Probation Members will have seen the intranet announcement that the Civil Service Pay Remit for 2026/2027 has been published to Departments this week.
This sets out the process for the commencement of formal pay negotiations with trade unions and explains that headline pay increases, pay progression through CBF and increases to benefits and allowances must be met through the overall pay bill which permits departments to increase their pay bill for this period by 3.5%.
This is not a pay offer
The Probation Trade unions have been (and are currently) consulting with their respective Negotiating Committees to scope a joint pay claim for the next pay year. At the same time, we are also working to schedule formal pay negotiations with the employer which we expect to commence next month.
This pay remit is broadly similar in percentage terms to that which appeared around this time last year, and this was deemed to be unacceptable to our members.
It’s important to note that even at this stage all Probation Unions have agreed that, as it stands, the pay remit for 2026/2027 is not going to meet our likely demands, and we envisage another challenging set of pay negotiations in the coming weeks.
Napo’s Probation Negotiating Committee will be meeting to consider the pay remit conditions in detail, as well as the outcomes from the recent engagement with ACAS on the CBF dispute. Napo will also be discussing the scope of a joint pay claim with our sister trade unions, and we will issue as much up to date information on these important issues as soon as we can.
13 responses
For me, even though I am at the top of my band, I really do not want CBF included as part of the percentage in the pay deal. It should be completely separate.
A key issue that must be addressed in this year’s pay claim is the ongoing unfairness for staff at the top of their pay bands.
Year on year, these staff are becoming effectively poorer. With no further progression available to them, they rely entirely on below-inflation headline pay awards, which means their real-terms earnings continue to fall. This is not sustainable and is fundamentally inequitable. It risks disengagement, loss of experienced practitioners, and a widening gap between responsibility and reward. This must be rectified as a matter of urgency.
There also needs to be serious consideration given to geographical inequality, particularly in areas such as Oxford and Cambridge. Staff in these locations face some of the highest living costs in the country, yet there is no meaningful regional weighting in place to reflect this. Comparable employers, including universities in these cities, are already recognising and responding to these pressures, with staff taking action to highlight the impact of cost of living. Probation risks falling further behind in recruitment and retention if this issue is not addressed.
In addition, current allowances are no longer reflective of actual costs. Mileage rates and subsistence (food) allowances have not kept pace with the real cost of fuel and living expenses. Staff are, in effect, subsidising their work, particularly those covering large geographical areas or undertaking frequent travel as part of their role.
These issues must form a core part of the joint pay claim:
A meaningful uplift that protects those at the top of pay bands from continued real-term pay cuts
Introduction of appropriate geographical weighting for high-cost areas such as Oxford and Cambridge
A review and increase of mileage and subsistence rates to reflect true costs
Failure to address these points will continue to undermine retention, morale, and fairness across the service.
Prior to moving to Probation in 2015, I worked in HMCTS who also fall under the umbrella of MOJ. Back then HMCTS introduced Regional weighting know as a “Hot Spot” allowance for staff in Birmingham and Oxford (not sure about Cambridge). This was implemented to address the issue you raise re the geographical inequality Staff face in these locations where the cost of living is higher than other parts of the country.
If MOJ have recognised this as an issue and addressed it for staff working in HMCTS why can’t the same be implemented in Probation? We all work for the same employer at the end of the day this is a fight we shouldn’t have to have!
It is also important to recognise that the employer has benefited from reduced pension contribution costs this year, yet this has not been reflected for employees, whose own pension contributions remain unchanged.
This creates a clear imbalance. Any savings realised by the employer should be transparently reinvested into the workforce, rather than absorbed elsewhere. Staff should see a direct benefit, particularly in the current cost of living climate.
These additional savings must be used to support a more meaningful pay award.
Taken together with the wider issues already raised, this reinforces the need for a significantly stronger pay position this year.
We should be demanding a minimum 10% pay increase.
Unison and GMB (Scoop) appear ready to roll their sleeves up and fight for this — let’s hope NAPO does the same so that we can act collectively and push for better. It is about time; staff have been expected to accept too little for too long.
100%%%%
It’s never going to get any better is it?
Why are we being forced to work more and more without any recognition in what we do! How much we get paid does matter and should reflect on the dangers and risks we put ourselves in everyday. How can they insult us time and time again, I do not understand how someone who has never done the job can decide what we should be paid and if we deserve our CBF’s. Come and do our role for a week and see if we deserved to be insulted and walked all over time and time again. Disgusting and disgraceful!
In keeping with the above comments made by WALKED OVER, the lack of meaningful engagement by HM Treasury and those who hold the power over the final proposal is akin to a bully preventing a victim from getting what is reasonably expected. The persistent disrespect we, as civil servants, endure is to be challenged at every opportunity. Too long has those who work on the frontlines (Probation Officers, Prison Officers, Nursing staff, Teachers etc) gone unrecognised and belittled in the public eye. The continued misinformation spread by media outlets, and not challenged or corrected by the employer, should be allowed to be challenged by the Office of those being belittled and not rely on Press offices which attempt to cover up or apportion blame on the staff member and not the system itself. Too long has the staff member been used as the scapegoat for systemic failures.
Staff are not paid, compensated, or treated in relation to the difficult and dangerous work they complete daily. A minimum of 10% increase to base pay, without the inclusion of CBF uplift, is barely acceptable to fairly support staff and the ever increasing cost of living staff face. It is reasonable to suspect the government will employ the same tactics as last year and continually extend the pay negotiations until staff feel cornered and accept a pay deal that falls well below what is acceptable. It would not be surprising to see a complete lack of engagement until November 26 at the earliest in order to meet their own agenda.
It appears that we are likely to receive the 3.5% pay increase as a 12‑month back payment in April 2027 yet again. This will likely follow another year of protracted discussions between union representatives and the Treasury, with limited tangible progress.
By the time any increase is implemented, much of it will effectively be offset by union subscriptions and taxation. This pattern raises ongoing concerns about the lack of meaningful consultation, suggesting that actions, rather than discussions, are what ultimately drive outcomes.
Overall, it feels like a continuation of the same issues year after year, with little substantive change.
Given the year long delay in the pay increase and the backpay awarded, many staff have been unfairly disadvantaged, especially those on UC to help with rent, childcare etc. An example of this is a single parent receiving universal credit to help pay for her childcare costs, which equate to £1750 per month, was informed that she would have no access to UC support for the month and was required to pay the full costs of childcare. Pay rises are supposed to reflect fairness for people in work – the system is entirely unfair and if we have the same again next year, this will continue to happen. The government should bear the burnt of those costs for their failure to properly engage.
Without the Probation Service and its dedicated frontline staff, the wider justice system would struggle to function effectively. The courts rely on our work, prisons would face additional pressures, and the police would have limited options for managing those who offend.
Despite this, our contribution remains consistently undervalued. We are too often required to advocate for recognition and resources that are both justified and essential, while senior leaders and policymakers do not appear to face the same challenge in securing what is right.
It is well established that without probation services, the system risks becoming overwhelmed. Yet the expertise, professionalism, and commitment central to our role are frequently overlooked or diminished. Expressions of appreciation from senior figures, including the Deputy Prime Minister, offer little reassurance when not matched by meaningful action.
There comes a point where this is no longer acceptable and that time is now.
3.5% won’t even take me to the next pay point, let alone provide an inflation rise to that pay point! And I passed CBF, meaning I was eligible for that next pay point as of April 2026! Therefore, if they are saying the pay remit (3.5%) has to cover both CBF progression AND an inflation-related pay increase, when it won’t even cover the former, then it’s a non starter! That’s before we even get started on the fact that 3.5% as a separate-to-CBF inflation uplift would be utterly unacceptable anyway! Dear me!
Given that we have received in total, and 11% pay rise in comparison to similar sectors, which have recieved 35-40% pay increase, over the last decade, the absolute minimum accepted pay rise should be that 30%! We are so under-valued it is unreal, and the continued debacle around pay reminds me every time. The fact that CBF was removed as part of the pay-rise (which we didn’t vote for by the way!) is a kick in the teeth.