On 30th April the Conservative party tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill in the House of Lords, which if accepted  would have made it a requirement that a parliamentary vote was conducted should the Home Secretary decide to overturn a Police Arbitration Tribunal decision in future. The amendment also covers the same for prison officers.

The amendment below was successfully passed by the House of Lords on the 30th, but the PFEW had concerns that the wording of the amendment did not specify determinations, and as a result sought legal advice on how the amendment could be more precisely worded to cover all these issues. They then subsequently forwarded that advice to the Conservatives for consideration.

The Bill with the original amendement (wording below) returned to the House of Commons earlier this week in fact last Tuesday- 6th May.

Police and prison service pay: Secretary of State’s power to make regulations

        Insert the following new Clause—     

        "Police and prison service pay: Secretary of State's power to make regulations

        Regulations made by the Secretary of State—  

(a)     specified in section 62 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (functions of the board with respect to regulations) which do not follow the recommendations of the Police Negotiation Board as established by section 16 of that Act, or     

(b)     under section 128 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (pay and related conditions) which do not follow the recommendations of the Prison Service Pay Review Board as established by that section,

        may not be made until laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons." 

The PFEW sent an email letter to all MP's encouraging them to support the amendment when it came before the Commons on Tuesday. As well as a specific letter targeting those MP's who responded to correspondence last year from our Chaiman Jan Berry stating that the decision of independent arbiters should be paid in full.

You will of course remember that 225 MP's signed Early Day Motion 512 sponsored by Keith Vaz MP including another 114 of his parliamentary Labour party  colleagues.  Perhaps rather naively I had hoped that we could at least be assured of their 215 votes.

Well it appears sadly not! The vote on the specific amendment relating to future decisions by the Home Secretary on police pay was lost. It seems that the same Mr Brown who only last week so publically lambasted the Teachers for not accepting the decision of their independent pay review body, ordered a 3-line whip on the vote and guess what? Notwithstanding a few notable exceptions including the honourable  Mr Vaz,  the vast majority of those 115 did an enormous U turn and decided against heaping yet more pain upon their ailing government at the considerable cost of their own credibility.

What exactly is the explanation for our Prime Ministers apparently contradictory stance on the validity of independent pay review body awards?

Any answer other than 'Double standards' on a post card to me at Bromley please!  

And they wonder why the Great British public are so disparaging towards their politicians. Is it because we can't believe a word they say. They hold one of the highest offices in our land and yet by and large they have the morals of a common thief. Far more concerned with preserving their own position and lining their  already bulging pockets -through overly generous allowances and expenses, not to mention the suggestion of a 25% pay increase, than doing what they have been put there to do, namely represent the people who elected them.

I would urge anyone who supports our claim for a fair and just pay settlement to review the list of so called supporters who so readily signed up to EDM 512, to see if their MP's name appears upon it and then see how they voted on Tuesday.

Would it be to unkind to suggest that many have a lot of explaining to do? My advice though is don't believe a word they tell you!