{ "format" : "linked-data-api", "version" : "0.2", "result" : {"_about" : "http://eldaddp.azurewebsites.net/answeredquestions.text?tablingMember.label=Biography+information+for+Grahame+Morris&answer.answeringMemberPrinted=Lucy+Frazer", "definition" : "http://eldaddp.azurewebsites.net/meta/answeredquestions.text?tablingMember.label=Biography+information+for+Grahame+Morris&answer.answeringMemberPrinted=Lucy+Frazer", "extendedMetadataVersion" : "http://eldaddp.azurewebsites.net/answeredquestions.text?tablingMember.label=Biography+information+for+Grahame+Morris&_metadata=all&answer.answeringMemberPrinted=Lucy+Frazer", "first" : "http://eldaddp.azurewebsites.net/answeredquestions.text?tablingMember.label=Biography+information+for+Grahame+Morris&_page=0&answer.answeringMemberPrinted=Lucy+Frazer", "hasPart" : "http://eldaddp.azurewebsites.net/answeredquestions.text?tablingMember.label=Biography+information+for+Grahame+Morris&answer.answeringMemberPrinted=Lucy+Frazer", "isPartOf" : "http://eldaddp.azurewebsites.net/answeredquestions.text?tablingMember.label=Biography+information+for+Grahame+Morris&answer.answeringMemberPrinted=Lucy+Frazer", "items" : [{"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1542383", "AnsweringBody" : [{"_value" : "Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities"}
      ], "answer" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1542383/answer", "answerText" : {"_value" : "<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>"}
        , "answeringMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/4517", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Lucy Frazer"}
        }
        , "answeringMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "South East Cambridgeshire"}
        , "answeringMemberPrinted" : {"_value" : "Lucy Frazer"}
        , "dateOfAnswer" : {"_value" : "2022-11-18", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        , "groupedQuestionUIN" : {"_value" : "87818"}
        , "isMinisterialCorrection" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
        , "questionFirstAnswered" : [{"_value" : "2022-11-18T14:24:15.967Z", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        ]}
      , "answeringDeptId" : {"_value" : "211"}
      , "answeringDeptShortName" : {"_value" : "Levelling Up, Housing and Communities"}
      , "answeringDeptSortName" : {"_value" : "Levelling Up, Housing and Communities"}
      , "date" : {"_value" : "2022-11-15", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
      , "hansardHeading" : {"_value" : "Help to Buy Scheme: Staff"}
      , "houseId" : {"_value" : "1"}
      , "legislature" : [{"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/terms/25259", "prefLabel" : {"_value" : "House of Commons"}
      }
      ], "questionText" : "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.", "registeredInterest" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
      , "tablingMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/3973", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Grahame Morris"}
      }
      , "tablingMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "Easington"}
      , "tablingMemberPrinted" : [{"_value" : "Grahame Morris"}
      ], "uin" : "87817"}
    , {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1542384", "AnsweringBody" : [{"_value" : "Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities"}
      ], "answer" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1542384/answer", "answerText" : {"_value" : "<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>"}
        , "answeringMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/4517", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Lucy Frazer"}
        }
        , "answeringMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "South East Cambridgeshire"}
        , "answeringMemberPrinted" : {"_value" : "Lucy Frazer"}
        , "dateOfAnswer" : {"_value" : "2022-11-18", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        , "groupedQuestionUIN" : {"_value" : "87817"}
        , "isMinisterialCorrection" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
        , "questionFirstAnswered" : [{"_value" : "2022-11-18T14:24:16.027Z", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        ]}
      , "answeringDeptId" : {"_value" : "211"}
      , "answeringDeptShortName" : {"_value" : "Levelling Up, Housing and Communities"}
      , "answeringDeptSortName" : {"_value" : "Levelling Up, Housing and Communities"}
      , "date" : {"_value" : "2022-11-15", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
      , "hansardHeading" : {"_value" : "Help to Buy Scheme: Staff"}
      , "houseId" : {"_value" : "1"}
      , "legislature" : [{"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/terms/25259", "prefLabel" : {"_value" : "House of Commons"}
      }
      ], "questionText" : "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.", "registeredInterest" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
      , "tablingMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/3973", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Grahame Morris"}
      }
      , "tablingMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "Easington"}
      , "tablingMemberPrinted" : [{"_value" : "Grahame Morris"}
      ], "uin" : "87818"}
    , {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1402413", "AnsweringBody" : [{"_value" : "Treasury"}
      ], "answer" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1402413/answer", "answerText" : {"_value" : "<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>\u2018what counts as working time: work performed away from the normal place of work, for example drafting a document at home.\u2019<\/p><p> <\/p><ul><li>HR25005 Contractual homeworking policy: includes the \u2018how to make contractual homeworking work well\u2019 toolkit which states:<\/li><\/ul><p> <\/p><p>\u2018What does HMRC expect of homeworkers? \u2026Basically 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\u2026\u2019<\/p><p> <\/p><p>\u2018Working 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\u2026\u2019<\/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>\u2018HMRC \u2018standard operating hours\u2019 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\u2019s disposal (that is, required to be in a specific place and to be ready to work at a specified time for HMRC\u2019s benefit); or<\/li><li>receiving \u2018relevant training\u2019 (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.\u2019<\/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>\u2018As 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.\u2019 And \u2018You 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.\u2019<\/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>\u2018Working 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.\u2019<\/p>"}
        , "answeringMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/4517", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Lucy Frazer"}
        }
        , "answeringMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "South East Cambridgeshire"}
        , "answeringMemberPrinted" : {"_value" : "Lucy Frazer"}
        , "dateOfAnswer" : {"_value" : "2022-01-20", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        , "isMinisterialCorrection" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
        , "questionFirstAnswered" : [{"_value" : "2022-01-20T12:31:19.35Z", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        ]}
      , "answeringDeptId" : {"_value" : "14"}
      , "answeringDeptShortName" : {"_value" : "Treasury"}
      , "answeringDeptSortName" : {"_value" : "Treasury"}
      , "date" : {"_value" : "2022-01-12", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
      , "hansardHeading" : {"_value" : "Revenue and Customs: Working Hours"}
      , "houseId" : {"_value" : "1"}
      , "legislature" : [{"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/terms/25259", "prefLabel" : {"_value" : "House of Commons"}
      }
      ], "questionText" : "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.", "registeredInterest" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
      , "tablingMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/3973", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Grahame Morris"}
      }
      , "tablingMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "Easington"}
      , "tablingMemberPrinted" : [{"_value" : "Grahame Morris"}
      ], "uin" : "102590"}
    , {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1289995", "AnsweringBody" : [{"_value" : "Ministry of Justice"}
      ], "answer" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1289995/answer", "answerText" : {"_value" : "<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\u2019s 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>"}
        , "answeringMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/4517", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Lucy Frazer"}
        }
        , "answeringMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "South East Cambridgeshire"}
        , "answeringMemberPrinted" : {"_value" : "Lucy Frazer"}
        , "dateOfAnswer" : {"_value" : "2021-03-02", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        , "isMinisterialCorrection" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
        , "questionFirstAnswered" : [{"_value" : "2021-03-02T15:35:51.987Z", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        ]}
      , "answeringDeptId" : {"_value" : "54"}
      , "answeringDeptShortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "answeringDeptSortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "date" : {"_value" : "2021-02-25", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
      , "hansardHeading" : {"_value" : "Prison Officers: Pay"}
      , "houseId" : {"_value" : "1"}
      , "legislature" : [{"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/terms/25259", "prefLabel" : {"_value" : "House of Commons"}
      }
      ], "questionText" : "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.", "registeredInterest" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
      , "tablingMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/3973", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Grahame Morris"}
      }
      , "tablingMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "Easington"}
      , "tablingMemberPrinted" : [{"_value" : "Grahame Morris"}
      ], "uin" : "158908"}
    , {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1287354", "AnsweringBody" : [{"_value" : "Ministry of Justice"}
      ], "answer" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1287354/answer", "answerText" : {"_value" : "<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\u2019s policy is that PSPRB recommendations will only be departed from \u201cin exceptional circumstances, one of which would be on the grounds of affordability\u201d. 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>"}
        , "answeringMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/4517", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Lucy Frazer"}
        }
        , "answeringMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "South East Cambridgeshire"}
        , "answeringMemberPrinted" : {"_value" : "Lucy Frazer"}
        , "dateOfAnswer" : {"_value" : "2021-02-24", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        , "groupedQuestionUIN" : [{"_value" : "154966"}
        , {"_value" : "154967"}
        , {"_value" : "154968"}
        , {"_value" : "154969"}
        ], "isMinisterialCorrection" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
        , "questionFirstAnswered" : [{"_value" : "2021-02-24T17:39:22.177Z", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        ]}
      , "answeringDeptId" : {"_value" : "54"}
      , "answeringDeptShortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "answeringDeptSortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "date" : {"_value" : "2021-02-19", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
      , "hansardHeading" : {"_value" : "Prison Officers: Pay"}
      , "houseId" : {"_value" : "1"}
      , "legislature" : [{"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/terms/25259", "prefLabel" : {"_value" : "House of Commons"}
      }
      ], "questionText" : "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\u2019s recommendation 3.", "registeredInterest" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
      , "tablingMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/3973", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Grahame Morris"}
      }
      , "tablingMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "Easington"}
      , "tablingMemberPrinted" : [{"_value" : "Grahame Morris"}
      ], "uin" : "154965"}
    , {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1287355", "AnsweringBody" : [{"_value" : "Ministry of Justice"}
      ], "answer" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1287355/answer", "answerText" : {"_value" : "<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\u2019s policy is that PSPRB recommendations will only be departed from \u201cin exceptional circumstances, one of which would be on the grounds of affordability\u201d. 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>"}
        , "answeringMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/4517", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Lucy Frazer"}
        }
        , "answeringMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "South East Cambridgeshire"}
        , "answeringMemberPrinted" : {"_value" : "Lucy Frazer"}
        , "dateOfAnswer" : {"_value" : "2021-02-24", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        , "groupedQuestionUIN" : [{"_value" : "154965"}
        , {"_value" : "154967"}
        , {"_value" : "154968"}
        , {"_value" : "154969"}
        ], "isMinisterialCorrection" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
        , "questionFirstAnswered" : [{"_value" : "2021-02-24T17:39:22.24Z", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        ]}
      , "answeringDeptId" : {"_value" : "54"}
      , "answeringDeptShortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "answeringDeptSortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "date" : {"_value" : "2021-02-19", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
      , "hansardHeading" : {"_value" : "Prison Officers: Pay"}
      , "houseId" : {"_value" : "1"}
      , "legislature" : [{"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/terms/25259", "prefLabel" : {"_value" : "House of Commons"}
      }
      ], "questionText" : "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\u2019s recommendation 3.", "registeredInterest" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
      , "tablingMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/3973", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Grahame Morris"}
      }
      , "tablingMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "Easington"}
      , "tablingMemberPrinted" : [{"_value" : "Grahame Morris"}
      ], "uin" : "154966"}
    , {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1287356", "AnsweringBody" : [{"_value" : "Ministry of Justice"}
      ], "answer" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1287356/answer", "answerText" : {"_value" : "<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\u2019s policy is that PSPRB recommendations will only be departed from \u201cin exceptional circumstances, one of which would be on the grounds of affordability\u201d. 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>"}
        , "answeringMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/4517", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Lucy Frazer"}
        }
        , "answeringMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "South East Cambridgeshire"}
        , "answeringMemberPrinted" : {"_value" : "Lucy Frazer"}
        , "dateOfAnswer" : {"_value" : "2021-02-24", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        , "groupedQuestionUIN" : [{"_value" : "154965"}
        , {"_value" : "154966"}
        , {"_value" : "154968"}
        , {"_value" : "154969"}
        ], "isMinisterialCorrection" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
        , "questionFirstAnswered" : [{"_value" : "2021-02-24T17:39:22.303Z", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        ]}
      , "answeringDeptId" : {"_value" : "54"}
      , "answeringDeptShortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "answeringDeptSortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "date" : {"_value" : "2021-02-19", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
      , "hansardHeading" : {"_value" : "Prison Officers: Pay"}
      , "houseId" : {"_value" : "1"}
      , "legislature" : [{"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/terms/25259", "prefLabel" : {"_value" : "House of Commons"}
      }
      ], "questionText" : "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\u2019s recommendation 3.", "registeredInterest" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
      , "tablingMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/3973", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Grahame Morris"}
      }
      , "tablingMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "Easington"}
      , "tablingMemberPrinted" : [{"_value" : "Grahame Morris"}
      ], "uin" : "154967"}
    , {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1287357", "AnsweringBody" : [{"_value" : "Ministry of Justice"}
      ], "answer" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1287357/answer", "answerText" : {"_value" : "<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\u2019s policy is that PSPRB recommendations will only be departed from \u201cin exceptional circumstances, one of which would be on the grounds of affordability\u201d. 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>"}
        , "answeringMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/4517", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Lucy Frazer"}
        }
        , "answeringMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "South East Cambridgeshire"}
        , "answeringMemberPrinted" : {"_value" : "Lucy Frazer"}
        , "dateOfAnswer" : {"_value" : "2021-02-24", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        , "groupedQuestionUIN" : [{"_value" : "154965"}
        , {"_value" : "154966"}
        , {"_value" : "154967"}
        , {"_value" : "154969"}
        ], "isMinisterialCorrection" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
        , "questionFirstAnswered" : [{"_value" : "2021-02-24T17:39:22.35Z", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        ]}
      , "answeringDeptId" : {"_value" : "54"}
      , "answeringDeptShortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "answeringDeptSortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "date" : {"_value" : "2021-02-19", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
      , "hansardHeading" : {"_value" : "Prison Officers: Pay"}
      , "houseId" : {"_value" : "1"}
      , "legislature" : [{"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/terms/25259", "prefLabel" : {"_value" : "House of Commons"}
      }
      ], "questionText" : "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\u2019s recommendation 3.", "registeredInterest" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
      , "tablingMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/3973", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Grahame Morris"}
      }
      , "tablingMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "Easington"}
      , "tablingMemberPrinted" : [{"_value" : "Grahame Morris"}
      ], "uin" : "154968"}
    , {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1287358", "AnsweringBody" : [{"_value" : "Ministry of Justice"}
      ], "answer" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1287358/answer", "answerText" : {"_value" : "<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\u2019s policy is that PSPRB recommendations will only be departed from \u201cin exceptional circumstances, one of which would be on the grounds of affordability\u201d. 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>"}
        , "answeringMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/4517", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Lucy Frazer"}
        }
        , "answeringMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "South East Cambridgeshire"}
        , "answeringMemberPrinted" : {"_value" : "Lucy Frazer"}
        , "dateOfAnswer" : {"_value" : "2021-02-24", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        , "groupedQuestionUIN" : [{"_value" : "154965"}
        , {"_value" : "154966"}
        , {"_value" : "154967"}
        , {"_value" : "154968"}
        ], "isMinisterialCorrection" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
        , "questionFirstAnswered" : [{"_value" : "2021-02-24T17:39:22.117Z", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        ]}
      , "answeringDeptId" : {"_value" : "54"}
      , "answeringDeptShortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "answeringDeptSortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "date" : {"_value" : "2021-02-19", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
      , "hansardHeading" : {"_value" : "Prison Officers: Pay"}
      , "houseId" : {"_value" : "1"}
      , "legislature" : [{"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/terms/25259", "prefLabel" : {"_value" : "House of Commons"}
      }
      ], "questionText" : "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.", "registeredInterest" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
      , "tablingMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/3973", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Grahame Morris"}
      }
      , "tablingMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "Easington"}
      , "tablingMemberPrinted" : [{"_value" : "Grahame Morris"}
      ], "uin" : "154969"}
    , {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1275706", "AnsweringBody" : [{"_value" : "Ministry of Justice"}
      ], "answer" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/resources/1275706/answer", "answerText" : {"_value" : "<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>"}
        , "answeringMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/4517", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Lucy Frazer"}
        }
        , "answeringMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "South East Cambridgeshire"}
        , "answeringMemberPrinted" : {"_value" : "Lucy Frazer"}
        , "dateOfAnswer" : {"_value" : "2021-01-18", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        , "isMinisterialCorrection" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
        , "questionFirstAnswered" : [{"_value" : "2021-01-18T14:54:41.207Z", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
        ]}
      , "answeringDeptId" : {"_value" : "54"}
      , "answeringDeptShortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "answeringDeptSortName" : {"_value" : "Justice"}
      , "date" : {"_value" : "2021-01-12", "_datatype" : "dateTime"}
      , "hansardHeading" : {"_value" : "Prison Service: Resignations"}
      , "houseId" : {"_value" : "1"}
      , "legislature" : [{"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/terms/25259", "prefLabel" : {"_value" : "House of Commons"}
      }
      ], "questionText" : "To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Prison Service Pay Review Body\u2019s 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.", "registeredInterest" : {"_value" : "false", "_datatype" : "boolean"}
      , "tablingMember" : {"_about" : "http://data.parliament.uk/members/3973", "label" : {"_value" : "Biography information for Grahame Morris"}
      }
      , "tablingMemberConstituency" : {"_value" : "Easington"}
      , "tablingMemberPrinted" : [{"_value" : "Grahame Morris"}
      ], "uin" : "136497"}
    ], "itemsPerPage" : 10, "next" : "http://eldaddp.azurewebsites.net/answeredquestions.text?tablingMember.label=Biography+information+for+Grahame+Morris&_page=1&answer.answeringMemberPrinted=Lucy+Frazer", "page" : 0, "startIndex" : 1, "totalResults" : 42, "type" : ["http://purl.org/linked-data/api/vocab#ListEndpoint", "http://purl.org/linked-data/api/vocab#Page"]}
}