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-10/hcws638" target="_blank">https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-10/hcws638</a>).</p><p> </p><p>Ahead of the decision regarding this recommendation, extensive work was undertaken by the Ministry of Justice together with HM Treasury to understand the costs and impacts of it. This included considering whether any workforce reforms could be delivered alongside the recommendation which would create efficiencies and savings, and therefore deliver value for money by offsetting some of the cost of the recommendation. This was undertaken with a view to possible discussions with recognised trade unions, should an option for affordable delivery of the recommendation, which could offer value for money for taxpayers be identified. The conclusion was that sufficient savings required to offer value for money could not be achieved, meaning the recommendation remained unaffordable.</p><p> </p><p>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. Furthermore, there are significant investments being made into prison safety and security, and financial pressures from elsewhere impact our ability to deliver these.</p><p> </p><p>An Equalities Impact Assessment was conducted and considered in reaching the decision to reject recommendation 3. This considered the demographics of staff and how the decision to reject the recommendation would interact with eliminating unlawful discrimination and advancing quality of opportunity.</p><p> </p><p>The Secretary of State’s policy is that PSPRB recommendations will only be departed from “in exceptional circumstances, one of which would be on the grounds of affordability”. Furthermore, all appropriate advice was taken by the Secretary of State for Justice as to the relevant facts and tests relevant to the decision on recommendation 3.</p><p> </p><p>The decision of 10 December 2020 to ultimately reject recommendation 3 was taken by the Secretary of State. It was not subject to the Cabinet committee write round procedure but was, as is consistent with usual practice with respect to public sector pay awards, preceded by HM Treasury input.</p><p> </p><p>The Department remains committed to working with the review body, within the boundaries of the pay restraint policy as set out by the Chancellor for the 2021/22 pay round, which includes targeted awards for those earning less than £24k per annum. We will also continue to work closely with recognised trade unions.</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer grouped question UIN 154965 154966 154967 154968 question first answered 24/02/2021 17:39:22 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	3973 label Biography information for Grahame Morris

1275706

registered interest
date	12/01/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Service: Resignations
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Prison Service Pay Review Body’s Nineteenth Report on England and Wales 2020, section 3.35, what estimate he has made of the annual cost to the public purse of new recruits leaving the Prison Service after less than two years of service.
tabling member constituency	Easington
tabling member printed	Grahame Morris
uin	136497
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/01/2021 answer text <p>New recruits leaving the prison service after less than two years is detrimental to the running of our prisons. This represents both a financial and non-financial loss that is difficult to quantify, hence this is something my department do not calculate.</p><p>My efforts are instead focused on retaining our staff, by upholding a fair and competitive salary; investing in training and professionalisation; and maintaining and improving the safety and security of prisons, for example with tools like PAVA and body-worn cameras.</p><p>This year, staff wellbeing is ever more important. This remains a fundamental part of retaining our staff, particularly for new officers as they settle into their challenging roles. All staff have access to support, including 24/7 counselling, trauma support and occupational health assessments, which provide the critical pathways of support for both mental and physical health needs for staff.</p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer question first answered 18/01/2021 14:54:41 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
tabling member	3973 label Biography information for Grahame Morris