Cabinet Office accused of ‘destroying trust’ over pay
The leaders of the civil service’s main unions have demanded an urgent meeting with cabinet secretary Sir Mark Sedwill over the Cabinet Office’s handling of the current year’s pay settlement.
This week the FDA, Prospect, and the Public and Commercial Services Union learned they had been unsuccessful in a High Court challenge to the legality of the Treasury pay remit covering more than 400,000 civil servants that was published in June and set a 1%-1.5% average pay range for increases.
While their claim that there was insufficient consultation on the guidance was dismissed, the unions said documents released to the court had revealed behaviour on the part of the Cabinet Office that had “destroyed” their trust and confidence in officials.
The letter – signed by FDA general secretary Dave Penman, Prospect general secretary Mark Clancy, and PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka – suggests that the 1%-1.5% band for increases was agreed as far back as March, and was seen as a way to “manage down expectations” among other pay review bodies.
According to the letter, information disclosed to the High Court suggested that the original pay-increase proposals for civil servants had included average rises of up to 2%. But the figure was downgraded to 1.5% after a February 22 meeting of the Civil Service Executive and signed off “days before” a March 29 meeting with unions.
The union leaders said the documents made it clear that ministers had been advised that the pay increases were likely to be the lowest in the public sector and would run contrary to staff expectations in the light of ministerial statements on higher awards being made to public sector workers, and may prompt industrial action.
“Despite all of this, seeking additional funding from the Treasury was ruled out,” they said. “It is clear that through omission and commission that we have been misled. This matter goes to the heart of the notion of trust and confidence. It is also now clear that whatever the expectations at a central level, departmental negotiations have also been a sham with departments rushing almost meaningless consultation to impose the 1.5% cap.”
Penman, Clancy and Serwotka said they needed an urgent meeting with Sedwill – who formally succeeded Sir Jeremy Heywood as cabinet secretary on Wednesday – to get answers on how the Cabinet Office could restore trust. “We have always sought to engage positively on behalf of members even in the face of the most difficult of circumstances,” they said.
“However, such engagement is only possible where there is a level of trust and confidence. That trust and confidence has been destroyed by the behaviours of the Cabinet Office over the pay remit guidance. The behaviours demonstrated would not be acceptable in the private sector and the civil service is the only area of the public sector where such an approach is adopted. Government should be an exemplar of good practice not bad.”
The leaders of the civil service’s main unions have demanded an urgent meeting with cabinet secretary Sir Mark Sedwill over the Cabinet Office’s handling of the current year’s pay settlement.
This week the FDA, Prospect, and the Public and Commercial Services Union learned they had been unsuccessful in a High Court challenge to the legality of the Treasury pay remit covering more than 400,000 civil servants that was published in June and set a 1%-1.5% average pay range for increases.
While their claim that there was insufficient consultation on the guidance was dismissed, the unions said documents released to the court had revealed behaviour on the part of the Cabinet Office that had “destroyed” their trust and confidence in officials.
The letter – signed by FDA general secretary Dave Penman, Prospect general secretary Mark Clancy, and PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka – suggests that the 1%-1.5% band for increases was agreed as far back as March, and was seen as a way to “manage down expectations” among other pay review bodies.
According to the letter, information disclosed to the High Court suggested that the original pay-increase proposals for civil servants had included average rises of up to 2%. But the figure was downgraded to 1.5% after a February 22 meeting of the Civil Service Executive and signed off “days before” a March 29 meeting with unions.
The union leaders said the documents made it clear that ministers had been advised that the pay increases were likely to be the lowest in the public sector and would run contrary to staff expectations in the light of ministerial statements on higher awards being made to public sector workers, and may prompt industrial action.
“Despite all of this, seeking additional funding from the Treasury was ruled out,” they said. “It is clear that through omission and commission that we have been misled. This matter goes to the heart of the notion of trust and confidence. It is also now clear that whatever the expectations at a central level, departmental negotiations have also been a sham with departments rushing almost meaningless consultation to impose the 1.5% cap.”
Penman, Clancy and Serwotka said they needed an urgent meeting with Sedwill – who formally succeeded Sir Jeremy Heywood as cabinet secretary on Wednesday – to get answers on how the Cabinet Office could restore trust. “We have always sought to engage positively on behalf of members even in the face of the most difficult of circumstances,” they said.
“However, such engagement is only possible where there is a level of trust and confidence. That trust and confidence has been destroyed by the behaviours of the Cabinet Office over the pay remit guidance. The behaviours demonstrated would not be acceptable in the private sector and the civil service is the only area of the public sector where such an approach is adopted. Government should be an exemplar of good practice not bad.”
A trade union challenge to the government’s civil service pay remit has been dismissed after a court ruled that there was not insufficient consultation on the guidance, which set a 1%-1.5% average pay range for increases.
The FDA, Prospect and Public and Commercial Services unions have brought a judicial review of the Treasury pay remit that covers over 400,000 civil servants. The guidance was published on 25 June, and unions argued it was produced without adequate consultation.
Following the publication of the guidance in June – which allows for average pay awards of between 1% and 1.5% – unions challenged the pay regime on three grounds. These were: that they had a legitimate expectation of a formal consultation on the pay increase amount, referred to in court as the ‘X figure’; that there was a duty of sufficient inquiry that the government had not met; and that, even short of the statutory consultation, there was voluntary consultation on the pay proposal that was inadequate.
However, in her judgement published yesterday, Mrs Justice Simler said that all the challenges failed. The judgement highlighted that meetings were held in June in the build up to the publication of the guidance, but concluded that these did not amount to consultation.
“By letter dated 5 July 2018 the minister for the Cabinet Office wrote apologising ‘regarding the process around the publication of this year's pay remit’,” Simler notes. “I do not read this apology as an acknowledgement of any promise to consult. It seems to be a simple reference to perceived discourtesy shown in the process. Again, in light of all the evidence, this is not a basis for concluding that there was in fact a promise of consultation made by Mr Thomas [Mervyn Thomas, the executive director for employee and trade union relations at the Cabinet Office] on behalf of the defendant.”
On the second argument of on the duty for sufficient inquiry, Simler said that the pay guidance in general, and the 'X figure' in particular, effectively operates as a ‘cost control’ mechanism governing administrative arrangements between Treasury and departments/agencies, and setting a limit on annual average pay awards that can be made without departments needing to set out a business case.
Simler concluded that “the remit does not set the terms of service of civil servants (including the claimants’ members) or determine the pay award of any individual civil servant… Although the process may be onerous, nevertheless a business case can be advanced by any department to support a larger award.”
As a result, the judgement concluded “it was rational for Ministers to conclude that they could decide this question without seeking the claimants’ views on the X figure”.
The third element of the challenge also fell after the judge concluded that the process was not a formal consultation. The unions claimed “that the process adopted between March and June was in substance a consultation about the 2018 guidance and that included the X figure.”, and that the language used in these consultations was “incompatible with the defendant’s characterisation that it simply involved ‘the provision of information’ with any dialogue being limited to the expression of views but without any commitment to consider those views”.
However, Simler said “I do not accept these submissions” and concluded that the unions and the Cabinet Office were not embarked on a formal consultation. “My conclusion altered by the fact that the word “consultation” was used from time to time… The context of the email exchanges and discussions where the word consultation was used is inconsistent with its use by the defendant’s officials in that formal sense.”
Responding to the decision in their favour, a government spokesman said: “The government is pleased with this ruling which will allow departments to continue implementing the 2018 Pay Award for their employees without any further delays. Departments who have not already implemented the pay awards will continue to engage with local union representatives as usual. Cabinet Office officials have also invited national trade union representatives to discuss how the process of engagement on pay could be improved for next year and we look forward to working constructively with unions in the future.”
PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said that the result underlined the need for a return to national pay bargaining in the civil service.
“Only then can meaningful pay negotiations take place,” he said. “Evidence put forward to the court demonstrated that there is no effective mechanism in place that allows for the unions to collectively bargain on behalf of their members and that situation will not be tolerated by PCS.”
Prospect deputy general secretary Garry Graham said: “It is deeply disappointing that the court has not found in our favour – but what our legal challenge has flushed out is both revelatory and deeply damaging to the Cabinet Office. Whatever the result of the judicial review- we are not going away and will continue to argue for a fair deal for our members.”
From today's Observer:-
ReplyDeleteBritain’s criminal justice system is “creaking” and unable to cope with the huge amounts of data being generated by technology, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service has warned in her final interview before stepping down.
Speaking exclusively to the Observer, Alison Saunders said the CPS and police were failing to investigate thousands of cases efficiently – from rape to fraud to modern slavery – and were critically short of the skills and resources required to combat crime.
Saunders, who steps down as the most senior prosecutor on Wednesday, said: “There is a huge issue to train all of [the people in] the system. In some cases, we’re seeing downloads [of online data] taking six to eight months and you have suspects and witnesses and victims waiting that long for the investigation.
“Take one recent rape case where they met on Tinder – it took 600 police hours to go through the digital material,” she said. “You can have a judge say ‘I want a download of that iPad’ and it will take 15 officers working all weekend to get it.”
Her comments corroborate a home affairs select committee report last week which warned that police were struggling with outdated technology and at risk of becoming “irrelevant” as reported crime continues to surge, rising by 32% in three years. Saunders said: “The number of cases coming through [to the CPS] are going down, [yet] there are all sorts of things we need to work out as a system. It needs an investment of resources nationally, in capacity of forces and in future-proofing it. Who is making the plans for what is going to happen in five years’ time?”
While fraud has become the most commonly reported crime in England and Wales, with 1.7 million offences a year, only one in 200 victims ever sees the perpetrator brought to justice. Saunders admitted that many cases were simply being ignored “because it takes time and a skilled investigator”.
The capability and capacity of the police should be an urgent concern for the Home Office, she said. In their report, MPs warned of “dire consequences for public safety and criminal justice” if police funding was not prioritised.
In an emotional interview, Saunders admitted feeling bruised by her five-year tenure as director of public prosecutions, with critics branding the service “toxic” and “disastrous”. “I don’t think you’d be human if it didn’t affect you,” she said, between tears, but she felt she had “done a good job”. Saunders had to lose a third of her workforce as a result of funding cuts of more than 25%, but was proud that “morale in the service is demonstrably better” than when she arrived in 2013.
“As the DPP, I accept responsibility for what happens in the service,” she said, over the crisis in disclosure of evidence in rape cases that led to several collapsing and hundreds more being dropped earlier this year. “I could have stood there and blamed the police and say it all starts with them, but I don’t think it helps.
“We have a disclosure manual which means we are talking to the police early on about what are reasonable lines of inquiry. We give them advice that helps them.”
Saunders admitted that those initial conversations between the CPS, the police and the defence about what evidence would be used in court was “what’s been missing – that system-wide, early-doors approach to it”.
Saunders, who worked as a prosecutor within the service for 32 years and oversaw the conviction of Stephen Lawrence’s killers, will be joining the City law firm Linklaters next month.
In relation to the pay issue, where is NAPO?
ReplyDeleteMany have blogged on here to say that there is nothing that any union can do about our circumstances, and / or NAPO has done its best. Clearly this is not true and above we have been told what real unions do.
Following TR we should have moved all NPS members to PCS, and CRC members to UNISON. Instead, we are funding a vanity project with our monthly subs, for no return.
That is most likely when Napo folds. No money in the bank as over a million is staff redundancy funding the rest is being spent on long haul for them to extract as much pay before the big share. Members will be shafted .
DeleteWhy would anyone be minded to trust the Cabinet Office?
ReplyDeleteThey were more than happy to hand over £80m of taxpayer money to private companies to facilitate EVR i.e. paying-off hundreds of probation staff so as to make the privatisation scam appear cost-effective.
Then they happily stood by, watching, while the private companies trousered that cash & denied the probation staff their EVR entitlements.
Civil Service Unions: "They came for probation, and we did nothing. Then they came for us..."
Public services have been cut to the bone. Local councils are going bankrupt. All government offices of State have seen drastic cuts to their budgets. Police, courts, prisons are in utter crisis. Add the NHS, Universal Credit and everything else and the country itself is being starved of funding.
DeleteYet a certain Chris Grayling would appear to have a whole book of blank cheques for any vanity projects he wishes to embark on, and the ability to throw money around to bail out any of his ventures that go wrong.
Just the money wasted by him would be enough to fix Universal Credit and give public sector workers a proper payrise.
Why does Grayling seem to have access to unlimited funding?
'Getafix
Regional pay?
ReplyDeleteMr Hammond wants greater “flexibility” over public sector pay and is looking to take a more “targeted” approach, according to reports.
This would include ensuring pay rises are based on people’s performance and where they live.