Napo members will have seen the HMPPS issued communications to all employees yesterday, including what they claimed to be “a clarification” on Napo’s earlier mailout of the 9th of October 2026.
We’ve taken legal advice on HMPPS’s statement and this is the key position we’ve been provided with…
“HMPPS has used official management channels during a live union ballot to present a disputed negotiating position as fact, without allowing the recognised union a reasonable opportunity to respond, and that this risks prejudicing the ballot and undermining the established industrial-relations relationship.”
During negotiations representatives of the employer said, or agreed, on more than one occasion that their pay offer was “unconditional”. This was once again stated hours before their ‘best and final offer’ letter, dated the 30th of September 2026, which included the following paragraph:-
“We now need a firm commitment that successor arrangements (to be negotiated) for CBF will begin to be implemented from 1 April 2027 onwards. Whilst details will need to be worked through with you, new arrangements will need to reduce or remove the impact of CBF on pay progression from 1 April 2027.”
Napo’s position is that by including this paragraph in their ‘best and final offer’ letter HMPPS require Napo to agree to conditions that will cause us to sacrifice a significant term and condition of service – CBF in its current form – as part of this pay offer. Here’s why we take this view…
In stating “We now need…” this doesn’t just reaffirm what Napo agreed to in the Joint Statement of March 2026 (referenced in yesterday’s HMPPS communication), but HMPPS want more from us as they now want “a firm commitment that successor arrangements (to be negotiated) for CBF will begin to be implemented from 1 April 2027” .
This creates a deadline by which time negotiations must be concluded on a replacement for the current form of CBF and when it starts to operate.
- What happens to those of us completing CBF this year?
- What if the employer and trade unions can’t agree an outcome following negotiations?
- What if the members of one or more trade unions reject the ‘successor arrangements’ for CBF in its current form?
- What impact will that have on future pay negotiations?
- What’s been agreed already in discussions between HMPPS and The Treasury about this and what aren’t we being told?
By saying “new arrangements will need to reduce or remove the impact of CBF on pay progression…” this means an existing term and condition – CBF – will no longer exist in its current form from the start of the 2027/28 financial year.
In yesterday’s statement HMPPS claimed that ongoing talks on ‘pay reform’ are “separate to this pay offer”. If that was the case, why did they include the paragraph above in their ‘best and final offer’ letter on pay for 2026/27?
Finally, Napo continue to challenge as grossly misleading the employer’s attempts – repeated in yesterday’s statement – to include pay progression (following successful completion of the Competency Based Framework the year before) with the pay offer as misleading. Napo are honest with our members – the pay offer from the employer was 5% on all pay bands/points and allowances. As many of us heard in an all-staff call last Wednesday, HMPPS made a “choice” to withhold pay progression from staff who were eligible in April this year.